M.K.MUKHERJEE,C.J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated August 22, 1978 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, IInd Court, Mainpuri convicting the appellant under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for five years, respectively, with a direction that the sentences would run concurrently. The parents of the appellant who were also placed on trial to answer the charge under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code were however acquitted.
(2.) THE case for the prosecution briefly stated is as under: In the afternoon of April 3, 1977, the appellant, who is a resident of village Biltigarh within the police station of Khairgarh, went to the police station and lodged an information stating, inter; alia, that his wife Krishna Devi was a chronic patient of rheumatism and inspite of best treatment she could not be cured. Owing to such ailment she was having occasional depressive fits and wanting to take away her life. In the early morning of that day, he could not find her in the house and on search some clothings belonging to her were found on the right of well of Narain Kacchi of their village. He immediately thought that she had committed suicide by drowning and ultimately found her dead body inside the well. On that information, a case of suicide was registered and Sub -Inspector Ramdas case. He held inquest upon the dead body and then sent if for post mortem examination. As the report of the post mortem examination indicated that it was a case of murder, the police converted the case into one under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and on completion of investigation submitted charge -sheet against the appellant and his parents. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against him and his defence, needless to say, was that his wife had committed suicide.
(3.) IN support of its case, the prosecution examined @ witnesses but no witness was examined on behalf of the appellant. Of the witnesses examined by the prosecution Surajmukhi (P.W. 1), her father Sunehari Lal (P.W. 2) and Nihal Singh (P.W. 3), all of whom are residents of the same vi1J.age, did not support the case of prosecution at all and hence they were declared hostile. The prosecution, therefore, rested its case upon Jahqri (P.W. 3) a resident of a different place altogether, who claimed to have heard a splashing sound in the well on the fateful night and seen the appellant present there, Shiv Kumar (P.W. 4), a cousin of the deceased, who claimed that appellant used to ill -treat his wife, Daulat Ram (P.W. 6), the village pradhan, who testified that the appellant confessed his guilt before him and Dr. P. P. Gupta (P.W. 8) who held the post mortem examination and opined that the death of the victim was by strangulation. The learned Trial Judge, however, outright rejected the testimonies of P.W. 3 and P.W. 8 as, according to him, they were not truthful witnesses but relying upon the evidence of P.W. 4 and P.W. 8. He recorded the impugned order of conviction and sentence.;