KAPOOR CHAND @ KAPOORA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by accused-appellant Kapoor Chand @ Kapoora Ram against the judgment dated 27.11.2004 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge(Fast Track) No.1 Sirohi, camp Abu Road in Sessions case No. 67/2004, titled as the State of Rajasthan vs. Kapoor Chand @ Kapoora Ram, whereby the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced as follows:-

(2.) The trial judge has found the accused-appellant guilty of causing murder of his wife by strangulating her and thenafter burning the dead body of his wife so as to cause disappearance of evidence of murder. The accused-appellant had taken the defence that his wife Mst. Shakuntala was suffering from mental disorder and because of that mental disorder, she had committed suicide by burning herself and when he tried to save his wife from burning, he himself got some burn injuries on his body.

(3.) In his appeal, the appellant has argued that the judgment of the trial judge is totally against the facts as well against law. He has argued that the trial judge has not scrutinized the prosecution evidence in the true perspective. He has not taken into account the checks and counter checks that were available on record. The case hinges upon circumstantial evidence and the circumstantial evidence has not been properly evaluated by the trial judge. It has further been argued by the accused-appellant that the circumstances on which the trial judge had relied to convict him, do not form a complete chain to base the conviction. It has further been argued that there were no symptoms of strangulation and there were no external injuries and so in absence of any injury of larynx, trachea and thyroid bone, it cannot be said that the death was by strangulation. It has also been argued by the accused-appellant that the injuries on the fronto-parietal region including haemotoma was found on the body of deceased which rules out the case of strangulation because these injuries were not explained by the prosecution. It has also been argued by accused-appellant that if two doctors have been examined, then the statement of the doctor which favours the accused, should be accepted. It has also been argued by him that the notes prepared at the time of the post-mortem prior to the preparation of the post-mortem report should have been exhibited in evidence and in their absence, post-mortem report should not be read in evidence. It has also been argued that the story of extra-judicial confession of accused-appellant, allegedly made before Shanker Lal(PW-1), is not correct. It has also been argued by the accused-appellant that no motive has been alleged against him to cause murder and further the absence of FSL report also weakens the prosecution story. A case of pure suicide has been converted into a case of murder and so it has been argued by him that he should be acquitted.