UDA ALIAS SUDA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.8.1981 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pali in Sessions Case No. 32/80 convicting the appellant Uda @ Suda son of Dewa for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 8.4.1980, P.W. 3 Himta Ram submitted a written report at the Police Station, Sojat stating inter alia that his niece Mst. Seeta was married to Uda three years back and sister of Uda was married to her brother Laxman in exchange. A day before, his niece had gone to Kharchiya well for plucking Heena but she did not return. There was a rumour in the locality that Uda had forcibly taken his wife Mst. Seeta at about 10.00 or 11.00 A.M. towards Sojat. They also suspected that Uda might have killed her. The reason for the suspicion was that about one and half year back on the occasion of Holi, Uda had assaulted Mst. Seeta. He was also telling her that some day he will kill and throw her in a pit. There was oral altercation between the brother of Mst. Seeta and accused Uda. In the night, they went in search of Mst. Seeta but that did not yield anything. In the morning, all the caste's panchas assembled on 'badi hathai' in the Sojat City. The Panchayat was attended by large number of people. Panchas namely, Pema Ram S/o Bhola, Pema S/o Chaila, Jora Ram, Tulsi Ram and Gora Ram Ganchi called Uda and his father Dewa. They enquired from Uda the whereabouts of Mst. Seeta. Initially, he did not give any response. Thereafter, the Panchas gave a threat of taking the matter to the police on which he confessed that Mst. Seeta was thrown in Raikabagh Well after tying her mouth. On this report, the police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. The accused uda was arrested. The body of Mst. Seeta was taken out from the Raikabagh Well. The body was sent for post mortem. After, usual investigation, the police laid charge sheet against the accused Uda for offence under Section 302 I.P.C.

(3.) ASSAILING the conviction, it is contended by learned Counsel Mr. M.L. Garg for the appellant that the learned Judge has committed error in convicting the appellant on the evidence of last seen and the extra judicial confession without satisfying if each of the circumstances were proved by the prosecution against the appellant. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the Trial Court.