MAST RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.4.2004 of the trial Court, whereby appellant has been convicted of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-.

(2.) FIRST the prosecution version may be noticed. Deceased Sawni, aged about 45 years, was the wife of appellant. Relations between the deceased and the appellant were strained for quite some time. On 24.2.2003 the appellant is alleged to have caught hold of the deceased by her hair and dragged her to a nearby field of one Pardeep Kumar, where he Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? stabbed her in the vagina with a knife resulting in sharp incised wound over clitoris extending to and injuring the urethra, slitting the vagina and injuring the vaginal vessels and a few pelvic vessels on the right side of the cut. The doctor opined that the cause of death was sudden hemorrhagic shock due to excessive and torrential bleeding on account of the injury to the blood vessels of external genitalia and pelvic vessels. The time lag between the injury and the death was opined to be a few minutes. Before dragging the deceased to the field, the appellant allegedly locked the door of the room in which his son PW-2 Ramesh was asleep. The deceased when being dragged cried and shrieked. Hearing her shrieks, PW-1 Bhagwan Singh, living at a distance of 30 to 35 yards from the house of the appellant, came out. He noticed the appellant dragging the deceased towards the field of Pardeep Kumar. When he went to the field of Pardeep Kumar, he saw PW-2 Ramesh holding his mother's head in his lap and crying. He felt the pulse of the lady and declared that she was dead. On inquiry PW-2 Ramesh told PW-1 Bhagwan Singh that his father had killed his mother by stabbing her below the abdomen. PW-3 Salochna (wife of PW-2 Ramesh and daughter-in-law of the deceased and the accused) allegedly saw the deceased being dragged by the appellant towards the field. While in police custody the appellant made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of the knife, allegedly used by him to kill the deceased.

(3.) TRIAL Court has convicted the appellant holding that the following five circumstances stand proved against the appellant and these circumstances make complete chain leading to one and only one hypothesis that the appellant murdered the deceased and to no other (hypothesis):-