MADDOO Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. C. Pandey, J. Accused Maddoo was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC by I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Barabanki for having committed murder of his wife in Sessions Trial No. 584 of 1998. The learned trial Judge vide judgment and order dated 22-6-2001 found the accused appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000 and in default of payment of fine, three months further R. I.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, as narrated by complainant Abdul Bari, PW-5 is that his daughter Salma was married with accused appellant. Formerly, accused Maddoo used to live in village Dhanni-Ka-Purwa, PS. Dewa, district Barabanki along with his wife Salma. Subsequently, Maddoo, accused appellant left the village and started living in a rented house in Qasba Dewa in the house of one Majid tailor. Formerly, relations between Maddoo and Salma were cordial, but subsequently there arose some dispute between them and accused appellant Maddoo wanted to divorce Salma. A son was born from the wedlock and the age of the son was about 1 1/2 years at the time of the incident. Ten days before the said incident resulting in the murder of Salma, a Panchayat was held where it was agreed that accused appellant will properly maintain Salma and will not quarrel with Salma. THEreafter, both of them started residing together. Ten days after the Panchayat, complainant received information on 25-2-1998 at about 8. 00 a. m. from one Qurban Ali, P. W. 1 that murder of his daughter has been committed. On this information, complainant Abdul Bari visited the house of the accused appellant and found that dead-body of his daughter was lying on the cot. Her throat was found cut from the front. THE appellant along with his son was not found and had absconded from the house. THE entire household goods were found intact. THE complainant got prepared written report Ext. Ka-3 at the spot from one Aqeel Ahmad of his village and handed over the same at the police station at about 2. 00 p. m. on the basis of which chik FIR dated 25-2-1998, Ext. Ka-4, was prepared and a case under Section 302 IPC was registered and necessary entry in the G. D. was made, copy of which is Ext. Ka-5.

(3.) THE case was committed to the Court of Session. THE accused appellant was charged under Section 302 IPC. To which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution in all examined six witnesses; Qurban Ali as PW. 1, Rafeeq Warsi as PW. 2 Dr. P. C. Dubey who conducted the post-mortem as PW. 3, Mohd Yaseen as PW. 4, complainant Abdul Bari as PW. 5 and the investigating officer Radhey Shyam Sharma as PW. 6. THE formal proof of Chik FIR Ext. Ka-4 and its G. D. entry Ext. Ka-5 was dispensed with from the side of the accused appellant. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the accused in defence. For the first time during cross-examination of complainant Abdul Bari, PW. 5 it was suggested from the side of the accused that a dacoity took place at the house of Salma and the dacoits after looting property also committed murder of Salma. It was further stated that in the night of occurrence he was not present and had gone to Budhawal Sugar Mill and he received information there on which he came to his house.