BANSILAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused appellant as been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Sikar for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and a time of Rs. 5000/-; in default of payment of fine he has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Against this conviction and sentence passed on 31st March, 1984 the appellant has preferred this jail appeal.

(2.) There are two dead persons in this case-one is Mst. Anchi wife of the appellant and the other is his baby girl aged about Ii year. The case is one of circumstantial evidence as there is no eye-witness about the incident.

(3.) Near the outer signal of Laxmangarh (district Sitar) Railway Station there is field of Mahaveer Prasad. On 9th August, 1983 Girdhari (P.W. 1) was working in the field of Mahaveer on daily wages when he had a glance of some clothes in the field, when he proceeded in that direction he found that one woman and one child were lying and then were injuries en them which were bleeding. Ramesh and Mahaveer also came there and thereafter Girdhari (P.W. 1) lodged report (Ex P.1) at Police Station. Laxmangarh. A case was registered on the basis of this report and the S.H.O. proceeded to the site, prepared inquest memos of both the dead bodies and also prepared a site plan (Ex. P.3) showing the place where the body was found and where there were foot steps. The dead woman was wearing a green blouse, blue Ghaghra and a Bandhej Chunni which had been spread on the ground where both the bodies were lying. The baby girl was wearing only a Baniyan. There were two Tabiz in the neck of dead body of Mst. Anchi, and also a key in the black thread. .Besides this, she had a sum of Rs. 3.25 in loose change wrapped in a small piece of cloth, Post mortem was conducted on both the bodies by Dr. Richpal Singh (P.W. 16) and Dr B.P. Joshi who gave the opinion that in both cases the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage from the wounds. Both the bodies were not identified at that time. The appellant Bansilal went to village Rosani to the house of the father of Mst. Anchi on 10th August, 1986 and left his elder daughter there. At the same time he also told that his wife has left their village Sankhu for coming to him (accused) but she had gone away somewhere and he would go to search for her. This was on the morning of 10th August, 1983. He returned in the evening and he told that he could not find Anchi. Noonaram (P.W. 4) wanted to go along with him but the accused said that he would come in the morning but he did not return on the next morning. Thereafter Noonaram and Nagar went to village Sankhu to find out the where about of Mst. Anchi and where they were told by one Nahruji that the dead body of a woman and a girl had been found near Laxmangarh and that they should go to have a look at the photographs. Thereupon, Noonaram went to Laxmangarh Police Station along with Phusaram and had a look at the photographs and identified the same as of Anchi and her daughter. Noonaram (P. W. 4) is cousin a brother of Mst. Anchi. He also identified the clothes of deceased, Anchi. The accused Bansi was arrested on 13th August, 1983. The other evidence against the accused is that Laduram (P.W. 15) saw him along with Anchi and their daughter in the Ganga Nagar Express train between Sikar and Laxmangarh According to him, they were all sitting in one compartment and at that time the accused had a Barchi in his hand. In casual conversation he gave out that he was coming from Navalgarh and was going to Alakpura. All of them got down at Laxmangarh railway station. At the time, the accused had also given out that his name was Bansi Lal. From the railway station this witness went by road while accused, his wife and daughter went towards southern side, Sanwarmal (P.W. 19) saw the accused, on 8th August, 1983 at about 11.00 p.m. he was going from Laxmangarh to his village Bairas alongwith Parsaram (P.W. 7). There they saw the accused coming out with a woman and child from the railway station and the accused informed him that he was a resident of Sankhu and was going to Alakhpura to meet his relations. In the light of the torch he looked at the person who gave out his name as Bansi. Thereafter, this witness turned hostile and did not admit that the appellant was the same person. However, Parsaram (P.W. 7) has identified the accused as the same person. Pavankumar (P.W. 6) is a student and according to him he know the accused as well as his wife and four months prior to the time when he gave his statement, he was going by bus and Bansi's wife was travelling by the same bus in order to go to Navalgarh. Bansi met his wife at Navalgarh bus stand. It may be mentioned that Bansi accused used to work at Navalgarh and the evidence of the witnesses who had last seen them show that the wife of the accused travelled from Sankhu to Navalgarh in a bus and thereafter they somehow went to Sikar and from Sikar to Laxmangarh they traveled by Ganganagar Express and they got down from it at Luxmangarh Railway Station. The other evidence against the accused is the extra judicial confession made by them in the presence of Phoolchand (P.W. 5) and Matadin (P.W. 12). It may be stated here that Bansilal appellant worked as cook in one of the hostels in Navalgarh and these two persons are student. Phoolchand resided in the hostel while Matadin earlier resided in the hostel but 8 or 10 months before the incident he had shifted to a private house. The version of these witnesses is that they were returning to the hostel and the accused was also with them and when they reached the hostel, Madanlal (another student, D.W. 1) told the appellant that his uncle Sohan had come and was saying that the appellant had called for his wife but she had not reached the village and the accused should inform as to where she was. Upon this, Bansi sat down and said that he had done injustice as he had killed his wife and child. These two persons questioned as to why he had killed them then the appellant said that his wife did not obey his wishes and that she used to go away to her parents house for six months. The appellant also said that either he would go to the police or go to the Chambal valley. Phoolchand (P.W. 5) has also said that some eight days prior to this he had seen the accused at the house of Matadin and at that time he had a small Barchi in his hand. Madanlal (D.W. 1) has been examined by the accused in order to deny the conversation and confession as given out by Phoolchand (P.W. 5) and Matadin (P.W. 12) but he has not been believed by the learned Sessions Judge. The other set of evidence against the accused is recovery of a blood stained Baniyan which he was wearing at the time of arrest, a blood stained pant from his house of village Sankhu, blood stained Barchi from some brushes near the field where the dead body was found and his old shoes as well as the Chappals of Anchi which were found In the field on the basis of information given by him. On examination by the chemical examiner, the clothes of the deceased, the clothes of the accused, Tabez and Barchi were found to be stained with human blood.