LAWS(ALL)-1994-1-7

RAM PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On January 04, 1994
RAM PRASAD Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Ram Prasad, who was aged around 40 years at the trial, has been found guilty of having committed the murder of his wife Smt. Shanti Devi, who was aged about 35 years. The charge against the appellant was that in the night between 5/6.12.1977 the appellant in furtherance of the common intention with his brother Ram Swarup committed the murder of Smt. Shanti Devi in his house situate in the town of Sumerpur, Police Station Sumerpur, district Hamirpur.

(2.) The prosecution case is that the appellant had no son through Smt. Shanti Devi but had only four daughters, out of whom only Manorama (the informant) was married. The appellant had about 40 bighas of agricultural land in Sumerpur and about 70 bighas in the nearby village Patara. Yet another 70 bighas in village Patara was jointly owned by the appellant Ram Prasad and his brother Ram Swarup, The appellant wanted to transfer some land to Virendra Singh, his nephew, i.e., son of Ram Swarup. The deceased Smt. Shanti Dev-1 objected to it because she was hopeful of begetting a child in the near future. She was, however, insisting that if the transfer had to be made, then it should be made in favour of her daughters instead of the son of the brother of her husband. On this a quarrel had taken place in the preceding day. Smt. Manorama, the eldest of the four daughters of the deceased, was sleeping in a room in the upper storey in the night between 5/6th December, 1977. Some disturbance awakened her and she noticed that her mother was not on the cot where she was also sleeping. In the morning she inquired from her father (the appellant) who told that Smt. Shanti may have went away. However, she searched in the vicinity but could not find her mother. She then noticed that one of the rooms was locked from out-side and at this she asked her father to open the lock. The appellant refused to give the key. At this she said that she would call the police and get the room broken open. Then the appellant gave the key of the room to the mother of Karan Singh and on opening the room it was found that body of Smt. Shanti Devi was hanging in the room from the roof.

(3.) An F.I.R. was consequently written by Smt. Manorama and lodged at Police Station Sumerpur on 6-12-1977 at 11-40 a.m. against her father, the appellant, and also against Ram Swarp, her uncle. P.W. 3 Kripal Singh, Station Officer, Police Station Hamerpur, was present at the Police Station when this F.I.R. was lodged. It was in his presence that a case was registered by Head Constable Shiv Varan Singh. Thechick report and general diary entries have been proved by this witness as Exts. Ka 4 and Ka 5. P.W. 3 Kripal Singh took up the investigation at once. He recorded the statement of informant Manorama then and there and also recorded the statement of Head Constable Shiv Varan Singh and thereafter proceeded for the spot on reaching the spot he prepared an inquest report on the dead-body of Smt. Shanti Devi, prepared challan Lash and Khaka Lash, all of which have been proved as Exts. Ka-6, Ka-7 and Ka-8, Some ornaments on the body of the deceased were taken out and a memorandum was prepared vide Ext. Ka-3. The body was found hanging with a rope. From near the body a blood stained knife was also recovered. He also took plain and blood stained earth and prepared a memo Ext. Ka-9. Thereafter he sent the dead-body of Smt. Shanti Devi for postmortem examination through Constable Deoraj Tiwari. He then examined the spot and prepared site plan Ext. Ka-10. He recorded the statements of Gomti, Sunena and others. The appellant was, however, not traceable, who surrendered in Court on 9-1-1978. After completing the investigation a charge sheet was filed against the appellant only and a final report was submitted as against Ram Swarup, the brother of the appellant. From the statement of the said witness P.W. 3 Kripal Singh it transpires that he was satisfied that in the night of the incident said Ram Swarup was present to the house of some Advocate and consequently he did not find it necessary to file a charge sheet against him.