Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - (1.) THE present appeal has been filed through jail after delay of 1712 days. On 30/03/2012 while admitting appeal, a co -ordinate bench has passed the following order: - "This appeal has been filed by Madan Lal son of Shri Hanuman Sahay, who has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge [Fast Track] No. 1, Jaipur District Jaipur vide judgment dated 18.04.2006 in Sessions Case No. 82 of 2005. This appeal is barred by limitation, as there is a delay of 1712 -days. The appeal is duly supported by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The accused is in Central Jail, Jaipur. It is stated in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act that after the judgment was pronounced and delivered the accused became insane and as a result of which he was unable to file this appeal, though, there is no supporting document in this behalf. We are inclined to take a lenient view looking to the fact that the accused is in jail in pursuance of the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded to him. The delay is condoned. The application u/S.5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. The appeal is admitted. The record be called for." Thereafter, the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur had appointed Shri S.K. Jain as counsel to defend the appellant. Appellant in the present case stands convicted for offence u/S.302 IPC for causing murder of his wife Smt. Pappu Devi. The court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur by impugned -judgment dated 18/04/2006 has held the appellant guilty for offence u/Ss.302 and 309 IPC. After having convicted the appellant for the abovesaid offences, by order of even date, the trial court has sentenced the appellant, as under: - for offence u/S.302 IPC: - Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default and pay thereof, to further undergo two months simple imprisonment. for offence u/S.309 IPC: - Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that appellant has committed the murder of his wife and attempted to commit suicide and had caused injury on his neck. The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of the statement (Ex.P10) made by the appellant. Statement of the appellant was recorded by Hari Shankar Sharma (PW14), who was then posted as SHO PS Chaksu. The statement of accused -Madan Lal (Ex.P10) after translated into English is being reproduced, as under: - "Statement of Shri Madan Lal S/o Shri Hanuman Sahay Meena, by caste Meena, aged 28 years, R/o Radoli PS Chaksu, Jaipur presently undergoing treatment at Primary Health Center, Chaksu dated 4.9.2005: - I am the resident of Village Radoli and remain at home. In my house, besides me, my wife Smt. Pappu and son aged seven years reside. Yesterday on 3.9.2005 in the evening at 4.00 p.m., I was lying on the cot of the house then, my wife Pappu asked me to bring gawar beans. I had refused to go and stated that I will bring the same later. My wife became angry and she caused me injury on the neck with a knife used for cutting vegetables. The blood was oozing out of the injury. I ran from the house and came towards Bapu village. For the whole night, I remained in the fields. In the morning when I became conscious then, somebody gave information to the police. The village of my in -laws is Tholai, which is near Aandhi." A perusal of the abovesaid statement goes to show that occurrence as stated in the FIR is said to have taken place on 03/09/2005 in the evening at 4.00 p.m., whereas the statement (Ex.P10) of the accused was recorded by Hari Shankar Sharma (PW14) on 04/09/2005 at 8.20 a.m. and on special report of 'ilaka Magistrate' the case was registered on 05/09/2005 at 10.45 a.m. The trial court considering that FIR was lodged on the basis of the statement of the appellant and there was injury on his neck and weapon & clothes recovered from the appellant tallied with the blood group on the clothes of the deceased, had recorded conviction of the appellant. We have perused the entire evidence. A peculiar feature of the case is that all the witnesses have turned hostile and nobody has supported the prosecution case. We shall briefly recapitulate the evidence led by the prosecution.
(3.) CHANDA Lal (PW1) stated that the accused is known to him. He is resident of their village. His wife died 5 -6 months ago. She died in the house. Police came to the village. Police had not prepared the site -plan in his presence and had obtained his signatures on the blank papers. This witness further stated that police did not recover any article in his presence. Therefore, witness denied recovery of blood stained mattress (gudadi), blood sample, clothes and blood stained soil lifted from the floor. This witness further stated that while preparing memo Ex.P2 to Ex.P6, the contents thereof were not read over to him and only his signatures were obtained on blank papers.;