SATTAR KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2. 11. 87, passed by the Sessions Judge, Pali, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 I. P. C. and sentenced his to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. and two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo fifteen days' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 201 I. P. C.

(2.) APPELLANT Sattar Khan, alongwith his father Hakim, was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali, for the offences under Section 302 and 201 I. P. C. The case of the prosecution is that on 14. 4. 84, appellant Sattar Khan, in the company of his father Hakim Khan, committed the murder of his wife Smt. Kamla and daughter Sahida by throttling them. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined sixteen witnesses. The accused, in defence, examined two witnesses. The case of the accused, as put in the defence, was that both the accused were not inside the house when the incident took place and Smt. Kamla committed suicide by burning herself as well as her daughter Sahida. The learned Sessions Judge did not place reliance over the defence version and accepted the prosecution case and by the judgment dated 2. 11. 87, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, as stated above. It is against this judgment that the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) THE next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution and believed by the learned trial Court giving beating by the accused to Mst. Kamla with the Bhoongli (a hollow iron-pipe) on 14. 4. 84 at about 10. 00 a. m. THE prosecution, to prove this circumstance, has produced PW 3 Alladdin. PW 3 Alladdin has stated that one day, in the month of Chetra, he heard the cries of "kute RE KUTE RE". THE cries were raised by Smt. Kamla and her mother-in-law and they were seeking help to be rescued. He went to the house of the accused and saw that the accused was giving beatings to Mst. Kamla. He rescued her. According to him, the accused was beating his wife with the Bhoongli. In the evening, at about 4. 00 to 5. 00 p. m. , he was informed that fire took place at the house of the accused. Hajim and Bhoor Khan were, also, sitting at that time by his side. He remained sitting there but Hajim and Bhoor Khan left his house. According to him, he cannot say how Smt. Kamla and her daughter died, as he was not present at the scene of the occurrence. In the cross-examination he has stated that he never informed the police regarding this incident. He, also, admitted that he had no relations with them. He went there merely on hearing the cries of the deceased and her mother-in-law for rescuing and when he reached there he saw the accused giving beatings to Mst. Kamla by Bhoongli on her chest and thigh. He did not try to take away the Bhoongli from the accused. When this witness was confronted with has earlier statement made by him before the police and asked why this fact has not been mentioned in his statement EX. D. 8, he stated that he narrated so to the police but why it has not been mentioned, he cannot say. When he was confronted with his statement EX. D. 8 (portion A to B) that he heard the voice of Rashul Khan at that time Hajim was sitting by his side, who after hearing the voice of Rashul Khan went away and he, also, heard the voice of Sattar Khan regarding the fire, he stated that he stated so to the Poilice he heard the voice of Rashul Khan and not that of Sattar Khan but why it has not been mentioned in his earlier statement, he cannot say. THE fact of giving beating by the accused to his wife was not disclosed by this witness in his earlier statement and when confronted, he- stated that he said so to the police but why it is not mentioned in his earlier statement, he cannot say. He has, also, stated during the investigation that Sattar Khan was, also, raising alarm that the fire had taken place but he denied to have made such statement before the Court. This witness has tried to make improvement from his earlier statement and tried to give such statement which is suited to the prosecution and which is in accordance with the prosecution story. No other witness of the locality has been produced to prove this circumstance. During the post-mortem examination, no injury was found on the person of deceased Mst; Kamla on her thigh or chest by PW 7 Dr. Anand Prakash. Even otherwise, this circumstance" itself is of no assistance to the prosecution because no conviction can be based on this solitary statement even if it is believed to be true.