RAM SEVAK RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Sewak Ram, the sole-appellant, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 2nd January, 1987 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gopalganj, in Sessions Trial No. 81 of 1986 convicting and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, as stated in the fardbeyan said to be recorded on the statements of Informant Marchhia Devi (PW-1) is that on the night of 10-8-1985 after taking meal her daughter Shanti Devi along with her husband, the appellant Ram Sewak Ram, went in the house to sleep and Informant also after taking meal went in the Palani of Flour Mill situate towards east of a road which itself is on south of her house. On the next day in the morning before sunrise, the Informant awoke and started giving fodder to her cattle and she also started uttering that her daughter and her son-in-law were still sleeping and she thereafter started calling her daughter but when she did not get any reply, she went to her house and started knocking the door but then found that the door was bolted from outside by chain and she then opened the door of her house and found that a 'diya' (earthen lamp) was still burning but her daughter and appellant were not in the house. When she came out from her house she was informed by villager Sagina Rai (PW-2) that dead body of her daughter Shanti Devi was lying in the paddy field of one Bhikhari Ram and she then along with Sagina Rai, Badri Rai (PW-6), Rameshwar Rai (not examined) and others went to the paddy field of Bhikhari Ram where she found the dead body of her daughter Shanti Devi with dagger injury on her neck. It is further stated that 10-12 years ago Shanti had been married to appellant and two years after their marriage Informant transferred her entire property in favour of appellant by a deed of gift because Shanti Devi was the only child if Informant and since then appellant used to live in the house of Informant and he had set up a flour mill there and some days prior to the date of occurrence he had removed one Chandrama Rai who used to look after the flour mill alleging that he (Chandrama Rai) had illicit connection with Shanti Devi. It is further stated that since last some days appellant used to give threatening for committing murder of Shanti Devi because she had no issue and 2-3 months prior to the occurrence once he had run to assault Shanti Devi with a knife and Shanti Devi then took shelter in the house of Deo Nath Ram in order to save herself. In the fardbeyan Informant claimed that appellant must have killed her daugher Shanti Devi because on the night of the day of occurrence he was sleeping in her house with Shanti Devi and thereafter he absconded. Fardbeyan (Ext. 3) of Informant was recorded in the orchard of one Mahabir Rai situate towards west of the field of Bhikhari Rai where at the time of recording fardbeyan the dead body of Shanti Devi was lying. On the basis of fardbeyan (Ext. 3) a case under Section 302, IPC. was registered against the appellant and Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against him under Section 302, IPC. After commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions. The appellant was tried under Section 302, IPC after framing charge against him under this head and he was found guilty and was accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.

(3.) The case of the appellant before the Court below as it appears from his examination under Section 313, Cr PC as well as from the evidence of two defence witnesses was that on the night when the occurrence had taken place he was in the flour mill of one Birendra Kumar Thakur (DW-1) situate at village Chainpatti and on receipt of information about the murder of his wife he came to the village of Informant on 11-8-85 at about 12 O'clock in the noon. His further defence was that because Informant Marchhia Devi who is her mother-in-law had gifted all her properties in his favour and he has set up a flour mill in his 'sasural', the 'pattidars' of her mother-in-law were quarrelling with him and they used to threaten him that they will not allow him to own the property gifted to him byhis mother-in-law.