SHARMA, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment dated September 24, 2002 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sikar whereby the appellants, four in number, were convicted and sentenced as under:- Dhanni Devi, Mohini Devi, Raju @ Rajendra and Mohan Lal: U/s. 302/149 IPC: Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment. U/s. 148 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment. U/s. 452 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer two months simple imprisonment. U/s. 201 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment. Appellants Dhanni Devi, Mohini Devi and Raju @ Rajendra were also convicted and sentenced under section 323/149 IPC whereas Mohan Lal was convicted under section 323 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer fifteen days imprisonment. All sentences were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) THE prosecution case as unfolded during trial is that on January 11, 2001 Police Station Sadar Fatehpur received a telephonic message that one Mohan Lal pushed a lady into the well. Kanhaiya Lal, ASI (Pw. 20) along with police party thereafter rushed to the place of incident where informant Bajrang Lal (Pw. 1) gave him a written report wherein it was stated that on the said day around 9 AM while he was away from his house carrying buffaloes out side of his field, he heard hue and cry towards his house. He then saw Ram Kumar, Mohan Lal, Ranjeet, Raju, Mohini Devi and Dhanni Devi lifting his wife and they were about to drop her into the well. She appeared to have been killed by them. When the informant prevented them from pushing her into the well, Mohan Lal inflicted Barchhi blow on his head as a result of which he became unconscious. On regaining consciousness he raised alarm. THE assailants killed his wife on account of property dispute. On that report case was registered and investigation commenced. After usual investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sikar. Charges under sections 147, 148, 323, 452, 201 and 302/149 IPC were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. THE prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 21 witnesses. In the explanation under section 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellants claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. We have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant and with their assistance scanned the entire evidence on record. As per postmortem report (Ex. P-16) deceased Chhoti Devi sustained following ante mortem injuries:- 1. Incised wound 18cm x 5cm x bone deep at left gluteal region 2. Abrasion 5cm x 2cm x t left gluetal region. 3. Abrasion 3x1cm at lower 1/3 of left thigh 4. Incised wound 10cm x 4cm at right ankle medial aspect causing compound fracture of lower end of both leg bones. 5. Swelling with deformity Right thigh causing fracture of right femur 6. Abrasion 5cm x 4cm at right thigh anteriorly middle. The cause of death in the opinion of Dr. C. L. Sharma (Pw. 6), who was member of the Board who performed autopsy on the dead body, was hemorrhagic shock due to ante mortem injuries. Coming to the evidence of star witnesses of the prosecution we noticed as under :- (i) Bajrang Lal (Pw. 1) in his deposition stated that the appellants took his wife to the well and gave beating. When they were about to push her into the well, he prevented them from doing so. Mohan Lal then caused injury on his head with the blunt side of Barchhi and pushed his wife into the well. Before the police arrived the dead body of his wife had already been taken out of the well by one Shri Ram. He further stated that he got the report written by one Sanwra much prior to the arrival of the police. On showing the photograph (Ex. D-3), he deposed that it was the photograph of nude dead body of his wife. (ii) Karni Singh (Pw. 2) deposed that the appellants dragged injured Chhoti to the well and when Bajrang Lal prevented then Mohan Lal gave Barchhi blow with blunt side of Barchi on his head and they pushed Chhoti into the well. Karni Singh admitted that he became silent spectator through out and did not intervene. (iii) Gom Singh (Pw. 7) stated that after beating Chhoti the appellants dragged her and there was a trail of blood. (iv) Bhanwni (Pw. 8), Taramani (Pw. 9), Shyam Lal (Pw. 10) and Subhash (Pw. 11) corroborated the version narrated by Bajrang Lal. What emerges out of the aforequoted evidence is that Mohanlal (appellant) and informant Bajranglal (PW. 1) are real brothers. Chhoti (deceased) was the wife of Bajranglal. There was a land dispute between Bajranglal and Mohanlal. On the fateful day Mohanlal and his other family members came armed with deadly weapons and entered the house of Bajranglal who was not in the house but his wife Chhoti was there who at the relevant time was cooking food. Mohan Lal, Raju, Mohini Devi and Dhanni Devi caused injuries on the person of Chhoti and took her to the well belonging to Bajranglal. The well was 50 yards away from the house. When the assailants were about to drop Chhoti into the well Bajranglal arrived at the spot and prevented them from pushing Chhoti into the well. Mohanlal then inflicted blow with Barchhi from the blunt side on the head of Bajranglal who became unconscious and Chhoti was pushed into the well by the assailants. Some body informed about the incident on telephone to the police. But before the police arrived one Shri Ram got nude dead body out of the well. The written report was drawn by one Sanwra much prior to arrival of the police.
(3.) DURING the course of arguments we asked learned counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor to explain certain improbabilities noticed by us in the prosecution story. Following questions were put to learned counsel - (i) Why Mohanlal who had land dispute with his brother Bajranglal, killed Bajrang Lal's innocent wife Chhoti and spared Bajrang Lal? (ii) Why the dead body of Chhoti was found stark naked? Under what circumstances she was undressed and who did this act of shame? (iii) When assault was made on Chhoti in the house and she was nearly dead why she was lifted and taken to the well which was fifty yards away from the house? (iv) Why Shri Ram and Sanwra were not examined? Learned counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor termed these questions hypothetical and gave evasive reply. Per contra learned counsel for the appellants canvassed that right from the very beginning the defence of the appellants was that it was Bajranglal who killed his wife and falsely implicated the appellants. The prosecution witnesses examined at the trial were under the influence of Bajranglal. Learned counsel further urged that the incident occurred on January 11, 2001 but the report (Ex. P. 24) reached to the Ilaqa Magistrate on January 15, 2001 despite the fact that court of Ilaqa Magistrate situated just in front of Police Station Sadar Fatehpur. We now proceed to consider the judicial pronouncements referred to by learned counsel for the complainant. ;