- (1.) THIS appeal by way of special leave arises out of the following facts: Sati Devi -deceased, daughter of Bachhu Das P.W. 1 was married with Diwani Ram son of Gaphloo Das and Rukmani Devi. At about 2.00 on 13th June, 1999, Gaphloo Das came to Bachhu Das's house and told him that Sati Devi had gone to the jungle to collect grass but had not returned home thereafter and he had suspected that she may have gone to his home. Bachhu Das replied that Sati Devi had not come to his house. At about 10 -11 a.m. the very next day Gaphloo Das again came to Bachhu Das's house and accused him of having hidden Sati Devi on which the latter again denied that she had come to his home and on the contrary expressed his surprise to know that she had been missing from her matrimonial home. Bachhu Das and others thereafter made a search for Sati Devi but without success. As he suspected that something amiss had happened to Sati Devi, he reported the matter to the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Chamoli, and also filed an application on 20th June, 1989 before the Gram Sabhapati, Ustoli. When the Revenue police still did not proceed with the investigation despite the two applications aforesaid Bachhu Das filed yet another application on 28th June, 1989 before the District Magistrate, Chamoli in which he alleged that the dead body of Sati Devi, his daughter, had been recovered on 24th June, 1989 from the Nandakani river but in spite of this information having been conveyed to the local Patwari no action had been taken by him. The District Magistrate then ordered the necessary investigation which was made by the Supervisor Kanoongo, who was the Investigating Officer, and who in due course filed a chargesheet before the Court arraying Sati Devi's husband Diwani Ram and her in -laws Gaphloo Ram and Rukmani Devi as the accused. The matter was, thereafter, remitted to the Sessions Court in respect of offences punishable under Section / IPC and Section and of the IPC, and as the accused Appellants denied their involvement, the matter was brought for trial.
(2.) THE trial Court relying on the evidence of P.W. 1 Bachhu Das, the father of the deceased, P.W. 5 Budi Das who had allegedly seen the dead body being thrown into the Nandakani river by the three Appellants on the 13th June, 1989 and Jalmi Das P.W. 6 grandfather of the deceased who had given an application with regard to her having disappeared and duly corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 4, Dr. Vinod Kumar who had conducted the post mortem and opined that the death had been caused by a blunt weapon injury on the head and not by drowning (sic) convicted the Appellants for the offences for which they had been charged. The matter was, thereafter, taken in appeal before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. The High Court in its judgment dated 25th April, 2007 allowed the appeal qua the offence under Section of the IPC holding that no demand for dowry had been made but relying on the evidence affirmed the conviction and sentence with respect to the other offences, it appears that before an SLP could be filed in this Court, Rukmani Devi passed away and the present appeal is thus at the instance of Gaphloo Das, the father -in -law of the deceased, Diwani Ram, her husband. Mr. Vishwajit Singh, the Learned Counsel for the Appellants has raised three arguments during the course of hearing. He has first pointed out that as per the prosecution story the factum of the improper pregnancy of Sati Devi which was said to be the motive for the murder had statedly been the subject matter of discussion in the Panchayat, but as no member of the Panchayat had been produced as a witness, some doubt had been caused on the story. It has further been pointed out that as the Appellants had been acquitted for the offence under Section of IPC a doubt had been caused as to this part of the motive as well. It has finally been submitted that Budhi Das P.W. 5 who had seen the accused throwing the body into the Nandakini River on 13th June, 1989 was a person with weak eye -sight and, therefore, unable to see properly in the dark and as his statement under Section of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been recorded some two months after the alleged murder, no credence could be attached thereto.
(3.) MR . Sunil Kumar Singh, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent - State has, however, supported the judgment of the Courts below.;