MUKAND SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment dated 31.7.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kotputali, District Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has convicted the appellant, Mukand Singh, for offences under Sections 302, 201 IPC, the appellant has approached this court. By the said judgment, for offence under Section 302 IPC, Mukand Singh has been sentenced to life imprisonment, imposed with a fine of Rs.1000/ -, and directed to further undergo a sentence of six months of rigorous imprisonment in default thereof. For offence under Section 201 IPC, he has been sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment, imposed with a fine of Rs.2000/ -, and further directed to undergo one month of rigorous imprisonment in default thereof. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that the SHO, Police Station Pragpura recorded a Parcha Bayan (Ex.P.5) of Smt. Rajesh Kanwar. In her Parcha Bayan (Ex.P.5), she claimed that "Her elder sister, Pushpa, and she were married seventeen years ago to two brothers, namely Mukand and Gopal respectively. My in -laws are alive, but my husband died about eleven months ago. After my husband's death, generally I stay with my sister, Pushpa. My in -laws' family used to doubt my and my sister's character. On 24.3.2004 when I went to my sister's house, my brother -in -law told me not to stay there for the night. Therefore, I left his house. On 25.3.2004 in the evening I went to meet my sister. I found both of them living happily. Although I wanted to stay back for the night, but my brother -in -law did not permit me to do so. Therefore, I came back home. On 26.3.2004, I went to my brother -in -law's house. But I did not find my elder sister, Pushpa. My brother -in -law was making tea by himself. When I asked my brother -in -law about of my sister's whereabouts, he told me that my sister has gone to Bal Singh's house in order to return money. But my sister did not come back till the evening. I inquired about her whereabouts over the phone from my relatives. On 28.3.2004, I and Dashrath Singh went to my brother -in -law's house. I again inquired about my elder sister. My brother -in -law told me that she had eloped. He also told me that she had taken two petticoats and a sari with her. I and Dashrath Singh searched her clothes. Amongst the clothes, one petticoat, one blouse and one shawl were missing; otherwise, all other clothes were still there. I and Dashrath Singh slept that night at my brother -in -law's house. I told my brother -in -law that tomorrow we must inform the police about my sister going amiss. In the morning I got up and made tea. I took the tea to my brother -in -law. When I lifted the Rajai, I found my brother -in -law, Mukand, missing from the house. I do not know when he left the house at night. I kept on looking for my sister and brother -in -law. Yesterday, I called my relatives, my father, my uncle and my elder uncle (Tau) from Googal, Kota and told them about everything. Today, I and my relatives from my paternal side noticed that in the field there were two pits which were dug -up. The pit towards the village must have been dug -up three or four days ago as its soil was loose and there were some foul smell emanating from the same. My brother -in -law, Mukand Singh S/o. Amar Singh, by caste Rajpoot, r/o. Village Panditpura has killed my sister and in order to destroy the evidence, has buried her in the pit. Others may have also helped Mukand Singh in committing this crime. My brother -in -law has not come back to the village since 28.3.2004".

(3.) ON the basis of this Parcha Bayan, a formal FIR (Ex.P.30) was chalked out for offences under Sections 302, 201 IPC and investigation was initiated. Subsequently, on 4.4.2004 by Ex. P. 23, Mukand Singh was arrested and put up for trial. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined twenty -four witnesses, and submitted thirty -three documents. Although the defense did not examine any witness, they did submit two documents. After going through the evidence, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this court.