- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and Section 201 IPC. However, the appeal of the co-accused Dayal Singh, who was convicted for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, was allowed.
(3.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: Puola Devi (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') daughter of PW 3 Amar Singh was married to Kamal Singh, son of accused Dayal Singh in Village Jaikot, District Tehri Garhwal. Accused / appellant Mula Devi is mother-in-law and accused / appellant Rajmati is sister-in-law of the deceased. Puola Devi, always complained about the harassment being made to her by the accused/appellants whenever she visited her parental house. She often told that her in-laws used to ask her to give her jewellery to them else they would kill her. On 30.05.1990, Amar Singh (P.W.3) (father of the deceased), who used to work in Delhi, received a message there that his daughter Puola Devi has died. On the next day, at about 5.00 P.M, he proceeded for his home Village Kulpi, District Tehri Garhwal, and reached there on 01.06.1990. He went to the Patwari and came to know that dead body of his daughter has already been taken to Narendra Nagar. It needs to be noted that in the interior hills of Uttarkhand, certain Revenue Officials are given the police powers. Meanwhile, Lal Singh (P.W.1), uncle of the deceased, had already lodged the first information report on 30th of May 1990, after he received information that Puola Devi had died in her in-laws house. In the first information report (Ext. A-1), , Lal Singh (P.W.1) had mentioned that Puola Devi was married to son of Dayal Singh in Village Jaikot, where she used to get harassment at the hands of her in-laws. He had also stated in his report that whenever Puola Devi used to come to her parental village she complained of the harassment meted out to her by the accused / appellants. She had apprehended that she would be killed in her in-laws house. Lal Singh (P.W.1) at the end of the first information report expressed suspicion that after committing murder of his niece Puola Devi, kerosene oil was poured over her body and it was set on fire to conceal the fact of murder. On the basis of the first information report, Crime No.02 of 1990 was registered against all the three accused persons under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC by Patti Patwari, Baman Gaon. The dead body of the deceased was taken into possession by Kapur Singh Payal (P.W.5), Patwari, who initially investigated the crime. He prepared the check report (Ext. A-3) on the basis of the first information report received from Lal Singh and made necessary entry in the general diary, copy of extract of which is Ext. A-4. He inspected the spot, took the dead body in his possession, prepared the inquest report (Ext. A -2) and other necessary papers including sketch of the dead body (Ext. A -6), police form No. 13 (Ext. A-7), sample of seal (Ext. A-8). He also prepared the site plan (Ext. A-5). The dead body was sent for postmortem examination. Dr. P.P. Raturi (P.W.7) Medical Officer, Narendra Nagar conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Puola Devi on 01.06.1990, at 10:00 A.M., and prepared the postmortem examination report (Ext. A-11). The cause of death in the opinion of the Medical Officer was asphyxia as a result of ante mortem strangulation. He also found postmortem burn injuries. Subsequently, the investigation was taken up by, Bachchan Singh (P.W.6), Patwari, who further interrogated the witnesses and arrested the accused persons. After completion of the investigation, he submitted charge sheet (Ext.A -10) against all the three accused for their trial in respect of the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 IPC. Since the accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was held after commitment to the Court of Sessions. Since the case was based on circumstantial evidence the trial court referred to various circumstances to hold the three accused persons guilty. In appeal, as noted above, appeal of Dayal Singh was accepted while that of present appellants was dismissed.;