TEEKAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two criminal appeals are directed against common judgment dated 20.7.2004 of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 89/2003, whereby accused-appellant Teekamchand has been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. That apart, he along-with accused-appellant Ramu Nayak (appellant in Appeal No. 801/2004) was also convicted for offence under Section 201 IPC. They were on this count sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/- In default of its payment, they were directed to further undergo seven days simple imprisonment. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Kailash Kumar Sharma (P.W. 9) submitted a written-report (Exhibit P. 14) on 6.5.2003, to S.H.O., Police Station Pushkar, District Ajmer. The report was lodged against three accused persons. In the report, it was stated by the complainant that on 5.5.2003 he received a telephone call from an unknown person informing that complainant's daughter Chandra Kanta has been murdered in the night of Saturday by her husband accused-appellant Teekamchand Sharma, her second wife and younger brother Mukesh, and the dead body was also disposed off. After receiving such information, the complainant, his elder brother Murari Lal Sharma, nephew Anand Sharma and brother-in-law reached Pushkar on 6.5.2003. They searched for complainant's daughter in the house of her in law but she could not be traced. Then they enquired about her whereabout from her husband accused-appellant Teekamchand, but he showed ignorance and told that she had left the house in the night of Saturday. It was alleged that Teekamchand, his second wife (foreigner) and younger brother Mukesh conspired and murdered his daughter Chandra Kanta and concealed her dead body. It was also mentioned that the marriage of Chandra Kanta with accused Teekamchand took place nine years ago. She had two daughters out of this wedlock. After the marriage, accused Teekamchand and his family used to harass his daughter. In order that there was no dispute in the matrimonial life, he did not lodge any report with the police. Accused Teekamchand thereafter performed another marriage with an English lady. Teekamchand thereafter started giving more torture to his daughter as the accused and his family wanted to get rid of her.

(2.) The police, on the basis of the said written-report, registered a regular first information report being F.I.R. No. 80/2003 for offence under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC, showing the date of occurrence to be 3.5.2003.

(3.) After usual investigation, the police filed challan in the court of Magistrate against accused appellants Teekamchand and Ramu Nayak for offence under Secs. 302 and 201 IPC, who, in turn, committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. The trial court framed charges against the accused-appellants for offence under Secs. 302 and 201 IPC. The accused-appellants denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. They claimed to be tried.