- (1.) M. C. Jain, J. The State has come up in the appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 1-9-1981 recorded by Sri Ikramul Bari, the then IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Sessions Trial No. 412 of 1980. The two respondents, namely, Surender Singh and Smt. Sanyogita were tried before the Court below. The charges against Surender Singh were under Sections 302 and 392 IPC whereas Smt. Sanyogita faced trial under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC.
(2.) THE deceased was Devi Singh alias Bhullan Singh. He used to reside in village Shahpur Sukha, P. S. Kiratpur, District Shahjahanpur and was aged about 35 years. Sanyogita accused lived nearby. In between the house of deceased and that of Sanyogita, a ruined Ghair existed. Devi Singh deceased had developed illicit relation with Sanyogita and used to spend a lot of money on her Smt. Vidyawati PW 1 (wife of Devi Singh deceased) became aware of it and after great pursuation succeeded in stopping the visits of Devi Singh to Smt. Sanyogita. Sanyogita resented it she was deprived of the financial benefit. THE incident took place in between the night of 4/5. 6 1980 at the house of deceased Devi Singh. Since about a month before the incident, the accused Surender Singh, resident of a nearby village Sarkara Kheri started visiting the house of Sanyogita. Devi Singh objected to his visits several times and two days before the incident, he had again objected to his visit to the house of Sanyogita. He had asked Sanyogita also not to indulge in such immoral activities. Sanyogita then abused Devi Singh and Surender Singh also left offering threats to Devi Singh. This was the earlier background allegedly leading to the incident. In between the fateful night and time at about 11. 30 O'clock, deceased Devi Singh, his wife and their children were sleeping in their inner courtyard. Surender Singh scaled southern wall of the house Smt. Vidyawati PW 1 woke up by sound but before she could intervene, the accused Surender Singh gave two Tabal blows in the left side of the neck of Devi Singh who met an instantaneous death. Vidyawati in the meantime got up from her cot but she was held by accused Surender Singh by her hand and he tried to drag her to the room, saying that he would kill her too. He made her to part with one earring and removed the other one from her ear believing the same to be gold. Vidyawati raised alarm. Om Prakash PW 3, Jamraj Singh PW 4 and Jagat Singh PW 6 and many other persons were attracted by her alarm to the house of Devi Singh deceased. These three named witnesses saw accused Surender Singh running away from the house of Devi Singh. They also noticed him making some sign to Sanyogita who was present at her door. Vidyawati got written the FIR by Surender Singh son of Jagdeo Singh and sent it through him to the police station where as case was registered at 2. 15 a. m. on 5-6-1980. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence was 2 kms. S. O. Dharamveer Singh Tyagi PW 7 was present at the police station when the case was registered. The investigation was taken up by him. He visited the spot and busied himself with the activities related to investigation. The dead body, after being sealed, was sent for post-mortem which was conducted on 6-6-1980 at 9 a. m. by Dr. B. B. Sharma PW 8. Two incised wounds on left side of the neck, each measuring 10 cm x 2 cm x vertebra deep, 6 cm from left ear were found on the person of the deceased. The direction was horizontal. Both the injuries were parallel to each other and also parallel to left mandible. The trachea was incised and larynx carotid artery and left jugular vein were also cut. There was also fracture of third cervical vertebra. The death was the result of shock and haemorrhage produced by these injuries.
(3.) APART from Doctor, Investigating Officer and other formal witnesses, the prosecution relied on the testimony of deceased's wife Vidyawati PW 1 as eyewitness. On Prakash PW 3, Jamraj Singh PW 4 and Jagat Singh PW 6 claimed themselves to have seen Surender Singh running away from the spot with Tabal (weapon of the offence ). Om Prakash PW 3 also stated that he was Sanyogita standing at her door to whom Surender Singh made some gesture or sign. All the three witnesses allegedly had flashing torches. As the prosecution evidence did not appeal to the trial Judge, he recorded the impugned judgment of acquittal which has been assailed by the State in this appeal.;