Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS is a strange case where a husband namely Pappu fled away leaving his wife dead in his house and the dead body got cremated hurriedly in the night by the villagers. In this appeal the husband is appellant. He was put to trial, along with nine co -accused persons, before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Baran Head Quarter Chhabra. Learned Judge vide judgment dated September 8, 2004, while acquitting co -accused persons, convicted and sentenced the appellant as under: Under Section 302 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/ -, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Under Section 201 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 1000/ - in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for five months. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) IT is the prosecution case that on March 13, 2003 at 7.45 PM informant Gulab Chand (Pw.9) submitted a written report (Ex.P -15) at police station Harnavda Shahji to the effect that his daughter Nirmala, who married to Pappu 4 -5 years back, used to be harassed in connection with demand of dowry by her husband and in -laws. Informant thereafter kept Nirmala with him at his village Setkelu. Only 4 -5 months back Pappu took her with him at his village Jhanjhani. On March 13, while he was at his village Setkelu, he came to know that on March 12 Nirmala died and hurriedly cremated in the night. The informant had apprehension that either Nirmala was killed or she committed suicide because of harassment. On that report a case was registered under Sections 304B, 498A, 306 and 302/34 IPC and investigation commenced. Necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, accused 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) No. 2 Baran Head Quarter Chhabra. Charges under Sections 304B or 302, 306 and 201 IPC were framed against the accused, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 20 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 CrPC, the accused claimed innocence. Two witnesses in support of defence were examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions, while acquitting co -accused persons, convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions advanced before us.
(3.) THERE is no eye witness of the incident and case of prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution the following circumstances are clearly established: (i) The marriage of Nirmala with the appellant Pappu had taken place about 8 -10 years back. At the time of marriage Gulab Chand (father of Nirmala) charged a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - from Pappu. (ii) While Nirmala was residing with Pappu, she developed intimacy with one Roop Singh, who took her away after paying Rs. 10,000/ - to Gulab Chand. (iii) Gulab Chand (Pw.9) and Kaushalya (Pw.10), mother of Nirmala, admitted that they charged money from Pappu and Roop Singh. They further stated that after residing with Roop Singh, Nirmala came back and remained in their house for about 10 -12 days. She was thereafter taken back by Pappu where she resided till her death. (iv) Nirmala died on March 12 around 10 PM in the house of Pappu. Leaving Nirmala dead, Pappu fled away from the village and the villagers immediately cremated Nirmala in the night itself. (v) At the time of death of Nirmala, presence of Pappu is established in his house. (vi) There is no evidence on record as to in what manner Nirmala died. (vii) Appellant Pappu, who appeared in the witness box as Dw.1, deposed thus: ....Vernacular Text Ommited.... In his cross examination he admitted that at the time of cremation he was not in the village.;