JUGAL KISHORE Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant Jugal Kishore challenging judgment and order dt. 8/7/1988 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar (for short 'the trial Court') whereby he has been convicted for offence under Secs. 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced under Sec. 302 IPC to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500.00, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment of 6 months and under Sec. 201 IPC to 2 years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500.00 in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months' additional rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) Facts of the case are that on 25/9/1985, a written report (Exhibit P-15) was lodged at Police Station Losal, District Sikar by Hanuman Prasad (P.W.12) mentioning therein that informant left his home in the morning for going to his shop. Later on, his younger brother, i.e. accused-appellant came to his shop and told him that his younger brother's wife had died due to burns. On the basis of this information, the police proceeded under Sec. 174 Cr.P.C. Panchayatnama (Exhibit P-1) was prepared. Site was inspected and site plan with description memo (Exhibit P-2) was prepared. Near the dead body, a steel Jug was recovered. Semi burnt clothes of the deceased, her bangles and hairs were also seized. A bag was also recovered. Kerosene stained scrapings along with sample scrapings of floor were recovered. Postmortem of dead body was got conducted. Thereafter the case was converted into that of murder and statements of witnesses were recorded. The appellant was arrested on 2/10/1985 vide arrest memo (Exhibit P-23). His injuries were got examined vide Injury Report (Exhibit P-13). Appellant gave an information regarding his pants which was entered into Exhibit P-25. Thereafter, the pants was recovered. After conclusion of investigation, challan was filed agaisnt the accused-appellant for offence under Sec. 302 and 201 IPC in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sikar, who subsequently committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Sikar. Thereafter, the case was made over to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar for trial. The trial Court framed charges against the accused-appellant for offence under Sec. 302 and 201 IPC, which he denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution to secure conviction of the accused-appellant produced 22 witnesses and got exhibited 31 documents. Thereafter, the accused-appellant was examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he pleaded innocence. The defence produced 4 witnesses and did not produce any document. The trial Court, upon conclusion of trial, vide judgment and order dt. 8/7/1988 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner indicated above. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) Mr. V. R. Bajwa, learned counsel for the accusedappellant argued that the accused-appellant has wrongly been convicted. There is no legal evidence on record to connect the appellant with the alleged murder of his own wife. The so-called circumstances, which have been read against the appellant, are not established on the basis of any legal evidence. The learned trial Court has drawn its conclusion merely on the basis of conjunctures and surmises. There is absolute lack of motive, which might have prompted the appellant to take the life of his own wife. On the contrary, relations between wife and husband were very cordial. The learned trial Court has erred in ignoring this significant aspect. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court that Smt. Kiran (wife of appellant) had been strangulated to death is solely based on conjectures, which cannot be sustained. There are many missing links in the prosecution story. Many links in the chain of circumstances have not been proved by prosecution. In the face of those missing links no inference or presumption can be drawn against the appellant. The recovery of pants on the basis of alleged information of appellant is not proved or record. Such recovery could not be read against the appellant. The injury on the leg of the appellant cannot be said to have been the result of burning. There is no cogent evidence available on record to hold conclusively that the impugned injury was caused by fire, much less, during any attempt on the part of appellant to burn his wife. The learned trial Court has discarded the statement of witnesses, who were examined in defence, in a casual manner. Nothing adverse has been brought on record which could shake the credibility of the defence witnesses. The learned trial Court has drawn an uncalled for inference against the appellant, namely, his alleged absconding after occurrence. There is an adequate explanation available on record on the point of his contemporaneous movement of appellant. The so-called circumstances, which have been read against the appellant are neither proved, nor they are conclusive in nature. The different memos prepared during investigation have not been proved by a lawful evidence. Even the investigating officer has not been produced in evidence. The learned trial Court has relied on these unproved memos and same has resulted in failure of justice.