- (1.) The aforesaid criminal jail appeals have been preferred by the appellants against their conviction under Section 302/34 I.P.C. whereby they have been sentenced for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine one year simple imprisonment in S.T. No. 463 of 2005 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Bijnor vide order dated 5.9.2006. The prosecution case as unfolded in the first information report by Kresh Pal Singh is that on 16.11.2004 at about 10 A.M. his daughter Kavita aged about 17 years went along with her bhabhi (sister-in-law) Reena and her mother Smt. Kalmi in the jungle for threshing sugar cane. At about 3 P.M. his younger daughter Pravesh returned back. Then his wife enquired about Kavita from her sister-in-law Reena and her mother Kalmi as to why they had not returned. His younger daughter told her that they had not gone to the field at all. Thereafter his daughter came to the sugar cane field and told him that they were not in the house. The complainant and his family members went around the village to trace out her daughter but her dead body was found in the sugar cane field of Vijay Singh. Her dupatta was found around her neck with which she was throttled by his daughter-in-law Reena and mother of Reena Smt. Kalmi. They are residents of the State of Bihar. Eleven months earlier Mahipal Singh got the marriage of his son Sanjay with Reena but her daughter-in-law had tried to run away from the house several times, therefore, the complainant's daughter Kavita was asked to keep her an eye upon her and to remain with her. The marriage of Reena was performed by Mahipal as Reena's elder sister was with him and the appellants have conspired with Mahipal to commit the murder of his daughter.
(2.) The report of the aforesaid incident was scribed by Shiv Charan Singh, which was registered at police station Kotwali Dehat, Nageena, district Bijnor as Case Crime No.609 of 2004, under Sections 302 and 120-B I.P.C. After lodging of the first information report the police got into motion and reached at the spot and after conducting inquest on 16.11.2004, sent the dead body to the mortuary where the post mortem was conducted (Exhibit Ka. 3). During investigation the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses, inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan (Ex. Ka.2) and after completing investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused/appellants. The charges were framed against the accused/appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The accused/appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded to be tried. In support of the prosecution case witnesses of facts, namely, Kresh Pal who is the father of the deceased and who lodged the first information report was examined as P.W.1. Nirmala who is mother of the deceased was examined as P.W. 2, Dal Chand who was the witness of last seen was examined as P.W.
(3.) Formal witnesses have been examined in support of the prosecution case. Dr. V.K. Shukla as P.W.4 who had conducted the post mortem of the deceased on 17.11.2004 at 2.45 P.M. proved the post mortem report Exhibit Ka. 2. Surendra Singh Rana, Sub Inspector was examined as P. W. 5 who had conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet against the accused/appellants. Muni Dev Yadav, Constable who has taken the dead body for post mortem along with the papers of inquest etc. was examined as P.W.6. After the examination of the formal witnesses the statement of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they have stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. The mother of the appellant Reena was informed after death of the victim on phone call. The accused/appellant Kalmi has stated that she was called after the death of Kavita by giving her a phone call. No other witness was led by them in evidence. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, amicus curiae Sri Manish Chand Umrao and Sri A.N. Mulla, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State and perused the record. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that this is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no reliable evidence to support the prosecution case. The prosecution has come up with the case that the appellant Reena who is the wife of Sanjay the son of the complainant, had tried several times to run away and to guard her the deceased Kavita was asked to keep constant vigil. Annoyed by this the appellant along with her mother has committed her murder, but there is no evidence on record that the appellant Reena had ever tried to run away from the house. There are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and there is no reason that the appellant Reena would not get an opportunity to run away at any time. The medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case. The alleged recovery of dupatta around the neck of the deceased and a handkerchief with which she was strangulated to death has been recovered by the police on 17.11.2004, which was exhibited as Exhibit Ka.9 though the investigation was started on the same day after lodging of the first information report. According to the post mortem of the deceased the hyoid bone was found fractured. The appellant no.1 was a pregnant lady and could not have made such an assault by strangulating her to death. Learned A.G.A. has contended that there is no reason to falsely implicate the accused/appellants. It has come in the evidence of the P. W. 1 and P.W. 2 that the mother of appellant Reena reached to her house seven/eight days earlier to the incident and as the deceased was asked to guard the appellant Reena from running away from the house they both conspired together and took her on the pretext of threshing sugar cane on the fateful day and thereafter she was strangulated with her own dupatta and on account of throttling hyoid bone of the deceased was fractured and anti mortem injuries were found on her body. There is no inconsistency in the medical evidence with the prosecution case. The statement of P.Ws. 1 and 2 who are father and mother of the deceased are consistent with the prosecution case that they never returned back after that. P. W. 3 Daal Chand who is an independent witness has specifically stated that he knew both the appellants and also knew about the marriage of appellant Reena with the son of the complainant and on the fateful day he had seen the appellants along with the complainant's daughter Kavita going towards the sugar cane field of Vijay Pal. Thereafter in the evening he came to know that the dead body of the deceased was lying in the sugar cane field of Vijay Pal. The appellants had absconded after the incident, which itself show that both the appellants have conspired together to commit the murder of the complainant's daughter. The appellant Reena is the daughter-in-law of the complainant whose mother came and was living along with her only seven/eight days prior to the date of the occurrence but ran away after committing the murder and only arrested by the police from village Badhanpur on 19.11.200 After considering and relying on the evidence on record the trial court has rightly convicted the accused/appellants to suffer life imprisonment. The trial court founded the conviction of the appellants on the basis of the circumstances established by the prosecution as set out herein below.;