BRIJ BIHARI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 26. 10. 2002 passed by Additional Session Judge No. 1 (Fast Track) Jaipur City, Jaipur in session case No. 8/2002 whereby the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants Brij Bihari and Smt. Primila for the offence under Section 302 IPC to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo for rigorous imprisonment of 6 months, under Section 120 (B) IPC to undergo the imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and also under Section 201 I. P. C. to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment. The D. B. Criminal appeal No. 6/2003 has been filed on behalf of the accused-appellants Brij Bihari and Smt. Primila through counsel whereas D. B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 1653/2003 has been filed through jail by accused Brij Bihari.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that one Ramadhar Singh lodged a first information report on 30. 7. 2000 at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur wherein it was alleged that the in-laws of his son Shreeniwas are at Jaipur. Shreeniwas had gone to Jaipur for earning his livelihood. He received last letter dated 7. 4. 2000 written by Shreeniwas. THEreafter, his wife Smt. Primila and his sons Sunil and Kamlesh came to village in the month of May. He asked them about Shreeniwas. Smt. Primila told that due to rush of work he could not come. After sometime Smt. Primila, went at Jaipur. When he did not receive any information about Shreeniwas, he sent his son-in-law Vijay Singh at Jaipur but Shreeniwas was not found. It was also alleged that on 13. 4. 2000 a report of missing of Shreeniwas was lodged by Smt. Primila at the instance of Vijay Singh. When they did not hear about Shreeniwas then he, Ramneti, Vijay Singh and Smt. Manki came at Jaipur. Smt. Primila did not give satisfactory reply. THEn he met with Sunil- son of Shreeniwas who told him that his mother, maternal uncle Rajesh and Brij Bihari have killed his father i. e. Shreeniwas. It was further stated by Sunil that their mother thereafter went Alwar along with Brij Bihari. THEy were also accompanied with their mother. It was also alleged that his son Shreeniwas is missing since last more than two months and Smt. Primila is not giving satisfactory reply. THErefore, he believes that his son has been murdered by Smt. Primila, Rajesh and Brij Bihari. On the basis of this information, a case under Sections 302, 201, 120-B I. P. C. was registered and investigation commenced. During the investigation the police prepared a site plan and took the sample of blood and bones of Shreeniwas which was sent for examination. During investigation, it came on record that a skeleton of a man was recovered on 6. 5. 2000 and on the same, a case No. 27/2000 was registered under Section 174 Cr. P. C. THEreafter, other parts of the body were searched and recovered on 8. 5. 2000. THE postmortem was conducted. During investigation the Investigating Agency came in knowledge that Shreeniwas was living in the house situated at Narendra Nagar along with his wife Smt. Primila and two sons Sunil and Kamlesh. THE accused Brij Bihari was tenant in the house belonging to his father. THEre was illicit relationship in between Smt. Primila and Brij Bihari and due to it a quarrel and beating took place in between Brij Bihari and Shreeniwas. THE Investigating Agency also collected evidence that on 14. 4. 2000 the landlord of the deceased Shreeniwas was out of station and on that day at about 8 pm Shreeniwas came in his house. THEreafter, Rajesh and Brij Bihari reached at about 9 pm and met Primila. All the three went in the underground of the house and killed Shreeniwas by way of strangulation. THEy put the dead body of the deceased in the Gudari and took the same alongwith other articles of the house with them and vacated the house. THEy put the dead body in the vacant plot nearby their house.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants further argued that conviction on the basis of child eye-witness is not safe. He has referred cases of Subhash Chand vs. State of Rajasthan (15), Banwari Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (16), Chhagan Deme vs. The State of Gujarat (17), Ratan Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (18), State of M. P. vs. Gujra and Others (19), The State of Bihar vs. Kapil Singh (20), Caetano Piedade Fernandes and Another vs. Union Territory of Goa, Daman & Diu, Panaji Goa (21) and Bahadul vs. State of Orissa