BIHARI DAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED Biharidan was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur by his judgment dated November 11, 1976. The accused has come -up in appeal and challenges his conviction.

(2.) THE prosecution case is short and simple and may, briefly, be summarised as under:PW6 Smt. Ucchabkanwar is the daughter of the accused and the wife of PW 2 Fatehdan. The appellant has one more daughter Smt. Bhanwari Devi (Co -accused, acquitted by the trial court), who was married to Khetdan. The appellant had a son Devidan. PW 2 Fatehdan had a sister Sagar Kanwar, who was married to Devidan. A couple of months before October, 1975, Devidan passed away. The appellant's wife Smt. Chandra (also co -accused and acquitted by the trial court) took Sagar Kanwar to an unfortunate person and held her ill -luck as responsible for the death of Devidan. The relations between Smt. Chandra and Sagar Kanwar became strained and despite that Sagar Kanwar continued to live in the family of the appellants in village Tameriya Khurd P.S. Pipar City District Jodhpur. Ucchab Kanwar PW 6 came to her parent's house in Tamariya Khurd before Deepawali Samvat Year 2028 to have her first delivery there as is the custom prevalent in this part of the State.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 302 and 201, IPC against the appellant Biharidan, under Section 302/34, IPC against Smt. Chandra Devi and Smt. Bhanwari Devi and under Section 201, IPC against Jeevrajdan, Jetdan and Prabhudan. They all pleaded not guilty and faced the ttial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses and filed some documents. In defence the accused examined six witnesses. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge found no incriminating material against accused (1) Smt. Chandra Devi; (2) Smt. Bhanwari Devi; (3) Jeevraj Dan; (4) Jetdan; and (5) Prabhudan to connect them with the murder of Sagar Kanwar or her cremation. These live accused persons were, therefore, acquitted. The learned Sessions Judge also found no incriminating material for offence under Section 201, IPC against the appellant Biharidan. The charge under Section 302, IPC was, however, found duly established against him. Accused Biharidan was, therefore, convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced as mentioned at the very out -set. Aggrieved against his conviction, the accused has taken this appeal.