KRISHAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal at the instance of Appellant -convict Krishan Chand is against the judgment dated 23.6.1990 passed by Sessions Judge Solan whereby he has been convicted of offence under Ss. 306 and 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and to p.ay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - under Sec. 306 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. For offence under Sec. 201 I.P.C. rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/ - has been awarded and in default of payment of fine the Appellant -convict has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that deceased Dayawanti was married to the Appellant -convict about 7 -8 years before the occurrence and she was residing in her matrimonial home in village Kokla, Tehsil Arki, District Solan. On 30.8.1986 she was found dead in her bed and the Appellant -convict cremated her without reporting the matter to the police and without getting post -mortem conducted on her dead body. Shiv Ram, the father of deceased Dayawanti, reported the matter to the police on 2.9.1986 on the basis of letter dated 29.8.1986 Ex.PW -2/A written by deceased Dayawanti to her brother Om Parkash PW -2, wherein she had stated that the Appellant -convict had been suspecting her fidelity and subjecting her to cruelty and harassment since her marriage with him, which drove her to put an end to her life. During the investigation, a qui 11(Khind) Ex. P -1 was recovered from the bed of deceased Dayawanti, which was sent to Chemical Examiner, Patiala as per whose report Ex.PW -8/A it had the stains of vomiting which contained Organ phosphorus Compound (an insecticide) which showed that deceased Daywanti committed suicide by taking poison. Letters Ex.PW -2/B to Ex. PW -2/E were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PW -2/H and letters Ex. PW -2/F and PW -2/G were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PW -2/J. These letters were sent to Examiner of Questioned Documents, Shimla, who gave his opinion Ex.PW -9/A that disputed handwritings Exts. PW -2/A, PW -2/F, PW -2/G and PW -1/F were written by the same person who had written the admitted handwritings Exts. PW -2/B to PW -2/E and Exts. P2 and P3.

(3.) To prove its case the prosecution has produced Shiv Ram PW -1 and Om Parkash PW -2, father and brother of deceased Dayawanti and both of them have stated that deceased Dayawanti during her life time had never told them that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the Appellant -convict. According to them, from her letter Ex. PW -2/A they had come to know that the Appellant -convict was suspecting her fidelity and for that reason he was subjecting her to torture since the very beginning of their married life. Om Parkash PW -2 has further stated that he had attended funeral of deceased Dayawanti and at that time no one from the village Kokla made a mention that she had been maltreated by the Appellant -convict. Jagdish Chand PW -6, who was the Branch Post Master, has proved that letter Ex. PW -2/A contained a post office stamp dated 29.8.1986. He has also proved envelope Ex.PW -1/F which was posted from Danoghat on 29.8.1986. Kind Ex.P -1 was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PW -3/A by Rajinder Pal PW -8, who had partly investigated the case. Sant Ram, ASI PW -10 has stated that letter Ex.PW -2/A was presented to him by Shiv Ram PW -1 on the basis of which he has recorded FIR Ex.PA. Letters Ex.PW -2/F and Ex.PW -2/G were presented to him by Om Parkash PW -2, which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PW -2/J. Shri M.L. Sharma PW -9, Assistant Examiner of Questioned Documents has proved his report Ex.PW -9/A. The statement of the Appellant -convict was recorded under Sec. 313 Code of Criminal Procedure , wherein he has denied the allegations of the prosecution. According to him, he had cordial and affectionate relations with deceased Dayawanti and he had never given her chance to complain against him. However, he has not led any evidence in defence.