SATYA NARAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal unfolds a tragic incident where on the allegation of murder of his wife Nirmala @ Rekha, the appellant has been convicted by the learned Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area and Additional Sessions Judge Karauli vide judgment dated October 29, 1996 under section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

(2.) COMING to the broad facts of the case it may be indicated that on March 11, 1995, the appellant lodged a report Ex. IPC 40with the Police Station Karauli stating there in that on the said day he left his village Bhuapura in District. Murraina (M. P.) by a scooter along with his wife Nirmala @ Rekha for going to Kaila Devi Temple in Karauli. Around 8. 30 P. M. while he was descending on the slope of a pullia suddenly someone shouted to stop. He slowed down his scooter as he was afraid. When he tried to accelerate the scooter, one of the person shouted, `kill them'. He had seen one person standing near the road and two others near the Nalla. They had covered their faces with cloth. Suddenly the person who was standing near the road fired a shot which hit his wife on the left side near her ear. Consequently his wife expired on the spot. Leaving the scooter and dead body of his wife at the spot he rushed to lodge the report. On the basis of the said report a formal FIR bearing No. 82/95 was chalked out for offence under section 302 IPC. and the investigation commenced. Site was inspected. Autopsy on the dead body of the deceased was conducted. The Investigating Officer in the course of investigation found that the appellant himself was involved in the crime, therefore he got the appellant arrested and on the basis of appellant's disclosure statement recovered Katta ( fire arm) allegedly used in commission of offence. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned trial judge who framed the charges under sections 302 and 304 B IPC against the appellant. The appellant the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 31 witnesses and produced 52 documents and 9 articles. In the statement under section 313 Cr. P. C. the accused appellant claimed innocence and examined three defence witnesses. On hearing the final submissions, the learned trial judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated here in above. Since the appellant was convicted under section 302 IPC the learned trial judge did not incline to punish him under section 304 R IPC.

(3.) MR. R. S. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently canvassed that two views of evidence are possible in the instant case but the learned trial judge has failed to apply the legal principle that in case two views of the evidence are possible then the view in favour of the accused should be accepted. The investigation was highly unfair and the appellant was rope in the case. The recovery of katta at the instance of the appellant is highly doubtful. Moreover since the report of the Ballistic expert was indefinite, therefore the recovery does not connect the appellant with the offence. The learned trial judge has himself supplied missing link in the circumstantial evidence through sheer surnises and conjectures. He has convicted the appellant not on the basis of proof, but on the basis of suspicion. The learned trial judge has failed to appreciate that PW. 19, 22, 23 and 26 were highly interested witnesses and their statements were full of exaggerations and contradictions, therefore their statements could not have been relied upon. MR. Chauhan further canvassed that PW. 2 and PW. 3 substantiated the case of the defence. Recovery of shirt allegedly worn by the appellant also corroborates the defence version and Kundan PW. 9 knocks the bottom out of the prosecution case with regard to the recovery of Katta at the instance of the appellant. Tika Ram PW. 2, who is an independent witness, deposed in his cross examination that the place where the occurrence took place is the jungle, and often even previously many a times robbers had stopped trucks and buses and looted them. This statement is further corroborated by Laxman Meena PW. 3 who stated that there had been incidents of robbing trucks at the place of the incident. Another independent witness Amrit Lal (PW. 10) in his cross examination deposed that at the place of incident similar incidents have taken place and the robbers have robbed and assaulted people on earlier occasions. These witnesses were not declared hostile, but their statements were overlooked by the learned trial judge.