PRITHVIRAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant against the judgment and order dated 17- 1-2001 passed by the learned Special Addl. Sessions Judge (Woman Atrocities), Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 93/98 by which he convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for two months.

(2.) It arises in the following circumstances: On 8-10-1998 at about 10.30 a.m., PW- 5 Premraj gave a parcha bayan Ex. P/5 before PW-14 Khinv Singh Bhati, SHO, Police Station, Sadulsahar, District Sri Ganganagar stating inter alia that his sister Radha Devi aged about 30 years (hereinafter referred to as deceased No. 1) was married with the accused-appellant about 12-13 years back and because of that wedlock, deceased No. 1 had three children; one boy Naresh, aged about 11 years, another boy Vinod aged about 6 years and daughter Mamta aged about 9 years (hereinafter referred to as the deceased No. 2). It was further stated in the parchya bayan Ex. P/5 by PW-5 Premraj that his sister deceased No. 1 and the accused- appellant used to live with parents PW-1 Balram and PW-2 Kalawati, who are respectively father and mother of the accused-appellant and with PW-3 Daluram, brother of the accused-appellant. It was further stated in the parcha bayan Ex. P/5 by PW-5 Premraj that the accused-appellant wanted to separate from his parents, but the deceased No. 1 pressed upon the accused-apellant to live with them and therefore, because of that, relations were not cordial between them. It was further stated in the parcha bayan Ex. P/5 by PW-5 Premraj that on last Thursday. PW-3 Daluram, brother of the accsued-appellant, came to him and asked him that he had been called by PW-1 Balram, father of the accused-appellant and upon this, he went to the house of in-laws' of his sister deceased No. 1 on Friday and he asked his sister deceased No. 1 why he had been called and upon this, his sister deceased No. 1 told him that family members would tell him and then he asked from PW-1 Balram, father of the accused-appellant and PW-1 Balram told him that the accused-appellant wanted to live separately and upon this, he asked PW-1 Balram what was the intention of the deceased No. 1 and PW-1 Balram told him that initially deceased No. 1 did not want separation, now, she had another thought in her mind and when talks were going on between him and PW-1 Balram, the accused-appellant came there and the accused-appellant talked with his father PW-1 Balram and thereafter, PW-1 Balram told him that the accused-appellant had agreed not to separate. Thereafter, he talked with PW-3 Daluram and stayed there for that night and on the next day in the morning, he came back to his village. It was further stated in the parcha bayan Ex. P/5 by PW-5 Premraj that today (8-10-1998) at about 5.00 a.m. in the morning, Dharmaram, uncle of the accused-appellant and Manphool (PW-13) came to him and told him that his sister deceased No. 1 and niece deceased No. 2 had been murdered by the accused-appellant and upon this, he along with Hariram, Munshiram and Fataram (PW-12) went to the village where his sister deceased No. 1 was living and reached there at about 8-8.30 a.m. and he found the dead body of his sister deceased No. 1 lying on cot and she was having so many injuries on her neck, face, head etc. and on another cot, dead body of his niece deceased No. 2 was lying and there were injuries on her neck. It was further stated in the parcha bayan Ex. P/5 that both the deceased was murdered by the accused-appellant. On this parcha bayan Ex. P/5, PW-14 Khinv Singh Bhati SHO registered the case No. 273/98 for the offence under Section 302, IPC and chalked out regular FIR Ex. P/6 and started investigation. During investigation, PW-14 Khinv Singh Bhati, SHO prepared the site plan Ex. P/7 and site description memo Ex. P/7A. The panchanama of both deceased No. 1 and No. 2 were got prepared and they are respectively Ex. P/9 and Ex. P/l 1. From the site, simple soil as well as blood smeared soil were also seized through fard Ex. P/l2 and Ex. P/13 respectively in respect of deceased No. 1. From the site, simple soil as well as blood smeared soil were also seized pertaining to deceased No. 2 through fard Ex. P/l4 and Ex. P/l5 respectively. The bushirt (article 5), which was being worn by the deceased No. 2 was seized through fard Ex. P/16 and similarly, the jampher (article 4), which was being worn by the deceased No. 1 was seized through fard Ex. P/17 and both the clothes i.e. bushirt (article 5) and jampher (article 4) were stained with blood. The further case of the prosecution is that on 8-10-1998 at about 6.45 p.m., PW-14 Khinv Singh Bhati arrested the accused- appellant through arrest memo Ex. P/22 in presence of PW-8 Pradu Singh and PW-7 Sarjeet Singh and at that time, the accused- appellant was wearing Kamij and pajama and they were stained with blood and both the clothes Kamij (article 2) and pajama (article 3) were seized by PW-14 Khinv Singh Bhati through fard Ex. P/23 in presence of PW-7 Sarjeet Singh and PW-8 Pradu Singh. The further case of the prosecution is that on the same day i.e. on 8-10-1998 postmortem of the dead body of both the deceased was got conducted through PW-10 Dr. Deepak Moga and the post-mortem report of deceased No. 1 is Ex. P/26 and the post-mortem report of deceased No. 2 is Ex. P/27. The further case of the prosecution is that on 12-10-1998, the accused-appellant gave information to PW-14 Khinv Singh Bhati to the effect that he could get recovered kassi and that information was reduced into writing by PW-14 Khinv Singh Bhati in Ex. P/ 30 and in pursuance of that information Ex. P/30, the accused-appellant got recovered kassi (article 1), in presence of two motbirs, namely, PW-12 Fattaram and PW-6 Notanglal and PW-14 Khinv Singh Bhati prepared the fard of recovery and seizure of kassi (article 1) and the same is Ex. P/20. The said kassi (article 1) was found stained with blood. The further case of the prosecution is that all the seized articles including bushirt (article 5) of deceased No. 2, jampher (article 4) of deceased No. 1, kamij (article 2) and pajama (article 3) belonging to the accused- appellant and kassi (article 1) recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant were sent to FSL and the FSL report is Ex. P/32, which shows that human blood was found on all these articles. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302, IPC in the Court of Magistrate and from where, the case was committed to the Court of Session. On 18-2-1999, the learned Special Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities), Sri Ganganagar framed charge for the offence under Section 302, IPC against the accused- appellant and the same was read over and explained to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution got examined as many as 14 witnesses and got exhibited several documents. Thereafter, statement of accused-appellant under Section 313, Cr. P.C. was recorded in which he has stated that he received blood on his clothes at the time when he was embracing his wife deceased No. 1 and daughter deceased No. 2. In defence, no evidence was led by the accused-appellant. After recording evidence and conclusion of trial, the learned Special Addl. Sessions Judge (Woman Atrocities), Sri Ganganagar through his judgment and order dated 17- 1-2001 convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him in the manner as indicated above holding inter alia :

(3.) In this appeal, the following submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant :