HUSSNA @ ISHMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment, dated May 3, 1993 whereby the appellant stands convicted for offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE prosecution story, in brief, is as under.

(3.) THE appellant Hussna was married to Jagwati, the sister of Suresh Pal (PW5) and Raj Bala (PW6). Raj Bala was married in village Kutail with Hukam Singh and had got two sons, namely, Rinku aged 2 -1/2 -3 years, Sanjay and one daughter. As the appellant was in the habit of taking liquor he would, under its influence, often maltreat and harass his wife on which Suresh Pal had advised him many a time to mend his ways and due to this reason, the relation between the two were somewhat strained, on May 10, 1992, Raj Bala (PW9) had come to the house of Suresh Pal, her brother along with the children. On May 14, 1992 the appellant also came to the house of Suresh Pal at about 7.00 p.m. and met Suresh Pal, his wife Maya Devi and Raj Bala (PW9). At that time, the appellant was under the influence of liquor and after enquiring about the welfare of the family he took Rinku in his lap and went towards the canal flowing on the rear side of the house of Suresh Pal. After waiting for about an hour and alarmed that Rinku had not returned, Suresh Pal and others went out in search of the appellant and Rinku, but they could not be traced out. In desperation, on May 15, 1992 when the search for Rinku had proved futile, Suresh Pal went to Police Post Ram Nagar, Karnal at about 11 a.m. and made statement exhibit PD before Sub Inspector Shamsher Singh (PW10), on the basis of which formal First Information Report was registered by Assistant Sub Inspector Man Singh (PW4) for an offence punishable under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. This Police Officer then went to house of Suresh Pal, prepared a Rough Site Plan and recorded the statements of Maya Devi and Raj Bala. The search for Rinku and the accused was also made by the Police Officer which proved to be fruitless. On May 18, 1992 Suresh Pal went towards the Jhal of Picholia Head accompanied by Hukum Singh and one Ishma and found the dead body of Rinku at that place. Leaving two persons near the dead body, Suresh Pal along with Ishma made their way to the Police Station, but when they reached near the canal bridge, they met Sub Inspector Shamsher Singh and he was informed about the recovery of the dead body. The offences under Sections 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code, were thereafter added in the First Information Report and the Special Report was duly sent to the Ilaqa Magistrate,as well. Sub Inspector Shamsher Singh went to Picholia Head, prepared the Inquest Report and completed the formalities in connection with the recovery of the dead body and also sent it for post -mortem examination, where Dr. S.R. Ajmani (PW1) who conducted the autopsy opined that the cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of drowning and that there was no ligature mark on the neck. On May 19, 1992 when Ram Singh (PW8) and one Banarsi were sitting in their house, the appellant came there and made an extra judicial confession in their presence wherein he admitted that he killed Rinku and then thrown his dead body in the Western Yamuna Canal, but this had happened by mistake as he had, in fact, wanted to kill the son of Suresh Pal (PW5), the first informant whose son was also named Rinku. He. therefore, sought the help of Ram Singh in connection with the case. As per the prosecution the accused was thereafter produced by Ram Singh (PW8) before the Investigating Officer and was taken into custody. After completion of the investigation, a challan was submitted against the appellant for his prosecution under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was thereafter committed to the Court of Session and as the appellant pleaded false implication, he was brought to trial.