PRASAD, J. - (1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved by his conviction u/s. 302 IPC. Sentence of life has been awarded to him by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 25/99 by judgment dated 29. 3. 2001.
(2.) THE prosecution was initiated on the report lodged by one Memuram on 20. 2. 1999 at 12. 15 a. m. According to the report submitted by the first informant, Ex. 18, the first informant reported to the Police that his sister Nainy was married to Jasraj Bheel about 10 years ago. THEre was a son and two daughters born out of the wedlock. His brother-in-law, accused- Jasraj used to maltreat his sister. About a year before she came to her parental house unable to bear the harassment of her husband. After being persuaded by some persons of the Community, she was sent with the accused. On the fateful day at about 10. 00 p. m. Jasraj-accused came alongwith his nieces and enquired whether Nainy had come there. The first informant replied that she had not come. Then he left the children with him and said that he was going in search of her. The first informant left the two younger girls with his wife and he also went out in search of Nainy, alongwith his mother and brother, Babu. After having searched her in her neighbourhood at about 10. 30 p. m. he went to the house of accused and asked whether the accused has been able to locate Nainy. He denied and said that he has not been able to trace her out. When the witness entered in the house, a chimini was burning. In that light he saw that in the room Nainy was lying dead. There was an injury on her neck. Then he asked the accused about what had happened. Accused replied that since Nainy used to disobey him he, in a heat of passion, had hit her by an axe. He has committed a mistake and pleaded that the informant should some-how hush up the matter. The mother of Nainy started crying and on that the neighbours collected. Seeing the assembly of neighbours, the accused escaped. He even tried to do away with the evidence of the crime by washing of the blood. On these facts, the First Information Report was lodged with the Police Station, Soorsagar. FIR No. 29/99 was registered by the police at the police station, Soorsagar and investigation commenced. Challan was filed against the accused in the committing Court, which in turn committed the case for trial. Ultimately, the Trial Court conducted the trial and convicted the accused u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced him to life. At the trial, charge u/s. 302 IPC was framed. Accused denied the charge and claimed trial. At the trial, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses and tendered 34 documents in evidence. Accused was examined u/s. 313 Cr. P. C. No defence was produced and the accused said that he has been falsely implicated. At the trial, the prosecution produced witnesses supporting the prosecution case. PW-14 Memuram, the first informant, sticking to his version as given in the First Information Report, stated that his brother- in-law, accused-Jasraj came to him and left the minor children with him. Thereafter the first informant went to his house where he found the accused. He also saw Nainy lying there in an injured condition and dead. At that time the accused is alleged to have made an extra-judicial confession to the effect that as she was not amenable to his wishes, in the heat of passion he has given an axe blow to her. He said that he has committed a mistake and asked him to hush up the matter and set things right. At that time his mother started crying and the people from the neighbourhood started collecting there. Seeing the crowed collecting, the accused made his escape good. The Trial Court has believed the testimony of PW-14 Memuram. So also the testimony of PW-22 Smt. Kamla mother of the deceased. Smt. Kamla has also spoken about the implication of the accused- appellant. She also says that on being asked the accused confessed. PW-3 Smt. Banya Devi was a neighbour who had come there hearing the shouts. She also supports that the accused had confessed before his mother-in-law PW-12 Kamla, having committed the crime. PW-8 Mohanlal is a neighbour who states that when he arrived he was informed by Kamla that Nainy has been done away with by the accused. PW-10 Amraram has also supported the prosecution case and he has also supported the version that Jasraj has confessed before his mother-in-law. Even the neighbours were also examined. Police witnesses have deposed about the various stages of investigation. PW-6 Kalu @ Bhanwarlal, who was also a neighbour, states that in the night Kamla was searching for Nainy. The Trial Court, after believing the prosecution case, in particular the extra judicial confession, convicted the accused-appellant u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant, challenging the conviction, has stated that the story of the prosecution is unbelievable. THE extra-judicial confession, as relied on by the Trial Court, is not a piece of evidence which can be said to be of worth, which can be relied upon. In the First Information Report, it is only stated that the confession was made before the first informant. THEre is no whisper about the confession being made before Smt. Kamla and therefore, there is an important omission. Nainy was a lady of such a nature that she never used to fulfill her matrimonial obligations by obeying him. She was a lady of such a character and, therefore, nothing can be said that how her death has been caused because she has been found in a condition which was not an acceptable proposition, in the house at that hour. In the alternative, the learned counsel submitted that it was only in the heat of passion that the appellant caused an injury to the deceased because she used to create such a situation which was not conducive for a peaceful married life. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused was not entitled to any indulgence in appeal. It was a case of custodial death. The wife was found dead within his house. She has been found murdered in the house itself. The accused, in his statement, of otherwise, has not given any explanation of her death or about the time when he was at home and according to the prosecution story, the two young daughters were left by the accused with the maternal uncle, ostensibly to avoid inconvenience to the children under the circumstances when he had already done away with the deceased. Not only that, the accused has not given any explanation of the fact that his wife has been found murdered in the house. He has tried to give false information to the family of the deceased that she was missing. Giving the false information to the witnesses shows the guilty mind of the accused. ;