RAJESHWARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 were tried before the Sessions Judge under Sections 302, 201 and 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code, on an allegation that at about midnight of 24.10.1992, the opposite party No. 4 took the deceased Prakash Rao from his house and thereafter he was murdered by Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 with a view to get the benefit of provident fund, gratuity and the policy amount covered by the Life Insurance Corporation of the deceased.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution was rejected by the lower Court on the ground that it did not succeed in establishing the motive, since it found on the materials produced before it that the amount covered by the Life Insurance Policies were, in fact, paid to PW 5 the wife of the deceased, Prakash Rao, even before the murder took place and that in some of the documents where Opposite Party No. 3 had been shown as nominee was also replaced by the name of his wife, Rajeshwari Devi (PW 5) even as early as on 20th February, 1984. Therefore, the trial Court rightly felt that the murder could not have been committed with a view to get the benefit of provident fund, gratuity and the amount clue from the Life Insurance Corporation. The trial Court also disbelieved the evidence of PWs 3 and 8, who stated in their evidence that they saw the deceased in the company of opposite party No. 4 on the night of the incident on the ground that they did not make such allegation when they were examined by the police and the statements were recorded under Sec.161, Cr PC and that the evidence of the two witnesses in Court could only be considered as an afterthought. Similarly the trial Court also found that the occurrence though, according to the prosecution, took place on the midnight of 24.10.1992, complaint to the police was given by his wife PW 5, Rajeshwari Devi, only on 12.12.1992 i.e. after two months and the explanation offered by PW 5 that since she was threatened by the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4, she did not give complaint, was found to be unsatisfactory.

(3.) THE above reasons given by the trial Court, in my view, are satisfactory and this Court finds no illegality. I am, therefore, of the view that there is no merit in the revision which is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.