DHANNI DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment dated September 24, 2002 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sikar whereby the appellants, four in number, were convicted and sentenced as under:- Dhanni Devi, Mohini Devi, Raju @ Rajendra and Mohan Lal: U/s. 302/149 IPC: Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment. U/s. 148 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment. U/s. 452 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer two months simple imprisonment. U/s. 201 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment. Appellants Dhanni Devi, Mohini Devi and Raju @ Rajendra were also convicted and sentenced under section 323/149 IPC whereas Mohan Lal was convicted under section 323 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer fifteen days imprisonment. All sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case as unfolded during trial is that on January 11, 2001 Police Station Sadar Fatehpur received a telephonic message that one Mohan Lal pushed a lady into the well. Kanhaiya Lal, ASI (Pw. 20) along with police party thereafter rushed to the place of incident where informant Bajrang Lal (Pw. 1) gave him a written report wherein it was stated that on the said day around 9 AM while he was away from his house carrying buffaloes out side of his field, he heard hue and cry towards his house. He then saw Ram Kumar, Mohan Lal, Ranjeet, Raju, Mohini Devi and Dhanni Devi lifting his wife and they were about to drop her into the well. She appeared to have been killed by them. When the informant prevented them from pushing her into the well, Mohan Lal inflicted Barchhi blow on his head as a result of which he became unconscious. On regaining consciousness he raised alarm. THE assailants killed his wife on account of property dispute. On that report case was registered and investigation commenced. After usual investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sikar. Charges under sections 147, 148, 323, 452, 201 and 302/149 IPC were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. THE prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 21 witnesses. In the explanation under section 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellants claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above.

(3.) DURING the course of arguments we asked learned counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor to explain certain improbabilities noticed by us in the prosecution story. Following questions were put to learned counsel - (i) Why Mohanlal who had land dispute with his brother Bajranglal, killed Bajrang Lal's innocent wife Chhoti and spared Bajrang Lal? (ii) Why the dead body of Chhoti was found stark naked? Under what circumstances she was undressed and who did this act of shame? (iii) When assault was made on Chhoti in the house and she was nearly dead why she was lifted and taken to the well which was fifty yards away from the house? (iv) Why Shri Ram and Sanwra were not examined?