SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 19.10.2012 passed by learned Special Additional District and Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases) Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No.42/2011: JUDGEMENT_146_LAWS(RAJ)3_2021_1.html (Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently)
(2.) Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentences, the appellant has approached this Court by way of this appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.
(3.) Facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow:- The appellant herein was married to Kalawati, D/o Brijlal Kumhar R/o Mahifwali in the year 2000. Two sons were born from their wedlock. Smt. Kalawati was working as an A.N.M. and was posted at the Primary Health Centre, 10 K.D., Village Rawla and was residing there in the Government accommodation with her husband and sons. On 22.10.2011, Kalawati's brother-in-law (Jeth) Liluram (PW-4) called her brother Shri Indraj (PW-1) and informed him that Kalawati had been abducted. On hearing this, Shri Indraj (PW.1) alongwith his younger brother Daleep Kumar (PW-6) and cousin Mahaveer (PW-8) started from their village Mahifwali and reached 10 K.D. Village Rawla. They made an enquiry from Pola Ram who replied that in the previous night between 11.30 and 11.45, a quarrel had taken place between him (Pola Ram) and Kalawati and thus, he had strangled her to death and threw the dead body into the D.O.L. canal for destroying evidence. Enquiry was also made from the Sarpanch of the Village 10 K.D., Rawla who also confirmed the fact that Pola Ram wanted Kalawati to leave the job of A.N.M., but she was not agreeing to it and being angered by her resistance, Pola Ram had beaten up Smt. Kalawati a few times previously. Pola Ram had been counselled by the family members, but did not mend his ways and eventually, Smt. Kalawati was killed and her dead body was thrown into the canal. Shri Indraj (PW-1) lodged a written report (Ex.P/1) with the above allegations to the SHO Police Station Rawla on 22.10.2011 at about 01.15 pm, on the basis whereof, an FIR No.232/2011 (Ex.P/24), came to be registered at the Police Station, Rawla for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and investigation was commenced. It may be mentioned here that well before the registration of the FIR (Ex.P/24), on 22.10.2011, in the morning at about 6 O' clock, Shri Hansraj Godara (PW.10), husband of the village Sarpanch, had given an information to Shri Chandra Prakash, SI (PW.14) that Smt. Kalawati was missing since previous night and that something untoward might have happened to her at the hands of her husband. This information was noted down in Roznamcha Entry No.887 (Ex.P/51A). Sub-Inspector Shri Chandra Prakash, along with the police constables proceeded to the village 10 K.D. Rawla where, the written report (Ex.P/1) came to be submitted before him by Shri Indraj (PW-1). During the course of investigation, a photographer was summoned and the place of incident was got extensively photographed. Site Inspection Plan (Ex.P/2) and description of the site (Ex.P/2A) were prepared. Following incriminating articles were seized from the place of the incident i.e., Government Quarter, Primary Health Centre, where Smt. Kalawati was residing with her husband and two children:- (1) a khes (bed cover), a Gudad (a kind of cotton mattress), two pillow covers, a pouch of tobacco, scissors and a blood stained water tumbler (Lota), vide seizure memo Ex.P/3, (2) broken pieces of bangles and a nose-pin, vide seizure memo Ex.P/4, (3) a clump of black coloured hair of a female, vide seizure memo Ex.P/5. The Investigating Officer then proceeded to the D.O.A. canal and prepared a site inspection plan (Ex.P/6) and description memo (Ex.P/6A). Soil was collected from the place of incident. Statements of concerned witnesses were recorded under Section 161 CrPC. Search was made in the canal and on 24.10.2011, the dead body of Smt. Kalawati was found floating near the Towers Nos.36 and 37 of the K.Y.D. canal. The first informant Indraj (PW.1) identified the dead body to be of his sister Smt. Kalawati. The description memo of the dead body (Fard Surat-haal Lash) (Ex.P/8) and Panchnama Lash (Ex.P/9) were prepared. Site Inspection Memo of the place of recovery of the dead body (Ex.P/10) was also prepared. The dead body was sent to the Government Hospital, Rawla where autopsy was undertaken upon it by a Medical Board and the postmortem report (Ex.P/37) was issued. While conducting postmortem, the doctors noticed fracture of the cricoid cartilage with hematoma formation and compression of posterior larynx apparatus. The cause of death as opined by the medical board in the postmortem report, was asphyxia brought about as a result of multiple ante-mortem bodily injuries. The appellant was arrested on 31.10.2011 at about 4:30 pm vide arrest memo Ex.P/39 and certain recoveries were effected at his instance. After concluding investigation, a charge-sheet came to be submitted against the accused appellant in the court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Ghadsana for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The incriminating materials recovered by the Investigating Officer SI Chandraprakash (PW.14) had been forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory from where, FSL report (Ex.P/44) was received. As the offence under Section 302 IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar from where, it was transferred to the Court of Special Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases), Sriganganagar where charges were framed against the accused-appellant in the above terms. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 58 documents to prove its case. Upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence, the accused denied the same, but he did not choose to lead any evidence in defence. After hearing the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence counsel, and appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant in above terms. Hence, this appeal. ;