MANMOHAN PAL Vs. U T OF CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Manmohan Pal appellant is stated to have committed the murder of his wife Raj Bala on the night intervening March 29 and 30, 1983. Brahm Sarup P. W. 3 was a heart patient. He was advised by a specialist working in the P.G.1, Chandigarh, that whenever he felt uneasy he should take a walk. In accordance with this advice, he came out of his house and was having a walk in Dadu Majra Colony at 1.30 AM on 29/3/1983. Suddenly he heard a noise from the side of the house of the appellant. He went there and saw Raj Bala deceased lying dead in a pool of blood. He accordingly wrote Ruqa Ex. PG which he intended to send to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sector 39, Chandigarh, when he met Constable Jaspal Singh PW. 10 to whom he entrusted this Ruqa. On the basis of this Ruqa, first information report Ex. P A was lodged at the aforementioned Police Station at 2 AM on 30/3/1983. A.S.l. Nanhi Ram P.W. 8 reached the spot at 4 AM and started investigation. The appellant is said to have approached Rachhale Singh P. W. 12 at 5.30 AM. Suresh Pal P. W. 4 happened to be present there. The appellant made an extra-judicial confession before these two person by stating that he had murdered his wife because he suspected her to be of loose moral character. Rachhpal Singh P.W.12 produced the appellant before A.S.I. Nnaha Ram P.W.8 at 6.00 AM. It is not disputed that the deceased did die of a violent death.

(2.) At the trial, the prosecution relied upon the statements of Brahm. Sarup P. W.3, the first informant. Suresh Pal P.W.4 and Rachhpal Singh P.W.12 before whom the appellant is said to have made extra-judicial confession and Chander Kanta P. W. 6, who used to work in the same concern in which the deceased was employed and before whom the deceased had mentioned that her husband suspected her to be of loose moral ,character. The learned trial Judge accepted this evidence for convicting the appellant under section 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 3000.00. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(3.) In this appeal by convict, we have gone through the evidence with the help of the learned counsel.