SUBHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This jail appeal of accused appellant Subhan was preferred from jail as learned Sessions Judge, Balotra convicted him under Section 304 Part - II read with Sec. 34, I.P.C. and sentenced him to five year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo three months imprisonment. Now he is on bail and represented by counsel.

(2.) In short, the case of the prosecution is that one Ahmed submitted a written report to police station Chauthan on 28-2-80 that Mst. Rani wife of Subhan hung herself on 27-2-80 in the evening and thereby committed suicide. This fact was told to him by Teja son of Deenu at 5 a.m. on 28-2-80. Police registered a case and started inquest. On 3-3-80 Jumma gave a written report that it were Subhan and Smt. Chandi who murdered Mst. Rani by strangulating her. The reason was that Subhan and Smt. Chandi were having illicit relations and they wanted to remove Rani from their way. Case No. 11 was registered at the police station Chauthan. Investigating Officer Gurubaksh Singh had reached in the dhani of accused Subhan on 28-2-80 when inquest was being made, and had found dead body of Mst. Rani. It was also found that there were impressions of fingers on both the sides of neck of Mst. Rani and that there was no basis to believe that Rani had committed suicide by hanging herself. It revealed during the investigation that Rani had illicit relations with one Chinia. The postmortem of dead body of Mst. Rani was conducted by Dr. N.T. Hirani and after investigation accused appellant alongwith certain other co-accused persons was challaned before the competent magistrate who committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge. Balotra. Learned Sessions Judge framed and read over charge under Sec. 302/43 to accused appellant Subhan who denied his indictment and claimed trial. Charge of Sec. 302/34 was also read over and explained to Smt. Chandi who denied her indictment and claimed trial. Other co-accused persons Ahmed (informant) Jamma, Tajia were also tried for offences under Sections 176, 203, I.P.C. Prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses. Appellant was examined under Sec. 313, Cr. P.C. DW-1 Chokha was produced in defence. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing both the parties acquitted all the co-accused persons but convicted the accused appellant under Section 304 Part-II, I.P.C. and sentneced him as stated above.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the accused appellant as well as learned Public prosecutor at length and have also gone through the entire evidence on record.