- (1.) PRAFULLA C. Pant, J. This appeal preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Proce dure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr. P. C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 16-08-1991, passed by the then learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Sessions trial No. 19 of 1990, whereby accused / appellant Dayal Singh has been convicted under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as I. FC.), and the remaining two accused / appellants, namely Smt. Mula Devi and Smt. Rajmati are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I. P. C. and under Section 201 of I. P. C. Each one of the convict has been sentenced to un dergo imprisonment for life under Sec tion 302 (read with Section 34 for ac cused / appellants Smt. Mula Devi and Smt. Rajmati) and rigorous imprison ment for a period of two years under Section 201 of I. P. C.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record. Prosecution story, in brief is that Puola Devi (deceased), daughter of P. W. 3 Amar Singh, was married to Kamal Singh, son of accused / appellant Dayal Singh in Village Jaikot, District Tehri Garhwal. Accused / appellant Mula Devi is mother-in-law and accused / ap pellant Rajmati is sister-in-law (Jethani) of the deceased. Puola Devi, whenever, visited her parental house always com plained about the harassment being made to her by the accused / appellants. She often told that her in-laws used to ask her to give her jewellery to them elsc they would kill her. On 30-05-1990, P. W. 3, Amar Singh (father of the de ceased), who used to work in Delhi re ceived a massage there that his daugh ter Puola Devi has died. On the next day, at about 05:00 RM. , he proceeded for his home Village Kulpi, District Tehri Garhwal, and reached there on 01-06-1990. He went to the Patwari and came to know that dead body of his daughter has already been taken to Narendra Nagar. (In the interior hills of Uttarakhand, certain Revenue Officials are given the police powers ). Meanwhile, P. W. 1, Lai Singh, uncle of the deceased, had already lodged the first in formation report on 30th of May 1990, after he received information that Puola Devi had died in her in-laws house. In the first information report (Ext. A-l), P. W. I Lai Singh has mentioned that Puola Devi was married to son of Dayal Singh in Village Jaikot, where she used to get harassment at the hands of her in-laws. He has also stated in his report that whenever Puola Devi used to come to her parental village she complained of the harassment meted out to her by the accused / appellants. She had ap prehended that she would be killed in her in-laws house. P. W. I, Lai Singh at the end of the first information report expressed suspicion that after commit ting murder of his niece Puola Devi, kerosene oil was poured over her body and it was set on fire to conceal the fact of murder. On the basis of the first in formation report, Crime No. 02 of 1990 was registered against all the three ac cused / appellants under Section 302 and 201 of I. P. C. by Patti Patwari, Baman Gaon. The dead body-of the de ceased was taken into possession by P. W. 5 Kapur Singh Payal, Patwari, who initially investigated the crime. He pre pared the check report (Ext. A-3) on the basis of the first information report re ceived from Lai Singh and made nec essary entry in the general diary, copy of extract of which is Ext. A-4. He in spected the spot, took the dead body in his possession, prepared the inquest re port (Ext. A-2) and other necessary pa pers including sketch of the dead body (Ext. A-6), police form No. 13 (Ext. A-7), sample of seal (Ext. A-8 ). He also prepared the site plan (Ext. A-5 ). The dead body was sent for postmortem ex amination. P. W. 7, Dr. PR Raturi, Medi cal Officer, Narendra Nagar conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Puola Devi on 01-06-1990, at 10:00 A. M. , and prepared the postmortem examina tion report (Ext. A-ll ). The cause of death in the opinion of the Medical Officer was asphyxia as a result of ante mortem strangulation, He also found postmortem burn injuries. Subsequently, the investigation was taken up by P. W. 6, Bachchan Singh, Patwari, who further interrogated the witnesses and arrested the accused / appellants. After comple tion of the investigation, he submitted charge sheet (Ext. A-10) against all the three accused for their trial in respect of the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 of I. P. C. The Magistrate, on receipt of the charge sheet, after giving necessary cop ies to the accused, as required under Section 207 of Cr. P. C. , committed the case to the court of Sessions, for trial. Learned trial court, after hearing the parties, on 10-12-1990, framed charge of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I. P. C. and the one punishable under Section 201 of I. P. C. against all the three accused namely Dayal Singh, Mula Devi and Rajmati. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P. W. 1, Lai Singh (Informant and uncle of the de ceased); P. W. 2, Baishakhu (an alleged eyewitness); P. W. 3, Amar Singh (father of the deceased); P. W. 4, Avtar Singh (neighbour of accused and the de ceased); P. W. 5,. Kapur Singh Payal, Patwari (who initially investigated the crime); P. W. 6, Bachchan Singh (who completed the investigation and submit ted charge sheet) and P. W. 7, Dr. RR Raturi (who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Puola Devi ). The oral and documentary evi dence was put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. by the trial court, in reply to which the accused (appel lants) alleged that the evidence adduced against them was false. However, it is admitted under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. by all the three accused that Puola Devi (deceased) was married to Kamal Singh, son of Dayal Singh. Accused Dayal Singh in his replies has also stated that at the time of incident he was not in the village. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. After hearing the parties, the trial court found accused Dayal Singh guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of I. P. C. and that of one punishable under Section 201 of I. P. C. It further found accused Mula Devi and Rajmati guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I. P. C. and one punishable under Sec tion 201 of I. P. C. Each one of the con victs is sentenced by the trial court to undergo imprisonment for life under Sec tion 302 of I. P. C. (in the case of Mula Devi and Rajmati read with Section 34 of I. P. C.) and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 201 of I. P. C. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 16-08-1991, passed by the Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 1990, this ap-*'peal was preferred by-the three convicts before the Allahabad High Court on 22-08-1991, where it was admitted on next day i. e. 23-08-1991. The appeal is re ceived by transfer to this Court under Section 35 of the U. R Re-organization Act, 2000, for its disposal
(3.) BEFORE further discussion, it is pertinent to mention here the ante mortem and postmortem injuries re corded by P. W. 7, Dr. RR Raturi, who conducted the postmortem examination and prepared the autopsy report (Ext. A-11 ). The same are being reproduced below :- Ante mortem Maries : Contusion 10 cm x 6 cm on the front of the neck extending on the both sides 4 cm below the chin. On dissection there Is extravasation of blood In subcutaneous tissue. Ad jacent neck muscle are lacerated. Grater Cornu of Hyoid bone on right side fractured. Postmortem Injuries : There Is burn Injuries over head, face, chest, abdomen, both upper limbs and both thighs. There Is no line of redness and no vesication. The cause of the death, according to the Medical Officer, who conducted the postmortem examination, is recorded to be 'death due to asphyxia as a re sult of ante mortem strangulation. ' The above medical report pre pared by the Medical Officer, P. W. 7, Dr. P. P. Raturi, shows and establishes that Puola Devi was murdered by strangula tion and, thereafter, burn injuries were caused in an attempt to conceal the evi dence of commission of crime. Now, the question is who has done it ?;