SHARMA, J. - (1.) MOHRU, the appellant herein, was forced to take sorrowful sighs by his real brother Parsadi who made allegations against the appellant that he committed murder of his (Parsadi) wife Prem. The appellant was put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Gangapur City, who vide judgment dated August 29, 2001 convicted and sentenced the appellant under section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 2000, in default to further suffer six months simple imprisonment.
(2.) IN the instant appeal the defence of appellant is that informant Parsadi had illicit relations with his daughter-in-law Kamla, whose husband (son of Parsadi) was away from the country. On the fateful night when Prem (deceased) returned from a marriage she saw her husband Parsadi coming out from the pator (residential room) of Kamla. When Prem raised objection, Parsadi killed her and removed hurdle from the path of his illicit relationship forever. Parsadi killed two birds with one stone by implicating appellant falsely in the case. Before adverting to the rival submission we straightway proceed to scan the prosecution case that emerges out of the written report made by informant Parsadi (Pw. 1 ). In the report it was stated that on April 14, 2000 around 4. 30 AM when informant returned from his `khalihan' to his house, he saw his brother Mohru coming out of his (Parsadi) house. When he went inside the house and awoke his wife, he found her speechless. There were injuries on her neck and thighs. He immediately rushed to Mohru's house and demanded explanation from him. It was Mohru who killed his wife because of enmity with him. On that report a case under section 302 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Autopsy on the dead body was performed, sight was inspected, necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, appellant was arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Gangapur City. Charge under section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 10 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Crpc, the appellant claimed innocence and stated that Parsadi himself killed his wife because he had illicit relationship with his daughterin- law Kamla and his wife created hurdle in the said relationship. Four witnesses in support of defence were examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above. In the absence of any eye witness to prove its case the prosecution relied upon the following circumstances to connect the appellant with the offence alleged against him:- (i) Informant Parsadi saw the appellant, armed with beelni (small axe), running out of the house of deceased. (ii) Parsadi raised alarm and named appellant as culprit. The appellant was arrested immediately. (iii) Beelni (stained with blood) got recovered at the instance of appellant. (iv) Appellant also sustained injuries because of struggle with deceased. Death of Prem was undeniably homicidal in nature. As per post mortem report (Ex. P-14) following ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body:- 1. Bruise 4cm x 2cm on the Rt. cervicle region mid part. 2. Bruise 5cm x 2cm Left cervicle region just below to mendibular region circularly present. 3.Incised wound 3cm x 1cm x muscle deep on the Rt. cervicle region just 2. 5cm above to clevicle bone. There is torn carotid vessels. 4.Incised wound 1. 5cm x. 5cm x muscle deep just above the medial end of the Rt. clevicle bone. 5.Incised bone 5cm x 5cm just above to injury No. 4. 6.Bruise 3cm x 5cm on left nostril (External) 7.Bruise 1. 5cm x. 5cm on the Rt. nostril (External) 8.Bruise 3. 5cm x 5cm on the left cheek. 9.Incised wound 1cm x. 5cm x muscle deep on left thigh medial aspect. 10.Incised wound 1 x. 5cm x muscle deep on the right thigh upper 1/3rd part medial aspect. In the opinion of Dr. T. R. Meena (Pw. 8) the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock and cardio respiratory arrest. It is now to be seen as to whether the prosecution has unerringly proved from the circumstantial evidence that it was the appellant who committed murder of Prem.
(3.) PARSADI (Pw. 1) is the star witness of the prosecution. He is the real brother of appellant and on the date of incident both resided in the neighbourhood of each other. In his deposition PARSADI stated that on the preceding night he along with his son Bharat Lal and grand son Man Singh had gone to sleep in their `khalihan' where crop of wheat got stored. In the morning around 4. 30 AM when child Man Singh awoke and asked for drinking water, he proceeded to his house. No sooner did he reach near his house he saw Mohru coming out of his Pator. He was armed with `beelni'. PARSADI thereafter called his wife, but there was no response from inside. He then entered the house and found his wife Prem lying dead on the cot, she had sustained injuries on her neck and other parts of the body. He immediately rushed to the house of Mohru and told him "killer what you did". At that time Bharat Lal, Ramji Lal and other villagers gathered. PARSADI further stated that Mohru had sold the land which came in his share, thereafter their relations got strained and because of this enmity Mohru killed his wife. In the cross examination he admitted that he did not state in the report that he saw Mohru armed with Beelni. He denied to have illicit relations with his daughter-in-law Kamla. He further denied that meeting of Caste Panchayat was held on April 20, 2000 and in that Panchayat he and Kamla admitted that they had illicit relations and he instituted false case against Mohru. He however admitted that he did not perform last rites of Prem:- *** Kamla (Pw. 2) in her deposition stated that in the night of incident she was sleeping in a room and her mother-in-law Prem was sleeping in other room. In the morning around 4, 4. 30 AM she heard noise and when she tried to open the gate it was closed from outside which was opened by her brother in law Bharat Lal. After coming out of the room she found the crowd at the house of Mohru and her father-in-law Parsadi was asking Mohru as to why he killed the deceased. In her cross examination she admitted that her husband did not come from abroad on the death of her mother- in-law. She denied to have illicit relations with her father-in- law. Testimony of Parsadi and Kamla gets corroboration from the statement of Bharat Lal (Pw. 3 ). Bhurya (Pw. 5), neighbour of Parsadi, however deposed that on the day of incident Parsadi came to him and told that his wife was killed by somebody. Thereafter Parsadi reached to the house of Mohru, who was sleeping on the cot, turned down Mohru from the cot and had altercation with him. Bhurya was declared hostile. In his cross examination he deposed that Parsadi did not perform the last rites of his wife after her death. He further stated that in the Caste Panchayat Parsadi and Kamla admitted their illicit relationship and one Jagdish filed a complaint against Parsadi with the allegations that he committed murder of his wife. Pyare Lal (Pw. 10) deposed that on April 14, 2000 he was posted as Sub Inspector in the Police Station Gangapur City and investigation of case was handed over to him. He arrested Mohru on April 14, 2000 and on April 24, 2000 i. e. after 10 days of the incident Mohru gave information under section 27 of the Evidence Act about weapon of offence. Pursuant to that information `beelni' got recovered on April 24, 2000. In the cross examination this witness stated that court forwarded complaint instituted by Jagdish Prasad Mali under Section 156 (3) Crpc on April 24, 2000 and he registered FIR No. 260/2000 against Parsadi for having committed murder of his wife. But on investigation the complaint was found false. As per the inquest report drawn by Pyare Lal, dead body of Prem was found lying on a cot covered with the quilt. ;