RAJA RAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant No. 2 Badansingh and No. 5, Koharsingh are the sons of appellant No. 1, Rajaram and No. 4, Jankibai. Appellant No. 3 Gandharva Singh is the cousin of Rajaram. Acquitted accused Chandravati is the daughter of Rajaram. Chandravati was carrying on an affair with deceased Sukhdeo Singh. Her parents were worried on that account. Her relations tried to warn Sukhdeo Singh of the consequences but to no avail. It appears appellants No. 1 and 4 were equally worried on account of this situation. With a view to correct the same, they married Sukhdeo Singh. So also the parents of Chandravati, married her to a different boy. Notwithstanding this, the deceased and Chandravati continued their affair. The allegation is that this furnished the motive to the appellants to eliminate Sukhdeo Singh. During the period 23/12/1984 to 27/12/1984, the appellants are said to have committed the murder of Sukhdeo Singh when he was in their house to meet his beloved. The dead body was then taken in a bullock cart and thrown in open ground. On 27/12/1984 at about 8.00 p.m., Sukhdeo Singh left his house telling his parents that he will return after taking pans. He never returned. A search was mounted. Then on 25/12/1984 the fact was reported in police outpost, Karrapur that Sukhdeo Singh was missing. On 27/12/1984, his dead body was found. First Information Report was lodged by Nirbhay Singh (P.W. 1) the same day at 9.00 a.m. Investigation followed. The fact that Sukhdeo Singh met a homicidal death having not been disputed, it is needless to labour on the aspect of medical evidence in this behalf. The learned trial judge vide judgment dated 9/4/1986 passed in Sessions Trial No. 150/85 held the following circumstances proved against the appellants and on their basis, convicted them u/s. 302/34 and 342 I.P.C. sentencing them to life imprisonment on the first count and 3 months R.I. on the later, which is under challenge in this appeal: (Hindi matter)

(2.) Though the appellants in their statement u/s. 313 Cr. P.C. denied the affair of illicit relations between the deceased and Chandravati, yet appellants learned counsel conceded that this circumstance was rightly held proved by the trial Court.

(3.) The evidence of Siyabai (P.W. 11) proving above circumstances No. 2 has been assailed on the ground that she was residing with her maternal uncle Har Prasad whose house is the same as that of Nirbhay Singh (P.W. 1) the father of the deceased. She has admitted in para 6 that (Hindi Matter). Then, she has admitted that though the deceased was her brother she was not on visiting terms with Chandravati. In these circumstances, her assertion that Chandravati Bai standing in front of her house had asked her when she was returning to, the house of her maternal uncle to send Sukhdeo Singh is so unnatural that it ought not to have been given any credence by the trial Judge as the evidence unmistakingly shows that Chandravati bai was not having any difficulty in meeting Sukhdeo Singh. In fact, she was herself at times visiting the house of the later as is to be gathered from the evidence of Panbai (P.W. 5) mother of the deceased. When the deceased and Chandravati were having such liberty there was no necessity for her to have sent for the deceased through Siyabai who was not on visiting terms with her. The case diary statement of Siyabai was recorded after 26 days. True it is that this witness has stated that the very next morning, she returned to her parents place in village Baheria where she received the news of murder of Sukhdeo Singh and therefore returned to Barchha to offer her condolence to the bereaved family and then she disclosed the above facts and her statement was recorded by the police. A close security of her evidence shows that she is not a truthful witness. In portion marked A other case diary statement (Ex. D. 4) she had stated that she came to know of the tragedy when she returned to her maternal uncles place in village Barchha. She has disowned this portion of her previous statement there appears to be no reason to think that the 1.0. recorded this fact without being told by her. Thus, the very purpose of her second visit to Barchha that it to offer condolence to the bereaved family is belied by her case diary statement. She is a middle aged lady and is quite frequently visiting her maternal uncle's place yet she feigns ignorance of the relationship between the deceased and Chandravatibai. Her statement that she enquired from Chandravati bai the purpose of calling Sukhdeo Singh but she parried the querry and yet she did not divulge this fact to anyone sounds unnatural in view of her case diary version that she had become so inquisitive that she had followed Sukhdeo singh till he entered the house of Chandravatibai. If this was so considering the fact that ladies are ill-equipped to keep secrets she would have told this fact to the inmates of the house.