TUL BAHADUR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tul Bahadur, appellant, was tried, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs 1,000 and in default to further simple imprisonment for six months for the commission of the offence under section 3011. P.C. vide impugned judgment dated 22nd July 1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, in Sessions trial No 2 -S/7 of 91. Aggrieved with the same, the appellant has directed the Instant appeal against It.

(2.) A short narrative of the prosecution case would show that the appellant was charge -sheeted for the commission of the murder by Intentionally causing the death of his wife Smt Lati alias Tara at village Kungal -Balti, on or about September 12. 1990. Both, the appellant and his wife, since deceased used to live in a one room house situated in an orchard belonging to Balbir Singh (PW -2) in Kungal -Balti. The appellant was employed by PW -2 to look after the orchard, in the month of April 1990, on a monthly salary of Rs 700 On September 14 1990 PW -2 Balbir Singh who is employed as Senior Accountant in H P M C Odi came to the orchard alongwith one Gorkha Debu Ram and his wife Durei with a view to pluck the apples Since Smt. Lati alias Tara was sister of Durgi. therefore, she accompanied him to see her sister - When they reached in the orchard at about 2 p m. the house was found bolted from outside PW Balbir Singh went to the orchard and Debu and Durgi sat outside the house on the bench On opening the door of the house it was found that somebody was sleeping in the bed but was not resDondine PW Durgi removed the quilt and found that Smt. Lati alias Tara was lying dead in the bed. The bed was also found bloodstained They searched for the accused but he was not available PW 2 Balbir Singh then narrated the whole incident to his cousin PW -5 Jyoti Swaroop who reported the matter to the police post Nankhari by telephone Debu Ram and his wife we left on the spot. Since no Investigating Officer was available at Police Post Nankhari, therefore, a wireless message sent from the said police post to police station Rampur, from where on once party beaded by PW -18 Inspector Lai Man came to the spot receded the statement of Balbir Singh (PW -2) under section 164 Cr PC £S He made an endorsement Ex PC/1 thereupon and sent it for registration of a criminal case. Thereafter he visually inspected the dead body prepared its inquest report (Ex. PE> got it photographed and later on got an autopsy conducted thereof on the spot from PW -1 namely Dra Malhotra. He also inspected the spot prepared the site -plan Exs PO and PR with its marginal notes and took into possession various items found there connected with the case besides blood stained bedding blood stained shirt allegedly found under a Kilta after preparation of various Memos having observed the codal formalities in respect thereof. He also recorded the statements of various witnesses Later finding the accused absconding and not available in the village, he constituted a search party headed by Head Constable Vijay Kumar who arrested the accused on 24 -9 -1990 at the bus -stand, Shimla. After his arrest, he was interrogated whereupon he made a disclosure statement (Ex PH) which was reduced into writing through Sub -Inspector Hukam Singh, by the Investigating Officer who appended his signatures Later on an axe, a lethal weapon, was recovered consequent thereto. He also obtained the reports of the Chemical Examiner and that of the Sexologist during the investigation. On completion thereof, charge sheet was filed against the accused in the Court, for the commission of the offence under section 302 I. P. C.

(4.) No particular defence had been taken by the appellant at the trial stage. However, it was suggested that the appellant did not commit the crime as he was away from his village from 10th September 1990 till he was arrested by the police on 24 9 -1990 and he remained admitted in the hospital, firstly at Theog and thereafter on being referred to Shimla he got himself treated at the said place. The Court below on appreciation of evidence, rejected this plea.