N.N.MATHUR, J. - (1.) The appellant Kishan Lal @ Krishan Lal was sent up for trial on the charge of uxoricide. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar by the impugned judgment dated 12.7.2002 having found him guilty of perpetrate act of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-; in default of payment to further undergo two years rigorous imprisonment.
(2.) The factual scenario as emerged during the trial is that the appellant Kishan Lal was married to deceased Anupama a deaf and dumb in December, 1993. The couple shifted to Hanumangarh two years back from the date of incident from Sirsa and established a pathological laboratory in the house of P.W.5 Dr.Gyan Prakash. The appellant had also installed a X-Ray Machine in the partnership of Dr.Vinod Kumar Thakar. The parents of the deceased Anupama lived in village Gandhi Badi, Tehsil, Bhadra. She used to visit her maternal uncle P.W.2 Mohan Lal in Village 5 E Chhoti, a place near to Hanumangarh Junction. On 10.10.98 at about 9:00 A.M. P.W.2 Mohan Lal submitted a written report Ex.P1 at Police Station, Sadar Sri Ganganagar stating inter alia that on 4.10.98 the appellant visited his house in Agarsen Nagar at Hanumangarh Junction and requested to bring Anupama as he will be visiting Bikaner for 4-5 days. Accordingly he brought his niece Anupama to Hanumangarh Junction from 5 E Chhoti. On the same day in the evening the appellant Kishan Lal also visited his house. On the next morning i.e. on 5.10.98 he left the house at about 7 A.M. for Bikaner stating that he would be returning on 8th or 9th October, 1998 for collecting Anupama. On 9.10.98 in the afternoon at about 4-5 P.M. the appellant arrived. At about 8:00 P.M. he dinnered along with appellant Kishan Lal and other members of the family. He made arrangement for the night stay of appellant Kishan Lal along with Anumpama in his Bed Room. He along with his wife went to sleep on the terrace. About 15-20 minutes attracted the shouting of appellant Kishan Lal to Bed Room. All the members of the family, which included his mother, wife and the children assembled in the bed room, where Anupama was sleeping. The condition of Anupama was serious. Froth was coming out from her mouth and she was feeling dizziness. Kishan Lal left the place on the pretext of arranging vehicle. After his departure deceased Anupama communicated by sign to the effect that appellant had administered injection to her. The appellant Kishan Lal did not return and fled away. It was also stated that the appellant Kishan Lal was employed as technician in the private clinic of P.W.5 Dr.Gyan Singh. Anupama was rushed to the hospital, where she was declared dead. Police registered a case for offence under Section 302 and 325 I.P.C. and proceeded with investigation. After usual investigation police laid charge-sheet against the appellant for offence under Section 498A and 304B I.P.C. On being committed, the trial court framed charges against the appellant for offence under Section 498A & 304B I.P.C. and in alternate for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(3.) As in absence of witness of the occurrence the prosecution sought to prove its case against the appellant relying on the following piece of circumstances:- (1) The deceased was last lived in the company of the appellant. (2) The appellant alone had an opportunity and capability to inject poison in the body of the deceased which is the cause of her death. (3) Leaving the spot on the false pretext for arranging transport and absconded. (4) The communication of the deceased by sign of administering injection to her by the appellant. (5) Motive to get rid of the deceased a deaf and dumb girl for contracting second marriage. The prosecution in support of its case adduced oral and documentary evidence. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against him. He pleaded innocence. He also stated that he has been falsely implicated at the instance of Mohan Lal. The trial court having found prosecution case proved held the appellant guilty of the charges levelled against him and as such convicted and sentenced in the manner stated above.;