- (1.) K. Narayan, J. 4 persons, namely Nathoo Singh, Smt. Lado, Maharaj Singh and Kaloo were tried on the charges for offences under Section 302/34,201 and 498-A I. P. C. by the 1st Additional Session Judge, Etah in S. T No. 361 of 1986 and S. T No. 203 of 1987. By the judgment and order dated 24. 2. 1988 accused Mahraj Singh was found guilty and convicted of jhe offence under Sections 302,201 and 498 LEG and sentenced to imprison ment for life, R. I. for 5 years and for 3 years respectively. The other accused were acquitted. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, Maharaj Singh has come up in appeal before this court.
(2.) IT may be mentioned that Kalloo is a brother of Maharaj Singh and Nathoo and Smt. Lado are their parents. The charges related to the alleged death of Smt. Charan Devi some where between - Holi and 12. 4. 1986. Smt. Charan Devi was married to Sri Mahraj Singh some where in 1983 and went to her Sasural some six months before the alleged death of Smt. Charan Devi, for the first time, in Bidai commonly known as gaona. The case of the prosecution has been that when Sri Ram Singh father of Charan Devi went to the house of Maharaj Singh and Nathoo on 12. 4. 1986 just to see his daughter, he was told that both Maharaj Singh and Smt. Charan Devi had gone to some relations. He was also told by Shiva Ram, Hakim Singh and Bankey Lal residents of the same village that they had beared some shrieks of Smt. Charan Devi when she was taken by Nathoo, Smt. Lado, Maharaj Singh and Kaloo towards the canal and ever since they had not seen Smt. Charan Devi. A first information report with the above fact and also fact that when Ram Singh questioned Nathoo and others about the incident of shrieks he was not given any satisfactory reply and was also threatened that he should leave the place immediately otherwise he shall also be put to the same fate. The FIR to this effect was lodged on 16. 4. 1986 at 4. 30 p. m. at the police station Mirehchi District Etah. The accused had pleaded not guilty and their contention has been that Smt. Charan Devi had gone to her parents place before Holi and had some quarrels with her mother whereupon she attempted to commit suicide by jumping into the well. She was saved and in some quarrels there was also some injuries on her nose by her mother, whereafter she eloped from her parents place, and they have brought this prosecution in order to avoid any persuasions by the accused to deliver the ornaments etc. Which were taken away by Smt. Charan Devi with her.
(3.) THE prosecution has examined (PW l) Ram Singh the father of Smt. Charan Devi (PW 2) Bankey Lal (PW 3) Siya Rama. Arya (PW 4) Hakim Singh and (PW 5) Smt. Mahadevi. PW 1 Ram Singh and PW 2 Smt. Mahadevi are the father and mother of Smt. Charan Devi. THEy had stated about the motive of the crime. Although motive is not a material part, in any case it has some relevancy. Before proceeding with the evidence in this behalf we shall make it clear that whether the motive was made out or not or was sufficient or not would not obtain for appreciation of other evidence which we are going to deal with below. Since that evidence was led it seems worth while to record the observation by this court in respect thereof. THE alleged motive being in the nature of demand of dowry it will also be worth while to mention that the alleged occurrence has been of March, April, 1986 when Section 304-B had not been put on the stature books. The evidence of (PW 1) Ram Singh was to the effect that he was told by Smt. Charan Devi that Nathoo and Maharaj Singh desired Rs. 2000/- and a buffalo. It was also stated by him that Nathoo had asked for Rs. 2000/-in order to get some employment before the Bidai and he had declined the same. So far as his statement about this demand by Nathoo and Maharaj Singh is concerned, it has to be considered on the basis of the cross-examination etc. His statement in this behalf that his daughter Smt. Charan Devi told him that she was beaten by Kaloo, Nathoo, Maharaj Singh and Smt. Lado. Because he had not given the buffalo and the money is in our opinion not admissible in evidence. It was urged on behalf of the State that this could be admissible in evidence. It was urged on behalf of the State that this could be admissible in evidence as an exception to the far against hearsay evidence under Section 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act. We will pause here and proceed with law in this behalf.;