- (1.) This judgment shall dispose of Crl. A. No. 169-DB of 2008, Crl. A. No. 369-SB of 2008 and Crl. A. No. 2006-SB of 2008, as all these appeals arise out of common impugned judgement of conviction and sentence passed by trial Court. Accused Parveen son of Nikka Ram and accused Sita Ram were convicted under Section 201 IPC and accused Sunita was convicted under Section 302 and 201 IPC. Aggrieved by the judgement of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court they have preferred independent appeals.
(2.) Sh. Sukhdev Parmar who entered appearance for the accused-appellant Sita Ram was appointed as Amicus Curiae for the other two accused-appellants also, as no counsel on their side was prepared to argue the case.
(3.) The brief case of the prosecution is as follows:- a) PW1 Nehru Lal, PW2 Jai Narain and Raja Ram (since deceased) are brothers. Accused-appellant Sunita was married to Raja Ram. She gave birth to two sons, namely, Ravi aged 11 years and PW12 Parveen aged 9 years. Raja Ram constructed a house in village Chhatargarh and resided alongwith his wife and sons for about 4 years prior to the occurrence. There had been constant quarrel between Raja Ram and Sunita as Sunita was a lady of bad character. Raja Ram attempted to prevent her from indulging in such activities. Accused Sita Ram resident of village Jodhka started residing in the house of Raja Ram as tenant about 4 months prior to the occurrence. Accused Parveen son of Nikka Ram used to visit Sunita. b) On 12.6.2006, at about 8.00 a.m. PW1 came to know about the death of his brother Raja Ram. Accompanied by his villagers he proceeded to the house of Raja Ram, having come to know that the dead body of his brother Raja Ram was put in a septic tank of latrine constructed in the house of Raja Ram. c) PW1 proceeded to the police station and submitted an application (Ex. P1). PW13 Inspector Hari Kailash, SHO of Police Station City Sirsa recorded a formal FIR. PW13 inspected the place of occurrence and prepared a rough site plan (Ex. P18) in the presence of PW1 and his brother Mahender. d) On 13.6.2006, PW13 arranged JCB machine and dismantled the pit of the septic tank of the latrine and retrieved the dead body of Raja Ram. A photographer was engaged to take photographs of the dead body. He also held inquest and prepared inquest report (Ex. P2). e) PW10 Dr. Luv Sharma conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Raja Ram. The dead body emitted an offensive and foul smell. Except the temporal and occipital region of scalp, the skin peeled off. Facial features were distorted and blotted. Eye balls were putrefied and protruding out. Mouth was apart with putrefied tongue protruding out. He found reddish diffused contusion over fronto-parietal and right temporal area of scalp, right ramus of mandible and left side neck. He opined that deceased Raja Ram had died due to head injuries which were ante-mortem in nature. The deceased had received an impact from a blunt object. He had also been throttled (manually strangulated). Vicera was preserved and sent for chemical examination. The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was immediate and between death and post mortem examination was about 2-3 days. f) The accused persons came to PW9 Narender Kumar Bajaj, Municipal Councillor and made extra-judicial confession in the presence of PW11 Hans Raj admitting the crime of murder of Raja Ram. PW9 and PW11 took all the three accused-appellants to the police station and produced them before PW13. PW13 arrested all the three accused and interrogated them one by one in the police station. Accused Sunita suffered disclosure statement Ex. P3 based on which a hammer Ex. P7 was recovered. The place of occurrence and the place where the dead body was dumped were pointed out by the accused. PW12 Master Parveen son of the deceased as well as Sunita has spoken to the fact that he witnessed his mother Sunita having administered some poisonous substance to him, attacked him with hammer and caused his death. Thereafter, she called the other two accused, namely, Parveen and Sita Ram and disposed of the dead body in the septic tank of the latrine. After completing the investigation, final report was laid as against all the accused. g) In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused Sunita has set up a plea that she had been to Rajasthan at the time when the occurrence took place. In other words, she set up a plea of alibi. The other accused pleaded that they were falsely implicated in this case.;