UDIYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Udiya stands convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara under S. 302, IPC. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default one month R.I.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Shambhu was wife of accused Udiya. Accused Udiya used to ill-treat his wife and it is on 24th of May, 1979 that he took away his wife from the house of her parents beating by lathies and thereafter next day i.e. on 25th of May, 1979 Shambhu was found lying dead in his house. The FIR was lodged by Geba, P.W. 2 who is uncle of the deceased. On this report under S. 302, IPC. was registered. The post-mortem examination was done by Dr. B. S. Rathore, P.W. 10 and he prepared Ex. P-8 stating therein that there was abrasion 5 cm x 1 cm lateral end of right clavicle and that there was dislocation of third cervical vertebra cm both shoulder joints. The Doctor opined that Shambhu died of shock and asphyxia as a result of strangulation and other injuries inflicted on her body. The Police interrogated the witnesses and arrested the accused. After completion of usual investigation challan was submitted. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 Jayram, P.W. 2 Geba, P.W. 3 Kanku, P.W. 4 Manilal, P.W. 5 Bhehra, P.W. 6 Devilal, P.W. 7 Kereng, P.W. 8 Shanker, P.W. 9 Ganesh Dan, and P.W. l0 Dr. B. S. Rathore. Accused in his statement under S. 313, Cr. P.C: stated that his wife is dead but the witnesses have given false statement against him. He led no evidence in defence. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties held that the death of Shambhu was homicidal and that it was the accused who had caused the murder of Shambhu. The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the extra judicial confession said to have been made by the accused but believed the statements of the witnesses that she was beaten by the accused in the evening of 24th of May and also in the night intervening 24th and 25th of May, 1979.

(3.) We have heard arguments of Mr. Soni, learned counsel for the appellant. and Mr. Bohra, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent and have gone through the record of the case.