MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. - (1.) THESE two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 03.05.1983 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer, in Sessions Case No.20/1981, by which both the appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. In addition thereto, accused-appellant Sohani was also convicted for offence under Section 201 of the IPC. However, accused-appellant Prahlad was acquitted of the charges for offence under Sections 201 and 379 of the IPC. For offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC, both accused-appellants were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.250/- each; in default of payment of fine, they were required to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. However, for offence under Section 201 IPC, the trial court did not think it proper to award any separate sentence to accused-appellant Sohani.
(2.) FACTS giving rise to these appeals are that on 26.08.1980 one Harakchand (PW-14), Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Arai, submitted a written report to the Station House Officer, Kekri stating that at about 6-6.15 hours in the morning that day he was informed by Ratan Singh (PW-2) about a dead-body lying in the house of Rameshwar Jat. He, accompanied with other persons, went to the house of Rameshwar and found the dead-body of a woman enwrapped in a gunny-bag. On the said report, the police lodged a regular first information report on the same day and commenced investigation, in the course of which, it transpired that the dead-body was of Smt. Birdi. On postmortem (Exhibit P-19), the Doctor opined that she died on account of external injuries on her person. It is significant to note at the very outset that the police recorded confessional statement of accused Sohani on 28.08.1980 and thereafter, her confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the Magistrate on 03.11.980. Both the statements are substantially similar wherein she confessed her participation in the offence in part only to the extent of helping co-accused Prahlad in causing disappearance of the evidence of crime and helping him in removing the dead-body of Birdi, to the deserted house of Rameshwar. It was stated by accused Sohani in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that on Saturday at around 12.00-1.00 AM her husband had gone to some other village. Deceased Birdi came to her at 12-1.00 in the noon, to take cakes made of cow dung (which are used as a fuel in rural areas). She counted 25 cakes and put them in a basket and thereafter Birdi took them to her house. She sent her eight years daughter to the agriculture field to keep a watch over the crop. At that time, accused Prahlad Das Sadhu, to whom her husband owed Rs.350/-, came there and demanded money. She told him that her husband is not at the home. He went back. He came back after few minutes and stated that in fact her husband owed only Rs.150/- and demanded the money. When she refused to give the money stating that she did not have even that much money, Prahlad then insisted that she should have sex with him. He came inside the house. While in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Sohani has stated that co-accused Prahlad forcefully attempted to commit rape upon her and that she cried but in confessional statement recorded by the police on 28.08.1980 she stated that she herself bolted the main gate of the house from inside and both went into the room. Prahlad started making love with her. When they were in compromising position, Birdi came there to return the empty basket. The main door of the house was loosely bolted from inside and therefore it easily opened up. She came inside right upto the room where both the accused were making love. Birdi demanded explanation from Prahlad as to why he was doing so with somebody else's wife. Prahlad thereupon caught hold of Birdi and threw her on the ground. Prahlad strangulated her neck and shut her mouth. Soon he found a 'kulhari' lying nearby. Prahlad hit the head of Birdi from the reverse side of 'kulhari'. Accused Sohani further stated that when she started raising hue and cry, Prahlad threatened her that if she raised any voice, she would also be murdered. Thereafter he inflicted a blow by 'kulhari' on the left soldier of Birdi Bhua. Then he inflicted two blows from the sharp side of the 'kulhari' on the stomach of Birdi Bhua. Blood started oozing out of her body. Sohani further stated that her blouse, petticoat and the bra were soaked in the blood. Blood also spread on the ground and some blood even reached the walls and the roof. Birdi Bhua died there on the spot. Prahlad then left. After some time, she went to her agriculture field. While she was returning, Prahlad met her on the way at 7.00 PM. Prahlad threatened her that she should not tell anybody about this incident and if she did, he would also kill her and her children. Sohani asked Prahlad to do something about the dead body lying in her house or else she might be in problem. Prahlad promised to come late in the night. She waited for him at her residence. Prahlad came in the night after 11'O clock. He brought a gunny bag and a rope. He put the dead body into the gunny bag and tied it with the rope but could not alone lift the gunny bag. He then called his brother Sitaram, but before that he had taken out the silver anklet (ring worn around ankle). Prahlad told her that he would throw the dead body in the deserted house of Rameshwar because he has enmity with him so that people would suspect his (Rameshwar) involvement in this murder. She thereafter cleaned the blood from the ground in the room and also from the mud walls. Prahlad came in the morning and took the blood stained soil which she collected from the ground, in a pot and threw the same in that house of Rameshwar. She washed her blood soaked clothes and thereafter went to her parental house in village Sonklya but enroute she stayed at Kekri. Prahlad gave her the silver anklets there at Kekri and told her that she should pledge the same with Modu Sunar of Sarwar disclosing her identity as Sita Jatni. Prahlad asked her that they would divide the money into half each amongst themselves. She stayed at Sarvar for a while and went to Modu Sunar. She mortgaged the said silver anklets with him for Rs.500/- and disclosed her name to be Sita Jatni. On receiving the amount of Rs.500/-, she boarded the bus and reached her parental village Sonklya at 7.00 PM. Police arrested her from the village Sonklya three days after the 'rakhi' festival and also recovered the amount of Rs.500/-.
(3.) THE police, after investigation, filed challan against both the accused-appellants for aforesaid offence. Learned trial court framed charges against both the accused for offence under Sections 302/120-B, 201 and 379 of the IPC. Accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, 26 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and 25 documents were exhibited. While the defence did not examine any witness, though exhibited five documents. On conclusion of trial, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as indicated above. We have heard Shri Onkar Singh Lakhawat, learned Counsel for appellant Sohani in Appeal No.200/1983, Shri N.C. Choudhary and Shri Vijay Choudhary, learned counsel for appellant Prahlad in Appeal No.218/1983, and Shri Javed Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor.;