JAI NARAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17. 12. 1992 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta convicting the appellant of the offence under Sec. 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the appellant Jai Narain was put to trial on the charge of murder of his wife Mst. Santosh in the intervening night of 28th and 29. 04. 1992. The father of appellant PW-4 Dunga Ram vide Ex. P. 8 gave information at Police Station, Chitava, in the early morning i. e. 7. 35 A. M. of 29. 04. 1992 with respect to the unnatural death of his daughter-in-law Mst. Santosh. The police proceeded with an enquiry under Sec. 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the version set out in the said report, on receipt of the information from his son Girdhari, he went to the field, where Smt. Santosh was lying dead. On enquiry, it was disclosed by his son appellant Jai Narain that his wife Smt. Santosh complained of headache and, as such, he gave him a pill paracetamol. After sometime, she complained of pain in the neck. He pressed the neck and soon thereafter, there was no movement in the body. On enquiry by the police, he disclosed that his son was married about two twelve years back. Mst. Santosh did not produce any child. He also stated that on being questioned about the death of Mst. Santosh, it was disclosed by his son (accused appellant) that deceased Santosh could not swallow the pill paracetamol and complained pain in neck. He thought that it has struck in the neck and, therefore, he pressed her neck and she died after sometime. He also disclosed that families of his three sons reside in the field. On the same day at about 12. 30 P. M. , P. W. 6 Parma Ram the grand father of deceased Santosh submitted a written report Ex. P. 10. As per the version set out in the said report, his grand daughter Smt. Santosh was married to appellant Jai Narain. She was at the in-laws' house as the appellant had taken her thirteen days back. On 29. 04. 1992, one Rameshwar informed him that as his grand daughter has fallen sick and, therefore, his presence was required in village Nagwada. Accordingly, he went to village Nagwada and found his grand daughter dead. He noticed swelling & four marks on the neck with blood. He suspected it a case of murder by strangulation at the hands of appellant Jai Narain. The police registered a case against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and proceeded with investigation. The police prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body for post mortem. After usual investigation, police laid a chargesheet against the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC. The appellant denied the charges levelled against him and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined as many as eleven witnesses. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against him. The trial Court relying on the evidence of extra judicial confession of the accused appellant before PW-6 Parma Ram and PW-7 Uda Ram corroborated by other circumstances particularly his conduct, found the charge of murder proved and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced as noticed above.

(3.) PW-6 Parma Ram is the grant father of deceased Smt. Santosh. He stated that about 12 or 13 days prior to the death of Santosh, appellant visited their house to collect Smt. Santosh. The appellant told him that presence of his wife Smt. Santosh was necessary in the house as his examinations are approaching fast. Thus, on the request of the appellant, they sent Santosh alongwith him. On 29th at about 4. 45 A. M. brother-in-law of Santosh arrived and informed about the sudden serious illness of Smt. Santosh. He enquired if she was alive or dead. He answered in affirmative. Thereafter, he went to Uda Ram, whose daughter was also married in the same village. Thereafter he alongwith Uda Ram went to the house of appellant Jai Narain. There, they found the dead body of Smt. Santosh and noticed marks of nail scratches on both sides of neck. He reprimanded them for giving the false information. He told them that they informed only about the illness of Santosh, whereas she has been murdered. On this, Jai Narain disclosed that Smt. Santosh has been killed by him. On further enquiry, appellant stated that he sat over the chest of Smt. Santosh and pressed the neck with both the hands. The accused further gave out the reason for killing Smt. Santosh that she was not educated and he wanted to bring an education lady. The witness further stated that he lodged the report Ex. P. 10. In the cross-examination, he admitted to have reached at village Nagwada at 11 A. M. He was also confronted with his earlier statement Ex. D. 1 in which the name of the person, who gave him the information, has been mentioned as `girdhari'. He stated that he had given the name of Rameshwar. He pleaded ignorance as to how the name of Girdhari was mentioned therein. He also admitted that deceased Smt. Santosh after marriage and before death never made any complaint against the accused appellant.