BHANDARI, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by accused appellant against the judgment of Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hanumangarh dated 1. 2. 2002 in Sessions Case No. 137/2001.
(2.) THE prosecution case was initiated on submission of report by Balwant Singh S/o. Indra Singh to Police Station, Hanumangarh Junction. A typed report was submitted by Balwant Singh on 28. 7. 2001, at about 9. 15 a. m. , stating therein that he is resident of Ward No. l, Sureshiya, Hanumangarh Junction. Hari Ram s/o. Daulat Ram is his neighbor, who usually quarrel with his wife. Yesterday night he heard high pitch noises and when he came out from his house, Kamla and Hari Ram were quarreling with each other. He slept in the night and when he woke up in the morning, Kamla was found dead on her cot. Hari Ram killed Kamla and ran away from the place of occurrence. On the basis of the said report, FIR was registered, bearing No. 498. THE case was registered under Section 302 of IPC, thereafter, investigation was conducted by the police. Police submitted challan under Section 302 of IPC before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh. The case was committed to the court of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, from where it was transferred to the trial Court. The trial Court framed charges against the accused under Section 302 I. P. C. accused denied charges and claimed trial. Prosecution produced 12 witnesses and exhibited 44 documents. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. The trial Court convicted accused under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with penalty of Rs. 100/-, in default, to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the appellant has been wrongly implicated in the matter as he was not there on the place of occurrence. It was further submitted that complainant in his court statement stated that he had not given any complaint to the Police. It was thus, submitted that when there is no complaint and evidence against the appellant, then there was no reason for the trial Court to convict the accused under Section 302 of IPC. It was lastly submitted that circumstantial evidence available on record does not connect accused with the crime. Thus, it was prayed that the judgment of the trial Court be set aside.
(3.) PER contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is on the complaint of the complainant - Balwant Singh that FIR was registered, though said Balwant Singh as PW 1 thereafter turned hostile but he had not denied his signature on the complaint. The evidence produced by the prosecution connects accused with the crime. It was further urged that the accused was last seen on the place of occurrence and as he has failed to give any explanation of death of his wife, the trial Court has rightly arrived at the conclusion about his guilt after considering circumstantial evidence available on record. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that at the instance of the accused, his blood stained clothes as well blood stained weapon were recovered. It was, therefore, prayed that the judgment of the trial Court may be maintained. We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the material available on record. Prosecution case was initiated with the submission of report by Balwant Singh, stating the fact that last night, he heard high pitch voice of accused and his wife quarreling with each other and, in the morning, Kamla was found dead. The said witness, in his court statement, pleaded ignorance about the person caused murder. The said witness further stated that he had not given complaint to the police, rather same was prepared by the police and was not even read over to him. It was only his signature which was taken, otherwise facts mentioned therein were not stated by him. The said witness turned hostile. Even PW 2, PW 3, PW 4, PW 5, PW 8 and PW 11 were declared hostile. ;