GULSHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was indicted before the learned Sessions Judge Alwar in Sessions Case No. 27/98 for having committed murder of his wife Raj Kumari. THE learned trial Judge vide judgment dated February 8, 1999 convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 302 IPC to undergo Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to further suffer one month Rigorous Imprisonment.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are that the informant Mahendra Taneja (PW2) lodged a written report around 2. 35 PM on January 21, 1997 at Police Station Kotwali, Alwar with the averments that while he was sitting at his shop some unknown caller informed him on telephone that his sister had a fight with his brother-in-law and the clothes of his brother-in-law were smeared with blood. THE caller further informed that the brother-in-law of the informant appeared to have made himself scarce and he might have killed the sister of the informant. On receiving the said information the informant rushed to sister's house and discovered the dead body of his sister, which was lying in a pool of blood inside a room in the house. Outside the house of his sister a crowd of neighbours had gathered. On the basis of said report Narpat Singh, SHO registered a formal FIR and launched investigation in the matter. THE Investigating Officer reached house of the deceased and door of the room, in which dead body of deceased was found, was found locked, the same was broken by the Investigating Agency. THE inquest proceedings of dead body of the deceased were drawn. THE site was inspected and a site plan of the place of incident was prepared. THE lock which was broken by the police was also seized. Some blood from the place of incident was also lifted and seized and the dead body of deceased was subjected to post mortem examination, the clothes removed from the dead body of deceased were sealed and seized. THE appellant was taken in custody by the Investigating Agency on February 3, 1997. During his police custody, at his instance a handkerchief and a pull over, which were stated to be blood stained, were recovered and seized. A report of the Forensic Science Laboratory was also received. After doing the needful, the Investigating Agency filed charge sheet against the appellant. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar. Charge under Sections 302 IPC was framed against the appellant, who denied the same and claimed trial. THE prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 16 witnesses. In the statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellant denied the appellation claimed innocence. He also pleaded alibi and stated that he had gone to Jwalapura (U. P.) to visit the house of her daughter's prospective in-laws. He further stated that on account of business rivalry his brother-in-law the informant Mahendra Taneja had falsely implicated him in the case. In defence three witnesses were examined. Learned Trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above.

(3.) THE prosecution has examined Smt. Meena Taneja (PW1) and Mahendra Taneja (PW2) to show that at the time of incident the appellant and the deceased were alone in their residential house. While submitting the written report (Ex. P-1) Mahendra Taneja informed Investigating Officer Narpat Singh (PW16) that when he reached to the house of his sister he found his wife Meena Taneja in the crowd out side the house of his sister. THE children of his sister were not present in the house and his wife told him that his brother-in-law killed his sister and fled after locking the room. Meena Taneja (PW1) in her deposition stated that at the time of incident she was out side the house. THE incident occurred in the first floor of the house and she had seen the appellant coming out of the house. She had also seen the dead body of her sister-in-law. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently canvassed that Meena Taneja was not present at the time of incident and she was introduced as a witness at a later stage in connivance with the Investigating Officer Narpat Singh. Learned counsel also contended that the statement under Sec. 161 of Meena Taneja was recorded after two days of the occurrence i. e. January 23, 1997 and her name did not appear in the written report but it was introduced afterwards and no reliance can be placed on her statement. This submission was also advanced before the learned trial court, but the learned trial court rejected the argument and observed that the presence of Meena Taneja out side the house of deceased was natural. Placing reliance on the testimony of Investigating Officer Narpat Singh and Mahendra Taneja learned trial court observed that police could not record the statement of Meena Taneja as she was mentally disturbed. Learned trial court also observed that the provisions under Sections 162 Cr. P. C. were not attracted as the written report was only handed over and investigation did not commence.