SATIYA @ SATTU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a jail appeal by Satiya alias Sattu against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar dated 8.5.1995 by which he convicted the accused appellant under Sec. 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo one month s rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 2.9.1994 at about 2.10 p.m. Sohan Singh came to police station Vijaynagar and lodged report Ex.P/l wherein he mentioned that on 1.9.1994 at about 8.30 a.m. Satiya accused appellant came to him and told that his wife had expired and asked whether he should bury her. (Dead bodies are buried amongst Meghwal community). The Sohan Singh advised that her parents may be informed and she may be buried after her parents arrive. Thereafter Megh Singh and Balvir Singh went to the house of Satiya and found that his wife Smt. Mooli was lying dead. There was an injury mark on her neck and a towel was found tied on her neck and head. It was further stated in the FIR that Satiya and his wife had quarrelled in the night 2-3 days before and that after killing his wife Satiya had run away. The parents of Mst. Mooli had arrived and the dead body of Mooli was brought to Vijaynagar hospital. It was further stated in the FIR that Satiya was married to Mooli only 10-12 months before and that Satiya had strangulated her. The SHO of Police Station Vijay Nagar registered FIR No. 195/94 under Sec. 302 IPC. Investigation started during which site plan Ex.P/3 and panchayatnama of dead body Ex.P/4 were prepared. Piece of towel was seized vide Ex.P/5. Postmortem of Mooli was conducted by a board of doctors including PW.10 Dr. Devilal Bhakhar. After usual investigation, accused appellant was charge-sheeted before the Magistrate having jurisdiction who committed the case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated the accused appellant. Accused appellant, after hearing the charge, denied his indictment and claimed tiial. Thereupon proseuction examined as many as 10 witnesses in support of its case. Then accused appellant Satiya was examined under Sec. 313 CrPC. Defence of the accused appellant was that he was absent from his house on the fateful night and when he returned, he found that his wife was dead. He informed his in-laws and brought them. Accused appellant did not produce any defence witness. After hearing both the parties learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as stated above.

(3.) We have heard the learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of accused appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor at lenght. We have also gone through the entire record.