RAMAKANT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27. 9. 2002 passed by the learned Special Judge (Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases) - Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, convicting the appellant of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one years rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE prosecution case as disclosed during the trial is that deceased Mamta Rani daughter of PW. 1 Radhey Shyam, resident of Mandi Dabawali, District Sirsa, State of Haryana was married to Devendra son of Patiram, resident of Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar, State of Rajasthan. Patiram's daughter Vimla was married to PW. 6 Ganga Singh @ Girijacharan. Appellant Ramakant is the brother of PW-6 Ganga Singh. PW. 6 Ganga Singh lived in the house purchased by his father-in-law Patiram along with his wife Vimla and brother appellant Ramakant. Patiram was a railway employee. He lived in a railway quarter along with his son Devendra and deceased Mamta Rani. On 21. 11. 97, PW. 1 Radhey Shyam submitted a written First Information Report at Police Station Suratgarh stating inter alia that about four years' back his daughter Mamta Rani was married to Devendra. After marriage, her in-laws used to ill treat her for not bringing sufficient dowry. Some time back, Pariram had turned out his son Devendra and deceased wife Mamta Rani from the house. Thus, his daughter Mamta Rani and son-in-law stayed with them for sometime at Mandi Dabawali. Some time back, Devendra returned to Suratgarh. THE brother-in-law of deceased Mamta Rani also took her to Suratgarh. Patiram purchased a house in Suratgarh, in which, his daughter Vimla and son-in-law Ganga Singh started living. His son-in-law's brother namely appellant Ramakant also used to reside with them. Partiram's daughter used to beat his daughter deceased Mamta Rani. He had no compliant against his son-in-law Devendra. It was further averred that a day before, Patiram and other family members had prepared non-vegetarian and consumed liquor. His daughter was being assaulted in absence of her husband. She was given threatening of divorce. In the morning, appellant Ramakant informed them about serious illness of his daughter namely Mamta Rani. He rushed to village Suratgarh. When he reached to the house, he found the dead body of Mamta Rani. He suspected foul play on the part of in laws of Mamta Rani. On this information, police registered a case for offence under Sections 302, 302/34 IPC and proceeded with the investigation. After usual investigation, police laid charge sheet against appellant Ramakant for offence under Section 302/34 IPC.

(3.) THE another incriminating piece of circumstance is the recovery of bottle of spray. It is stated that a bottle of spray was got recovered by the police vide Ex. P. 10 in pursuance of the information given by appellant Ramakant vide Ex. P. 17. As per the F. S. L. Report Ex. P. 15, the liquid found in the bottle gave positive tests for presence of Organophosphorous Insecticide. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the bottle has been recovered from an abundant place. It is an open place. This piece of circumstance also does not inspire confidence. As per the extra judicial confession made by the appellant, when he had gone to the house of Patiram, he tried to molest deceased Mamta and when she objected and threatened to report the matter to her husband, he poured the liquid (spray) in her mouth. It is difficult to conceive that he would have gone to the house of Patiram with a bottle of spray. Be that as it may, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstance of the case, this piece of circumstance also does not inspire confidence. Even otherwise, this single piece of circumstance is not sufficient to connect the appellant with the alleged crime. It is well settled that in the case of circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances should be established by independent evidence and they should form a complete chain to bring home the guilt of the accused without giving room to any other hypothesis. In this case, we have found many missing links.