- (1.) THIS appeal, preferred under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred as Cr. P. C.), is directed against the judg ment and order dated 26-06-1990, passed in Sessions Trial No. 15 of 1989, by the then learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, whereby appellant Jai Prakash has been convicted and sen tenced under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred as I. P. C. , ) to imprisonment for life.
(2.) PROSECUTION story in brief is that one Smt. Pyari Devi (deceased) used to receive pension of Rs. 900/- per month as widow of her late husband. She was resident of village Tamlang, Patti Gangwar Syun in the district of Pauri Garhwal. Appellant Jai Prakash, step son of the deceased used to live sepa rately from her in the same house. Smt. Pyari Devi (deceased) used to pay half of said pension to her step son (the ap pellant) but he wanted more share in the pension. On 23-12-1988, at about 8:00 PM. , appellant quarreled with his step mother and threw her from the first floor, and consequently due to the in juries received by her, she died. P. W. 1 Kanti Devi wife of Narendra Singh and daughter-in-law of the deceased, was the sole eye-witness of the incident. She shouted for help on which village Pradhan (P. W. 3) Bishan Singh and some others reached at the place of in cident. Narendra Singh (P. W. 2) son of the deceased, who was posted as Peon in Kotdwara was given telephonic infor mation of the incident in the very night. The next day i. e. 24-12-1988, P. W. 2 Narendra Singh lodged First Informa tion Report (Ext. A-1) with the Patti Patwari of Gangwar Syun, which was registered by Patwari against the appel lant Jai Prakash for alleged offence, punishable under Section 302 of I. P. C. , and prepared Check Report (Ext. A-4 ). (In Uttaranchal hills, certain Revenue Officers are vested with the police pow ers ). Patti Patwari Sudarshan Singh (P. W. 6), after making necessary entry in the General Diary (Ext. A-5) regarding First Information Report being lodged, proceeded for investigation. On 25-12-1988, in the morning, he took the dead body in his possession and prepared the inquest report (Ext. A-2 ). He further prepared police form No. 13 (Ext. A-7), sketch of the dead body (Ext. A-8) and other necessary papers and sent the dead body for post mortem examina tion. Dr. G. S. Rawat (P. W. 4), on 26-12-1988, conducted autopsy on the dead body and prepared post mortem exami nation report (Ext. A-3 ). Following ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body by said Medical Officer: 1. Lacerated wound on left side forehead 4cm x 1 cm x bone deep. On dissection of scalp, there was depressed fracture of frontal bone beneath the wound in an area of 3cm x 1. 5cm, haemotoma in an area of 4cm x 3cm. On the scalp there was sub clural and sub araenoid haemotama beneath the fracture in an area of 4cm x 2. 5cm. 2. Abraded contusion on left cheek in an area 2cm x 1cm bluish-black. Lacerated wound just below the chin 1cm x 1cm x muscle deep. Lacerated wound in left supra clavicle fosa 1cm x 2cm x mus cle deep.
(3.) LACERATED wound in right supra clavicle fosa 1 cm x 2cm x muscle deep. Abraded contusion in part in an area of 2cm x 2cm. Bluish black. In the opinion of Medical Officer, who conducted the post mortem exami nation, the cause of death was coma as a result of head injury. 3. After recording the statements of the witnesses and preparing Site Plan (Ext. A-10), the Investigating Officer (P. W. 6) Sudarshan Singh, submitted charge sheet (Ext. A-11) against the appellant in the court. The concerned Magistrate after giving necessary copies to the appellant, as required under Sec tion 207 of Cr. P. C. , committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial of the accused. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the prosecution and the defence, framed charge of offence pun ishable under Section 302 I. P. C. , against the appellant Jai Prakash that he com mitted murder of Pyari Devi on 23-12- 1988 at about 8:00 P. M. in village Tamlang, Patti Gangwar Syun. The ac cused/appellant Jai Prakash, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Where after, prosecution got examined P. W. 1 Kanti Devi- eye-witness, P. W. 2 Narendra Singh-the informant (real son of the deceased), P. W. 3 Bishan Singh, the then village Pradhan, P. W. 4 Dr. G. S. Rawat who conducted the post mortem examination, P. W. 5 Prithwi Pal Singh-neighbour of the deceased, and P. W. 6 Patwari- Sudarshan Singh (Investigating Officer ). All oral and documentary evi dence was put to the accused Jai Prakash by the trial court, as required under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. in reply to which, he submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the crime. Learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both the sides, found the accused Jai Prakash guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of I. P. C. and accordingly con victed him. And after hearing him on sentence, learned Sessions Judge, sen tenced him to imprisonment for life. Ag grieved by said judgment and order dated 26-06-1990, this appeal was filed by the convict before the Allahabad High Court on 17- 08-1990. The appeal is received by this Court under Section 35 of U. P. Re-organisation Act, 2000, for its disposal, from said High Court. 4. We heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government Advocate/ Public Prosecutor and pe rused the entire record. 5. P. W. 1 Kanti Devi, the sole eye witness of the incident has stated on oath, before the trial court that de ceased (Pyari Devi) was her mother-in-law. She further states that the de ceased was step mother of Jai Prakash (accused ). This witness has stated that family of Jai Prakash and that of the deceased lived separately in the same house and their kitchens were separate. This witness is wife of Narendra Singh, real son of the deceased. P. W. 1 Kanti Devi, further states that her mother-in-law used to get pension after death of her husband. On the day of the inci dent, at about 8:00 RM. , the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law were warm ing themselves near fire place, when accused Jai Prakash entered in their room and started quarrelling with his step mother. This witness further nar rates that in a fit of anger, accused Jai Prakash lifted Pyari Devi and took her out and threw her from first floor on the floor of the courtyard. Consequently, Pyari Devi received head injuries due to fall and died. P. W. 1 Kanti Devi, lastly states that she shouted for help and it was raining at the time when incident took place. After the incident, the wit ness says that she got information sent to her husband at Kotdwara. It is also stated by P. W. 1 Kanti Devi that the rea son of quarrel was that Jai Prakash wanted more share in the pension, which was being received by his step mother (deceased ). 6. P. W. 2 Narendra Singh (son of the deceased) is the informant who lodged First Information Report (Ext. A-1) on the next day of the incident with Patti Patwari Gangwar Syun. This wit ness is step brother of the accused/ap pellant Jai Prakash. P. W. 2 Narendra Singh states that on the day of the in cident, he was in service at Kotdwara. He further states that his mother used to get pension amounting to Rs. 900/- per month out of which she used to pay Rs. 400/- per month to Jai Prakash for expenses of his family. However, he wanted that whole of the pension should be paid to him. The witness states that as soon as he got telephonic information of the incident at Kotdwara, he rushed to his village. Considering the explanation in lodging the First Information Report given by P. W. 2 Narendra Singh, it cannot be said that delay in lodging the First Informa tion Report is without any sufficient rea son. P. W. 3 Bishan Singh was village Pradhan of village Tamlag, who has corroborated the prosecution story to the extent that on 23- 12-1988, Pyari Devi died and he was witness of the in quest report (Ext. A-2 ). P. W. 5 Prithwi Pal Singh is neighbour of the deceased, who reached at the spot soon after the incident. He states that on 23-12- 1988, at about 8:15 RM. when he reached at the spot, he found Pyari Devi lying on the courtyard and P. W. 1 Kanti Devi was shouting at Jai Prakash that he has killed her mother-in-law. This witness further corroborates that at the time of the incident, it was raining outside. The narration of the prosecution story given by the witnesses is trust worthy and reliable and their presence at the place of the incident is natural. P. W. 1 Kanti Devi had no enmity with the appellant.;