BALI, J. - (1.) SHIVAN Das @ Shiv Kumar has been held guilty for an offence under Section 302 IPC for causing murder of his wife and has been sentenced to a term of life, as also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months vide order of conviction and sentence dated 30. 9. 2000 recorded by learned Special Judge (Sati Nivaran) Rajasthan & Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur.
(2.) THE only question that needs to be determined in the present appeal filed by the Shivan Das against the order of his conviction and sentence is as to whether Smt. Rukmani - his wife, committed suicide due to the appellant persistently beating her while making a demand of money for liquor or that on one such occasion he himself killed her. The bare minimum facts that need a necessary mention to decide the question framed above, reveal that the occurrence leading to death of Smt. Rukmani had taken place on 20. 6. 1999 at 7. 30 p. m. FIR with regard to the incident came to be lodged by Bishandas @ Vishan brother of the deceased on 22. 6. 1999 at 5. 45 p. m. Bishandas had given a written report Ex. P8 to SHO Police Station, Bhattabasti, Jaipur. The special report with regard to the incident reached the concerned Magistrate on 23. 6. 1999. While unfolding the prosecution version Bishandas stated that his sister Smt. Rukmani was married to appellant Shivandas. His brother-in-law Shivandas some time after marriage started consuming liquor and used to demand money from his sister to buy and consume liquor. If his sister would refuse to give him money he would beat her because he was in habit of taking liquor. He used to go to his place of service only for 10 days in a month. His sister used to tell him to go to the place of his service and was not giving him money to buy liquor whereupon he used to bear her. In this connection, he had given beating to his sister in the presence of his mother Smt. Kalawati and her son-in-law Girdharilal. His sister had already told him and his mother about this fact and further that for not giving the money to him, appellant could kill her any time. He and his mother concealed with appellant on number of occasions upon which, he would beg pardon. On 20. 6. 1999 he received information of death of his sister, upon which he went to her house and saw that his sister was lying dead in the room. She had ligature marks on her neck. From this fact, he was convinced that the appellant had killed his sister by throttling. Because of coming of relatives and performing last rites of his sister, he could not lodge the report earlier. The prosecution in its endeavour, to bring home the offence against the appellant examined Dr. Suman Datt as PW 13. He stated that on 21. 6. 1999 he conducted post mortem on the dead body of Smt. Rukmani W/o Shivandas. The doctor found following injuries on the dead body of Smt. Rukmani. " 1. Abrasion 1/2 x 1/2 cm. left knee cap reddish in colour or diminish tissue staining. 2. A ligature mark of size 12 x 2 cm. present in front below thyroid cartilage. Ligature mark is going upward backward reaching on right side 5 cm. below Right ear lobule on left side reaches 8 cm. below left ear lobule. Ligature mark is slightly grooved brownish in colour hand shallow not deep consistency on dissection the ligature mark is parchement like underneath tissue found pale. There is no fracture of cricoid, arytenoid thyroid cartilage. There is no displacement of tracheal rings. The above ligature mark is ante-mortem in nature. " In his cross-examination he stated that the ligature marks were visible in front of the neck. There was no ligature marks on the back of the neck. He also stated that the injuries received by the deceased could be the result of hanging. From the ligature marks, symptoms were of hanging. Smt. Kalawati, mother of deceased, who was examined as PW1, stated with regard to habit of the appellant of consuming liquor, demanding money from his daughter and beating her in case she refuses to give him money. Smt. Kavita examined as PW2, residing on the first floor of the same house, where the appellant was residing, also deposed with regard to appellant giving beating to his wife in case she refuses to give him money. Smt. Janki Devi examined as PW-4 aunt of the deceased, corroborated the statements made by Smt. Kalawati and Smt. kavita with regard to the appellant being in habit of consuming liquor, demanding money from his wife and beating her in case she refuses to give him money. Gopal Gandhi examined as PW5, who is the neighbour of the appellant, who in fact was living in the same house where the appellant was residing confirmed what had been stated by the witnesses named above. Shri Devanand PW6 son of the deceased from her first husband also stated that his father used to bear his mother after consuming liquor. Babulal and Ramesh @ Manchchi examined as PW8 and PW9 respectively deposed with regard to `chunni' of the deceased that was recovered at the instance of the appellant pursuant to disclosure statement made by him. Matadeen Singh and Mohan Lal PW12 and PW14 are the police officials, who deposed with regard to the steps they had taken while investigating the case.
(3.) WHEN examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellant while denying incriminating material put to him, pleaded his innocence and false involvement in the case. Mr. Biri Singh, it appears to us, in view of overwhelming evidence that has been brought on record by the prosecution with regard to the appellant being unkind to his wife, beating her frequently on account of demand of money so as to buy and consume liquor, has only argued that it is a case where Smt. Rukmani Devi committed suicide, even though, due to mental and physical agony caused to her by the appellant. He thus contends that the appellant, at the most can be convicted under Section 306 IPC for abetting Smt. Rukmani to commit suicide but cannot be convicted for causing murder and therefore, his conviction under Section 302 IPC needs to be set-aside. In support of his contention the learned counsel relies upon the statement made by Dr. Suman Datt PW13, who stated in his cross-examination that ligature mark was in front of neck and not on back of the neck and further that the injuries sustained by Smt. Rukmani Devi could have been caused on account of hanging of neck and further that symptoms of ligature mark would show hanging. We have given out thoughtful consideration to the only contention of the learned counsel as noted above. In the context of the facts and circumstances of this case, we however, do not find any merit in the said contention of the learned counsel. ;