S. K. SHARMA, J. - (1.) A married woman of thirty years (Maya) was throttled to death. This was the graveman of charge put against the appellant Rampal. Learned Special Judge SC/st (PA cases) Alwar, vide judgment dated March 26, 2003 convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- u/s. 376 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment for six months. u/s. 302 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment for six months. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. This appeal has been filed by the appellant in challenge of the said judgment.
(2.) WE shall state the facts of the case as put forth by the prosecution:- Maya was a married woman. Since she could not adjust herself in her in-laws house, she came back to her parental house and started residing there. On March 11, 2002 around 11. 30 AM she had gone to jungle to collect wood-sticks and came back around 1 PM with a bundle of sticks. She left her house again at 2 PM for collecting another bundle of sticks but did not return back. She was vigorously searched whole night. In the next morning her dead body was found lying in a field of Rampal Yadav. She was half naked. Her `salwar' was lying on her breast and her scarf was tied on her neck. In between her naked thighs near vagina nylon underwear (chaddi) was found thursted. Devraj (PW. 3) submitted a written report to ASI Police Station Shahjahanpur who reached at the spot. On that report a case was registered against unknown person under Section 302 IPC and investigation commenced. The police recorded the statements of witnesses and arrested the appellant who was wearing underwear stained with semen. Seized articles were sealed and sent for examination to FSL and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Special Judge SC/st (PA Cases) Alwar. Charge under Section 302 and 376 IPC and Section 3 (2) (5) SC/st (PA) Act were framed against the accused, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 16 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Crpc, the accused claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions arrived at the conclusion as indicated herein above. Death of Maya was undeniably homicidal in nature. As per Post Mortem report (Ex. P. 1) following ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body:- Rigor mortis is present all over the body. PM standing present on dependent parts of body. Face is congested & lucid. Eyes are suffused also bulging. Pupil dilated. Tongue is swollen & dark coloured. Petechial hemorrhage are present on skin of eye lids and forehead. Bloods froth is coming from both nostrils. Double knot ligature (chunni) is present in neck. Knot is present entirely ligature is transverse completely encircling the neck below the thyroid cartilage. Base is soft and reddish & 3 cm is width. enzymatic is present above the edges of ligature. Cyarnis is present on nails of upper limb. Hands are partly open. In the opinion of Dr. Ram Narayan Meena (PW. 1) the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. Since there was no eye witness of the occurrence and the prosecution founded its case on circumstantial evidence. We have therefore to examine whether:- (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, have been cogently and firmly established; (ii) those circumstances are of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the appellants; (iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the appellants and none else. Before considering the rival submissions, we deem it necessary to have a look on the incriminating circumstances on which learned trial Court based the conviction of appellant. The circumstances are:- (i) The appellant helped the deceased in collecting wood- sticks and was seen her company before her death. (ii) The deceased had gone to the jungle second time and never returned back. (iii) The appellant too was missing from the jungle and was not found in the village. He could only be nabbed on March 13, 2002. (iv) At the time of arrest appellant was wearing underwear (Chaddi) which was found stained with semen. (v) Deceased was found half naked and nylon-chaddi thursted between her naked thighs near vagina, was stained with human semen. (vi) Chappal and shawl of deceased and rope used in tying wood-sticks got recovered at the instance of the appellant. It is discerned from the testimony of Babli (PW. 5) and Suman (PW. 6) that Maya deceased was their Nanad (sister-in-law) and because relations of Maya with her husband were strained, she left her husband's house and started residing in her parental house. On the date of incident deceased had gone around 11 AM to collect sticks and came back at 1 PM but she again left the house for collecting another bundle of sticks and never returned back.
(3.) GEETA (PW. 8) deposed that Maya had gone with her for collecting wood-sticks. When they reached in jungle Rampal and Bhagwana were sitting. Rampal then started helping Maya by cutting sticks for her. Maya collected sticks and sent back to her house. In the afternoon when she had gone to `johadi' she had seen Bhagwana, Hajai and Dhanpat only, Rampal was not there:- *** Bhagwana (PW. 9) although was declared hostile, deposed in his cross examination as under:- *** Gyanendra Singh IO (PW. 15) in his deposition stated that he arrested the appellant and on the basis of disclosure statements under Section 27 of Evidence act (Ex. P. 26) of appellant vide memo Ex. P. 13 he recovered Hawai Chappals and red shawl of deceased and a rope which were concealed by the appellant in the field of Rampat, where crop of mustard was standing. He deposed thus:- *** Hajari Lal Khatana SHO PS Shahajahanpur (PW. 16) deposed that he conducted the investigation of the case and took the dead body for post mortem. Clothes of deceased were seized vide memo Ex. P. 11. Pink Kurta and scarf containing knot was seized vide memo Ex. P. 10. Nylon underwear and Salwar were seized vide memo Ex. P. 22. He also stated that underwear was having spot of semen. ;