DAULAT SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. C. S. Rawat, J. Since both the appeals arc arising out of the same judgment and order dated 19-3-1990 passed by Shri S. K. Misra, the then Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in S. T. No. 35/1987, State v. Daulat Singh, convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 302/201, IPC and sentencing for life Imprisonment, as such, they are being decided by the common judgment. Criminal Appeal No. 1289 of 2001 has been preferred by the accused appellant, Daulat Singh by engaging his Counsel whereas Jail Appeal No. 2063 of 2001 has been preferred by the same accused-appellant from Jail.

(2.) THE facts, in a nutshell, are that the marriage of Lajjawati Devi-deceased was solemnized with the accused-appellant, Daulat Singh. After six months of the marriage, they started living separately from the father of the accused appellant. Whenever the deceased Lajjawati Devi used to come to her parental house she used to demand money from her parents for giving it to her husband. Her parents gave money several times to the deceased to pay to her husband. It is also alleged that the deceased had not given birth to any child, therefore, she was being treated cruelly in her matrimonial house. It is further alleged that before the death of the deceased, she came to her parental house and asked her parents to give her Rs. 5,000/- as her husband demanding the same and if she would not take the said money, her husband, the accused-appellant would kill her. THE father of the deceased told her that he will arrange the money within a day or two and asked her to stay at his house till the arrangement of money is made. But the deceased did not accede to the request of her father and she went away to her matrimonial house. It was further alleged that a report was lodged by the accused-appellant himself to the patti patwari on 11-10-1986 alleging therein that his wife. Lajjawati Devi had committed suicide by getting herself hanged from a rope. After receiving the report, the panchayatnama was prepared and the dead-body of the deceased was sent for the post-mortem. Meanwhile, a report was lodged on 16- 10-1986 by Rajendra Singh, father of the deceased with the patti patwari alleging therein that his daughter Lajjawati Devi had not given birth to any child so the accused- appellant used to treat her cruelly. It was further alleged that the accused-appellant used to demand dowry and had also committed murder of the deceased in the night of 10-10-1986. A case was registered against the accused appellant. THE post-mortem of the deceased was conducted on 13-10-1986 at District Hospital, Pauri by Dr. Rajeev Hatwal and he found the following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased : i. Ligature mark present below the thyroid cartilage is round the neck horizontally. ii. On section then is extravasations of blood into the S. C. contain tissue under the ligature mark as well as the adjacent muscles of the neck. iii. THEre is fracture of cricoid cartilage.

(3.) THE prosecution in support of its case examined Rajendra Singh P. W. 1, father of the deceased- Lajjawati Devi. He had stated that after six months of the marriage of his daughter and son-in-law, accused-appellant, they started living separately from the father of the accused-appellant. He had also stated that whenever his daughter came to her matrimonial house, she used to demand money for giving her husband, accused-appellant. He had also stated that since his daughter had not given birth to any child, therefore, the accused appellant, her mother-in-law and father- in-law used to treat her cruelly. Jagmohan Singh P. W. 2 is the Pradhan of the village where the death of the deceased occurred. When he got information about the death of the deceased, he went to the place of occurrence and he was informed by the accused- appellant that his wife had committed suicide by hanging herself. He had informed this fact to the patwari who along with panchas went to the place of occurrence and conducted the panchayatnama and prepared site plan in which his signature has been obtained. Ganesh Singh P. W. 3, younger brother of the accused-appellant. He had not supported the prosecution version and he was declared hostile by the prosecution. Mahabir Singh P. W. 4, is the peon of the Patwari and he was living adjoining to the room of the accused-appellant. He had stated that he used to listen frequent quarrel between the deceased and the Anil Singh Negi-P. W. 5 is the Investigating Officer of this case and he has proved the necessary papers prepared by him during the investigation like FIR (Ext. Ka-2), site plan (Ext. Ka-3), photo lash (Ext. Ka-4), inquest report. (Ext. Ka-5), Form 13 (Ext. Ka-6), Fard (Ext. Ka-8) and charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-12 ). Dr. Rajeev Hatwal-P. W. 6 had conducted the autopsy of the person of the deceased on 13-10-1986 and he proved his report Ext. Ka- 14.