SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment and order dated 27. 9. 2003 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Chhabra, district Baran, in Sessions Case No. 56/2002 whereby the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Chhitar Lal u/s. 302 IPc To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to further suffer 2 years additional rigorous imprisonment. u/s. 498-A IPc 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- in default, 3 months additional rigorous imprisonment. u/s. 201/34 IPc 5 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default, 1 year additional rigorous imprisonment. Chotu Lal u/s. 201/34 5 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default, one year additional rigorous imprisonment. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, a written report was handed over to the A. S. I. Police Station Chhipa Barod, Camp at Lisadiya on dated 23. 3. 2001, by Banshi Lal r/o Lisadiya. On the basis of the said report a case under Section 302, 201, 34 IPC was registered. In the report, the informant Banshi Lal stated that his daughter Rami Bai was married in 1986 with Chhitar Lal r/o Gulkheri and her `gauna' was performed in the year 1988. She was given silver and golden ornaments and other house hold articles in the marriage. Inspite of that Chhitar Lal used to beat his daughter and he also demanded a motor cycle in dowry. About two years back, Rami Bai was beaten and she sustained fracture in her hand and had to be hospitalized. So she stayed with her father and refused to go back as she apprehended that she could be put to death if Chhitar Lal was not given motor cycle. After few days she was sent to her in-laws house. She was severely beaten on 18. 3. 2001 by Chhitar Lal and she died at her in-laws house at village Gulkeri. Her body was taken out of the house and was put on fire in the field on mustard straws so that it may look like suicide. Then her funeral was performed at 6 in the following morning without informing her parents. On registering a case as aforesaid, the investigation commenced. During the investigation, ash from the mustard field was seized vide Memo Ex. P. 13. The accused Chhitar Lal was arrested on 29. 3. 2001 and on the basis of his disclosure statement Ex. P. 19, one plastic container full of kerosene (Pipi) was recovered nearby the bushes of funeral place. After collecting necessary evidence, challan was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Baran. The accused Chhitar Lal and Chhotu Lal were charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections 498-A, 302/34, 201/34 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses. In their explanation u/s. 313 Cr. P. C. , the accused stated that they were innocent and they were falsely implicated. However, in defence as many as nine witnesses have been examined. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and gone through the record. Learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the conviction on the ground that the appellants have been convicted on the basis of conjectures and surmises and there is no evidence on record to base conviction, therefore benefit of doubt be given to the appellate. Learned Public Prosecutor has controverted the aforesaid contention and supported the judgment of the learned trial Court. On reappraisal of evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is revealed that the deceased Smt. Rami Bai was married with the appellant Chhotu Lal in the year 1986 and she had two children out of the wedlock; that the accused Chittar Lal demanded motor cycle in dowry and when deceased Rami Bai went to her parents, she expressed that she apprehend danger to life if motor cycle was not given to appellant; that accused Chhitar Lal used to beat his wife deceased Rami Bai and she had sustained a fracture in her hand and during the treatment, she remained at the house of her father. With this back-ground the prosecution has put-forth the case that on 18. 3. 2001, she was severely beaten by Chhitar Lal and her dead body was tried to be burnt by putting her on fire of mustard straws and then on the following day at about 6 in the morning her funeral was performed and her death was tried to be shown as suicide.
(3.) THE prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses, all residents of Gulkheri, where the occurrence took place. THEse witnesses namely, (PW. 1) Amar Lal, (PW. 2) Ram Gopal, (PW. 3) Gaja Nand, (PW. 4) Vinod Kumar (PW. 5) Babu Lal and (PW. 6) Dhanna Lal have not supported the prosecution case that they had seen any quarrel between the deceased and the accused Chittar Lal. THEy have also not supported that the deceased Rami Bai was put to death and her dead body was taken to the mustard field and was put on fire so as to show that it was a suicide. All these witnesses have also not supported the facts that there was a demand of motor cycle by the accused appellant from the father of the deceased. All these witnesses have been declared hostile by the prosecution. Pw. 7 Mangi Lal and Pw. 14 Shyam Lal, also belonged to the village of Gulkheri and they were made motbirs to the recovery memo of Ex. P. 8, a plastic container containing one and half litre of kerosene, recovered at the instance of the accused Chhitar from the nearby bushes of the place of funeral. This evidence is not of much help to connect the accused with the crime as the kerosene container has not been recovered from the mustard field where deceased was allegedly burnt by the accused Chittar but the same has been recovered from the nearby place of funeral of the deceased and as such it can not be said that this kerosene was used so as to destroy the evidence of murder by disposing of the said body else where than the place of funeral. The other set of witnesses were examined by the prosecution belonged to the parental village of deceased Rami Bai. (Pw. 9) Banshi Lal is the father of the deceased. He has deposed that he was not informed of the death of his daughter and when he went to attend ceremony held on third day of death, he was told by the persons in the village about the manner his daughter was put to death. Likewise, (Pw. 12) Babu Lal is son of Banshi Lal (Pw. 9) and Pw. 11 Rekha Bai is his wife, had also no personal knowledge of the alleged incident as both of them lived in Kota. (Pw. 17) Sabu Lal is cousin brother of Pw. 9 Banshi Lal and he has deposed that he came to know of the incident when he went village Lasadiya and then asked Banshi Lal (Pw. 9) to report the matter in the Police. The prosecution has also examined (Pw. 10) Bhairu Lal and (Pw. 13) Banshi Lal s/o Ram Narain, both residents of village Lasadiya, but they have been declared hostile as they did not support the prosecution version. ;