SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SANTOSH Kumar, convict-appellant, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of Sri M. N. Asthana, Additional Sessions Judge, Banda dated 5-10-1977 passed in Sessions Trial No. 231-A of 1976 convicting and setencing him under Section 302 IPC to imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that Smt. Sahodra deceased, daughter of Laxman Lohar, PW 2, and grand-daughter of Matholey, PW 1, resident of village Bariapur, police station Ajaigarh, district Panna was married to the appellant, the son of Sewka, PW 5 of village Gureh, Police station Kotwali, District Banda, about 2 3/4 years ago. However, her gauna was performed only about 7 or 8 days prior to the date of the occurrence, i. e.28-2-1975. It was further alleged that a message of the appellant was received by Matholey, PW 1, through one Parmeshwari Deen, PW 3, resident of village Pista within police station Ajaigarh, that a sum of Rs. 1500/- was urgently required by the appellant and it should be sent to him otherwise they would not come for the gauna (second marriage). At any rate, the gauna was performed when Rs. 900/- were paid and the balance of Rs. 600/- was promised to be paid at the time when they would come for the Bidai of the deceased. In the morning of 28th February, 1975 Sewka, PW 5, the father of the appellant, was awakened by the alarm of his wife and when they went to the room where Smt. Sahodra, the deceased, used to sleep after her gauna, she was found dead. A portion of the wall in the level of the belt of the door in the room was found to be dug in and a hole was found there. Sewka, PW 5, lodged a report of these facts at police station Kotwali, district Banda, five miles away at 10 a. m. It was expressed by him in the FIR that it appeared that some one had managed to open the belt of the door after having access to the room through the wall and thereafter Smt. Sahodra was strangulated and done to death and her ornaments described in the FIR were removed and taken away.

(3.) THERE is no direct evidence connecting the appellant with the murder of the deceased. The prosecution has only circumstantial evidence to offer. The motive alleged is that she was murdered by the appellant as his demand for the balance of Rs. 600/- was not met with. The prosecution has examined Matholey, PW 1 and Parmeshwari Din, PW 3, regarding the demand made by the appellant for Rs. 1500/- which was conveyed by Parmeshwari Deen, PW 3, to Matholey and that before the incident at the time of gauna Rs. 900/- were paid promising the payment of balance of Rs. 600/- at the time of Bidai.