- (1.) This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 6.2.2009 in Criminal Appeal No.226-DB of 2007, passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, by way of which the High Court has affirmed the judgment and order dated 8.2.2007, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani in Sessions Trial No.110 of 8.9.2005, by way of which and whereunder the Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC'), and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-. In default of payment of such fine, he would further suffer RI for a period of 3 years.
(2.) Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal as per the prosecution are that:- A. In the intervening night between 6-7.1.2005, Maya Devi (PW.3), mother of Raj, deceased was irrigating her agricultural fields alongwith her daughter Birma (PW.4). On hearing the cries of her daughter Raj, Maya Devi and Birma reached the spot and saw that one Kalia had caught hold of Raj and Karan Singh, the appellant had put a rope around her neck and was dragging her deeper into the fields. Maya Devi (PW.3) raised considerable hue and cry but attracted no help, and Raj died on the spot as a result of the throttling. In the morning, Maya Devi (PW.3) went to the place of occurrence alongwith her son Hariom (a simpleton). There were marks of dragging in the wheat field. A contusion mark on the neck of deceased was also clearly visible. B. Maya Devi (PW.3) went to the police station to file a report. On her way there, she met some police officials and she informed them about the incident, based on which, an FIR was registered on 7.1.2005, under Sections 302/34 IPC at the Police Station, Sadar Charkhi Dadri. C. The dead body of Raj was sent for post-mortem. Dr. U.S. Dasodia (PW.7), conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased and found a ligature mark on her neck. He has opined that she died due to asphyxia, caused by strangulation which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The time gap between her injuries and death was only a few minutes, and between her death and post-mortem, less than 24 hours. D. The police recorded the statements of various persons including Maya Devi (PW.3), Birma (PW.4) anlongwith other people. After completing the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the appellant. The co-accused Kalia, could not be apprehended and was declared as a proclaimed offender. E. The case of the prosecution is that Karan Singh, the appellant, had a certain dispute with deceased Raj regarding the non-payment of dues to her to the extent of Rs.47,000/-, as consideration for the sale of a buffalo by the deceased Raj. Since the appellant had not paid the said money, there was a quarrel between them on 3-4.1.2005 as regards the same, wherein appellant had threatened to kill her. In furtherance thereof, Raj was murdered by the appellant. F. The prosecution examined several witnesses including Maya Devi (PW.3), Birma (PW.4) and Omkar Singh (PW.8). The statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.') After the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as has been referred to hereinabove. Hence, this appeal.
(3.) Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted, that the investigation in the instant case, was tainted. The statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had been recorded after several months of the incident. Raj, deceased was a woman who had gotten separated from her husband for the reason that she had been a woman of easy virtue, and had also been living separately from her mother and sister. The specific case of Maya Devi (PW.3), mother of deceased was, that she had gone alongwith her daughter to irrigate the fields, though in her cross-examination she has admitted that the agricultural land had been given to one Khazan, upon sharing of the agricultural produce (Batai). Birma (PW.4), the sister of the deceased has deposed that they did not cultivate the land themselves. The Trial Court did not believe the version of events as provided by Maya Devi (PW.3) and Birma (PW.4), but treated the case as one of circumstantial evidence. The entire case of the prosecution is improbable. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.;