SUKHA AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Bharatpur passed on Oct. 18, 1982, in Sessions Case No. 10 of 1981 whereby he convicted the accused-appellant Sukha under sections 302 Penal Code and 201 Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 500.00. In default of payment of fine to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment respectively. The learned Judge convicted the accused-appellant Badri Prasad for offence under section 411 Penal Code and sentenced him to one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100.00, in default of payment of fine he was further made to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) The prosecution story started with lodging of the written report Ex. P. 1 lodged by Sampat Ram, PW. 1 resident of Bharatpur wherein it was alleged by him that his TAI (elder uncles wife) Mst. Badami wife of Mularam aged 78 years was staying with him since last two years in Mohalla Kodiyan, Bharatpur. On March 23, 1980 one Sukha son of Puran Jat resident of Salimpur Khurd, police station, Bhusawar came to his house at Bharatpur and told him that his mother is sick and Bua (Badami) be sent with him to his village. Since parental heme of Mst. Badami was in Sulimpur and there were family relations between Sukha's family and that parental family of Sukha he agreed to send her with him. About 4 or 5 days prior to lodging this report which was lodged on July 24, 1980, he went to village Salimpur to bring his Tai and when he reached the house of Sukha he learnt that Sukha had taken Mst. Badami long back but he has not returned so far on which he suspected some foul play and enquired from various persons including Ram Swaroop Sarpanch, Biri Singh and brother etc. who had told that they had never seen Tai in their village. They also informed that Sukha is a notorious person. It was further mentioned in the report that when his Tai had gone she had the following ornaments with her:

(3.) All these ornaments were valued roughly at Rs. 40,000.00. He, therefore, reported that he had a firm belief that his Tai has been murdered for the ornaments she possessed. It was further mentioned that the accused had hidden the ornaments belonging to his Tai illegally at some place. This report was produced by Sampat Ram before Addl. Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur who marked it to the Station House Officer, police station Bharatpur who in turn registered a case under section 368 Penal Code and started investigation. On Aug. 8, 1980 accused was arrested on the crossing of village Hingota and his arrest memo Ex P.30 was prepared. The investigating officer recorded the statement of Radhey Shyam under section 161 Crimial P.C. and altered the case into one under section 368, 364 and 302 IPC. He thereafter arrested the accused and on the same day the accused furnished him an information Ex. P. 31 that he has buried the dead-body of Badami near the Bangana river at a place where there is a funeral ground. Thereupon the investigating officer, Kailash Chand, PW.27 went to Banganga river and started digging at the place shown by the accused regarding which information Ex P.30 was recorded but could not find out any such dead-body. Thereafter on Aug. 17, 1980, i.e., 9 days after the earlier information the accused furnished another information that he has buried the dead-body of Mst. Badami on Pokharghat behind Hanumanji temple under a Peepal tree which he can get recovered. The accused was then taken to that place and in the presence of two motbirs, namely, Maharaj Singh PW. 16 and Shiv Dayal PW.15 the skeleton of the human being was executed. A memo in this respect was prepared which is Ex.P.20. It is mentioned in Ex.P 20 that there were nothing except bones and few pieces of bangles and a small piece of yellow cloth with back border. A site plan of the place was prepared which is Ex P.19. Vide Ex.P. 18 the bones were also collected and sealed. Earlier on Aug. 14, 1980 the accused had given an information regarding some ornaments which is Ex.P.33. In this information he has stated that the silver ornaments of Mst. Badami have been buried by him in his house which he can get recovered. In pursuance of this, information from the residence of accused in presence of two motbirs Fateh Sm and Ram some ornaments were recovered vide Ex.P. 4. The accused have yet another information on the same evening, that is, on Aug. 14, 1980 that some clothes of Mst Badami have been kept by him in a bag at his residence which were recovered vide memo Ex.P 24. The third information Ex.P.35 was given by the accused on Aug. 17, 1980 that some gold ornaments belonging to Mst. Badami have been sold by him to Badri Vais (Sarraf) of Mahuwa which he can get recovered. When Sukha accused was taken to the shop of Badri Lal two motbirs, namely, Girdhari and Ramjilal were called and Sukha informed that he has sold 7 articles for Rs 13,000.00 to Badri. Badri admitted this fact, brought out the ornaments from a safe and the same were recovered vide Ex.P 5. Thereupon Badri was also arrested vide Ex P.28. On Aug. 22, 1980 one more information was given by the accused Sukha which is Ex P 36 vide which he informed that one golden chain and one Tabeej have been hidden by him under the staircase of his house which he can get recovered. These articles too, it is alleged, were recovered vide Ex.P. 16. Thereafter the investigating officer recorded the statement of some more witnesses and ultimately submitted a charge-sheet in the court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Weir against accused Sukha for offence under section 302 and 201 Penal Code and against accused Badri for offence under section 411 IPC. Both the accused were committed to Sessions for trial and the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur transferred the case to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Bharatpur where charges for offence under section 302 and 201 were read over to the accused Sukha who denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Similarly accused Badri was charged for offence under section 411 Penal Code who too denied the charge and claimed to be tried.