DIGPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHOCKING facts of this case remind us the famous saying "to be born a woman is to be born at risk; On February 19, 1998 Laxmi Kanwar, a Rajput house wife, was subjected to indecent assault by her near relatives. Lathi was inserted into her anus and she was burnt alive. She was admitted to the hospital where she died on March 1, 1998. Digpal Singh and Pawan Singh, the appellants herein, along with Ummed Kanwar @ Gajraj Kanwar and Suraj Kanwar, were charged for having committed murder of Laxmi Kanwar before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Ajmer, who vide judgment dated August 19, 2002, while acquitting co-accused Ummed Kanwar @ Gajraj Kanwar and Suraj Kanwar, convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- U/s. 302 IPC: Each to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment. U/s. 452 IPC: Each to suffer imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated that prosecution case as it turns out from the evidence on record, is that while Brahma Ram, ASI was on duty at Police Station Manglia was February 19, 1998 two children viz. Vijay Singh and Rinku Kanwar came to the police station at 10. 15 AM and informed him that their mother had been belaboured by Pawan Singh and Digpal Singh. After entering the said information in Rojnamcha, Brahma Ram, ASI, rushed to village Jethana and recorded parcha bayan (Ex. P. 18) of Smt. Laxmi Kanwar (since deceased), wherein she stated that she was resident of village Jethana and her native village was Mahu in District Sikar. Her husband was working in Railways. She had two daughters and one son. Pawan Singh and Digpal Singh @ Lala Bana sons of her father- in-law's elder brother Ganpat Singh were pestering her for last couple of days. At 9. 30 AM while she was cooking food in the kitchen both of them entered in her house and dragged her inside a room, where Digpal Singh poured kerosene on her and Pawan after exhorting that she should be burnt to death ignited match stick and put her on fire with an intention to kill her. She raised hue and cry on account of which her son, daughter and other villagers came and extinguished the fire. On that parcha bayan a case under sections 307, 452 and 341 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation Laxmi Kanwar died on March 1, 1998 and section 302 IPC was added. Dead body was subjected to post mortem, statements of witnesses were recorded, the accused was arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Ajmer. Charges under Sections 302, 452 alternatively 302/34 IPC were framed. The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 16 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellants claimed innocence and stated that the deceased suffered a bad reputation therefore she was disowned by the family and local society. Their family enjoyed sound reputation in the society, therefore they have been falsely implicated in the case. One witness in defence was examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above.

(3.) MR. S. R. Bajwa, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants pointed out following infirmities in the prosecution case:- (i) In the Parcha Bayan Laxmi Kanwar stated that she was belaboured by the appellants but no injury was found on her person. (ii) Sh. Sohan Lal Sharma, learned Magistrate, who recorded the statement of Laxmi Kanwar, deposed that her hands were badily burnt therefore she could not put her thumb impression whereas in the Parcha Bayan (Ex. P. 18) recorded by Brahma Ram, ASI thumb impression allegedly put by Laxmi Kanwar can be seen. (iii) Dr. O. P. Panchori who had put endorsement about fit mental state of Laxmi Kanwar, was not examined. (iv) The contemporaneous conduct of the children of deceased at the time of impugned incident negates the manner in which the incident is shown to have been taken place by the prosecution. (v) Laxmi Kanwar died after about eleven days of the incident because of septicemia shock which could not be attributed to burns sustained by her. It could be caused due to infection developed in the hospital during her treatment.