JAIRAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 3-5-94 passed by Sessions Judge, Mandsaur in S. T. No. 25/92, whereby the appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the I. P. C. and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302, IPC and seven years R. I. under Section 201, IPC.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, was that the deceased Kailashkun-war, the sister of Jujharsingh (P. W. 6), resident of Village Tal, District Ratlam was married to the appellant who was resident of Village Chhotipatlasi, Distt. Mandsaur. The appellant was in habit of consuming liquor and he used to beat Kailashkunwar, therefore, Kailashkunwar and her daughter Dhyankunwar (P. W. 16) were living in Village Tal with Jujharsingh, the brother of the deceased. On 13-7-92 the appellant sold his land survey No. 279, area 0. 222 to Nabinoor (P. W. 4) Kailashkunwar and Dhyankunwar opposed and did not allow Nabinoor to cultivate this land and they filed Civil Suit No. 103-A/92 in the Court of Civil Judge Class-II, Sitamau. This led quarrel between husband and wife. On 20-7-92 Kailashkunwar and Dhyankunwar came to Patlasi and stayed with the appellant in his house. Kailashkunwar obstructed Nabinoor to take the crop sown in the disputed land. On 8-10-92 Nabinoor lodged report Ex. P-13 against Kailashkunwar at Police Station, Sitamau. The appellant beat Kailashkunwar on the field. On 23-10-92, in the night, the appellant came armed with sword to kill Kailashkunwar and Dhyankunwar. He beat Kailashkunwar, therefore, they had to stay in the night in their neighbour's house and in the morning they again came in their house and thereafter Dhyankunwar went to her maternal uncle Jujharsingh's house. On 4-11-92, Prabhulal (P. W. 1), the neighbour of the deceased saw smoke coming out of the house of the appellant. The house was closed from inside. It was giving smell of burning of flesh. He informed Raghurajsingh (P. W. 13), the cousin brother of the deceased who also saw the same thing. They peeped through the slot of the door-leaf and saw a pyre burning in his 'bada' (open land) in the house, quilt and 'gadda 'were also burning. Raghurajsingh sent letter Ex. P-1 through Prabhulal to S. H. O. , Sitamau. On this, the Incharge of P. S. Subodh Kumar Tomar (P. W. 17) and constable Bhartcndra Singh (P. W. 15) went to the house of appellant in Village Chhotipalasi. The door was closed from inside. When door was not opened, constable Bhartendra singh jumped into the house of the appellant and opened the door. They found that dead-body of a human being was burning. In one leg there was 'paijeb' and in one hand there were some bangles. The appellant was found drunk in the house. He was taken into custody and a panchnama Ex. P-29 was prepared. Subodh Kumar Tomar held inquest on the dead- body which had already burnt and prepared report Ex. P- 3. On 4-11-92 Dhyankunwar (P. W. 13), the younger sister of the deceased Kailashkunwar was called from her village. She saw the leg, hand etc. and identified it to be the dead-body of Kailashkunwar vide panchnama Ex. P-27. Dehati Nalishi Ex. P-32 was written. The appellant was sent for medical examination. Dr. S. K. Mehta found one abrasion on his left hand vide report Ex. P-16. The appellant was drunk. On the next day 5-11-92 Investigating Officer S. K. Tomar prepared map of the house of the appellant. The appellant had two brothers Karansingh and Harirajsingh. Karansingh and Harirajsingh were in service, therefore, the whole house was in exclusive possession of the appellant. In the room situate on the first floor, a spot was seen where the dead-body was kept for some days. Investigating officer seized pupas, larvae, stained and unstained earth and pieces of bangles from this place vide seizure memo Ex. P-6. He also seized the skull bone, intestines, half burnt foot, hip bone, paijeb, burnt bangles, bone pieces and ashes from the pyre vide seizure memo Ex. P-5. The bone etc. were sent to District Hospital, Mandsaur tor post-mortem and therefrom to the Director, Medico Legal Institute, Bhopal, who after examining these articles opined that the bones were of an adult female vide report Ex. P-38. On 5-11-92 the appellant gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and produced two pieces of rope, one of which was stuck with hair and a knife which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. P-20. The chemical examiner, F. S. L. Sagar, opined that both pieces were part of one rope and the hair stuck to the rope were of a female vide report Ex. P-36. After completion of investigation, challan was filed. The appellant pleaded not guilty and false implication. The learned Trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) SHRI Hardiya, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that eye-witness account is not available in this case. The appellant has been convicted on the basis of the circumstantial evidence which docs not lead to the inference that the appellant killed his wife Kailashkunwar, He contended -that it has not been proved that the bones allegedly found in the house of the appellant were of Kailashkunwar and cause of death has also not been proved. On the other hand, Shri Desai, learned Dy. A. G. supported the impugned judgment.