RAMCHANDER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh dated 15.7.87, whereby he has convicted accused appellant Ramchander Under Section 302, IPC and has sentenced him to undergo, imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) THE facts, in short, are that on 4.1.86 one Heeralal (PW 2) lodged an FIR stating therein that at about 4 p.m. he was in his field when he received an information that Ramchander, his brother had killed his wife Parmeshwari; thereupon, he went to the house of Ramchander and saw that Parmeshwari was lying dead. Her daughter Imarti and her brother Kishan were sitting there. They told him that Ramchander had killed Parmeshwari at about 3.30 p.m., and had ran away. They further stated that Ramchander was asking Parmeshwari to give him money for drinking wine and when she did not give, he had beaten her and consequently she died. A case was registered Under Section 302, IPC on 4.1.86 at 10 p.m. After registration of the case, police undertook investigation. Site Plan Ex. P.2, site Inspection Memo Ex. P. 2 - A, Description Memo of the corpus of the deceased Ex. P. 5 Seizure Memo of ornaments Ex. P. 6, Seizure Memo of Bangles Ex. P.7 Seizure Memo, of blood stained soil Ex. P. 8 and Seizure Memo of clothes of deceased Ex. P. 9 were prepared. Post mortem of the dead body was got conducted. Post mortem report is Ex. P.4. The injuries found on the corpus were as under:

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the accused -appellant Shri Ganpat Ram appeared and submitted that accused appellant was wrongly implicated in the case. Heeralal, the first informant denied that Imarti (PW 1) and Kishanlal (PW 4) were sitting near the dead body while he came from the Held. In fact, police has planted them as eye witnesses. He submitted that there is no cogent explanation as to why the statements of Imarli and Kishanlal were taken at 3.30 on 5.1.86 while the offence had been committed at 3.30 on 4.1.86. When Heeralal did not support the case of prosecution, no eye witness remained to support the prosecution story. He further submitted that Imarti is daughter of accused, she alongwith her maternal uncle Kishanlal (PW 4) wanted to grab the land at the instigation of her in -laws as accused has no son and if accused is convicted, land of accused can be grabed by the in -laws of Imarti. He also submitted that no reason was given how Imarti was on the scene and why she had come to the house of the accused. Similarly, no satisfactory explanation was given why Kishanlal was present on the scene. The in -laws' village of Imarti is at a distance of 40 kilometres from the place of occurrence and the village of Kishanlal was at a distance of 20 miles from the scene of the occurrence. Their presence on the scene of occurrence is not natural. The lower Court has not properly appreciated these facts and there is no reliable evidence against the accused. It is urged that in their police statements, both Imarti and Kishan did not give the story that after witnessing the offence, they had rushed out of the house because of fear. At the trial both these witnesses have made an attempt to show that after the incident they ran out of the house. It is urged that this improvement was purposeful. Had they admitted their continued presence on the spot, concealment of Baranga in that house could not have been possible. This deliberate change has been made so as to bring their testimony in accord with the theory of concealment of Baranga. This improvement also further shows that accused has falsely been implicated by Imarti and Kishanlal. Alternatively, the case does not travel beyond section 304 Part II as the incident took place all of sudden when Parmeshwari declined to pay money to the accused for drinking. A quarrel took place and in the heat of passion, Parmeshwari was beaten and consequently died but there was no intention of killing her.