RATIRAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused-appellant has been convicted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No Sriganganagar camp Karanpur under Sec. 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days R.I. He has come in appeal to this court we have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the entire record.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in short, is that one Mangalaram gave statement to police on 7.5.90 at 6.30 pm to the effect that his daughter Vidhyadevi was married to the appellant 11 years ago. At the timeofmarrigare accused- appellant was living in village 8 A. After some time the husband and wife started living in village 8 EEA where husband worked as labourer. Accused-appellant used to beat and harass his wife. Panchayats were held many a time and even compromise was arrived at. For the last one year accused appellant was working as an agricultural labourer with Manjeetsingh of village 41 RB. Vidhyadevi was also living with the accused-appellant. Accused-appellant used to mal-treat even in this village. On 7.5.95 Manglaram received an information that the accused-appellant had murdered his wife Vidhya devi by strangulation. On this information Manglaram and his son Devilal reached to village 41 RB. They found that the police was already present there. He (Manglaram) enquired from the villagers and was informed that it was the ac. used-appellant who murdered Vidhyadevi at 3.30 pm. Statement of Manglaram Ex. PW. 6 was recorded by ASI Shiv Karan and was sent to police station Padampur where a case under Sec. 302 IPC was registered. After usual investigation, challan was presented against the accused-appellant and he was tried and sentenced by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 1, Sriganganagar camp Shri Karanpur for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC as stated above.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no evidence against the appellant by which it may be concluded that it was he who committed the murder. He submitted that the accused-appellant has been convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence but the evidence of the prosecution is unreliable, he therefore, prayed that the appellant should be acquitted. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that circumstances against the accused-appellant are such in which a conclusion to be drawn is that it is he who has murdered his wife. He tried to support the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. It is Dr. Harbans Khanna PW. 5 who has been examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove the post-mortem report Ex. P-15. According to him the following injuries were found on the body of Mst. Vidhyadevi which were ante-mortem in nature: