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 Section 302 1. P. C. 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 29th April 1992. The father of appellant P.W. 4 Dunga Ram vide Ex.P.8. gave information at Police Station, Chitava, in the early morning i.e. 7.35 A.M. of 29th April 1992 with respect to the unnatural death of his daughter-in-law Mst. Santosh. The police proceeded with an enquiry under Section 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, lie pressed the neck and soon thereafter there was no movement in the body, on enquiry, by Police, he disclosed that his son was married about 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 fields. 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 he thirteen days back. On 29th April 1992, one Rameshwar informed him that as his grand daughter has fallen sick and, therefore, his presence was required in village Nagvada. Accordingly, he went to village Nagwada and found his grand daughter dead. He noticed swelling and 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 postmortem. After usual investigation, police laid a charge sheet 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 P.W.6 Para Ram and P.W.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.) It is contended by Mr. Sandeep Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant, that the trial Court has committed error in convicting the appellant solely on the evidence of extra judicial confession alleged to have been made before P. W. 6 Parma Ram and P.W.7. Uda Ram, who are highly interested and partisan witnesses. It is also submitted that as the confessional statement is alleged to have been made by the accused in the presence of the police, it is not admissible in evidence being hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. It is submitted that the evidence of extra judicial confession has been introduced later on as it does not find place in F.I.R. It is lastly contended that as the dead body of Smt. Santosh was m the house in which three families were residing, it cannot be conclusively said that Smt. Santosh was murdered by the appellant. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court.