Prakash Tatia J. - (1.) The D.B.Criminal Appeal No.402/02 has been preferred by appellant Sumitra against the judgment and order dated 4.4.2002 passed in Sessions Case No.14/2002(6/99) by the Court of Addl. District Judge( Fast Track), Ratangarh District Churu wherein the appellant Sumitra has been convicted for charge under Section 302, IPC and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/- and in default thereof, to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment. By the same judgment and order, co-accused Bhojraj, appellant's son and daughter Vandna and Sanjay were acquitted for the charge under Section 302 read with 120B, IPC and in alternative, for charge under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC, and against the order of acquittal of above three accused, the State has preferred D.B.Criminal Appeal No.756/02.
(2.) The facts of the case are that on 10.11.1998 at 7.30 p.m., the complainant Choth Mal submitted a written report in the Police Station, Churu alleging that he received telephone call from the appellant Sumitra at his shop and the appellant Sumitra told him that she wanted to talk with complainant's son Satya Narayan. Satya Narayan after talking on telephone, told the complainant that he has been called by the appellant at Churu, therefore, he is going to Churu. In the complaint, it is mentioned that the appellant had relations (indicated as illicit) with Satya Narayan since long time and since last 2 1/2 years they are not having cordial relation. The complainant told his son to not to go to Churu but he did not obey and went to Churu. The complainant had some doubt, therefore, after some time, he went to Churu to find out his son Satya Narayan. When he reached to the house of the appellant, he found that the motor cycle No. RJ 18/0040 of Satya Narayan was lying out side the house of the appellant. He enquired from neighbour Nath Mal and others about Satya Narayan, upon which he was told that they saw Satya Narayan going in the house of the appellant but have not seen Satya Narayan coming out from the house. However, they stated that they heard voice crying "save save". In the complainant, it is also alleged that Bhojraj,brother-in-law (sister's husband) of appellant Sumitra, also gave threat to Satya Narayan that he will kill Satya Narayan. In the complaint, the complainant stated that he has doubt that his son Satya Narayan might have been murdered by appellant Sumitra and his son Sanjay with the help of her brother-in-law Bhojraj Sharma. On receipt of this written complainant FIR No.360/98 under Section 302/34, IPC was registered and investigation started. During investigation, map (Ex.P.3) of site and site report (Ex.P.3A) were prepared in the presence of complainant Choth Mal and one Ramjilal Soni. The dead body of victim Satya Narayan was recovered from the plot of one Shanker Lal which is adjoining to the house of the appellant, which is separated by wall of 6 ft. The report about the body of the deceased was prepared in the presence of complainant and witness Sohan Lal which is Ex.P.4 in the mortuary of the hospital of Churu. Panchnama (Ex.P.5) of the dead body of Satya Narayan was prepared in the presence of witnesses Sohan Lal, Radhy Shyam Soni, Ramjilal Soni and Sanwar Mal Soni. The accused Sumitra was arrested on 11.11.1998 for which arrest memo Ex.P.15 was prepared. Accused Vandna was also arrested on 11.11.1998 and her arrest memo Ex.P.16 was prepared. The accused Sanjay son of the appellant Sumitra was arrested on 19.2.1999 vide arrest memo Ex.P.31 and Bhojraj was arrested on 22.7.1999 vide arrest memo Ex.P.27. On the basis of information given by the appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, vide Ex.P.35 dated 13.11.1998, one sari and one long piece of cloth were recovered from appellant Sumitra and recovery memo Ex.P.9 was prepared. The sari and cloth had blood stains. As per the information Ex.P.36 given by co-accused Vandana dated 13.11.1998, one iron chain and bunch of keys were recovered from the room of the house of accused appellant Sumitra and her daughter Vandana lying in iron box and recovery memo Ex. P. 10 was prepared. The appellant Sumitra's son Sanjay was arrested on 19.2.1999 and he gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act on 21.2.1999 which is Ex. P.28 and in pursuance of that information, a telephone wire was recovered on 21.2.1999 itself, for which seizure memo Ex. P.24 was prepared. Shirt, pent,undergarments and motor cycle of deceased of deceased were also recovered. The dead body of the victim was sent for post-mortem and post-mortem report Ex.P.18 was obtained from the doctor and articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and from where reports Ex. P.37 and Ex. P.38 obtained. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and thereafter challan was filed against the four accused Smt. Sumitra, Miss Vandana, Sanjay and Bhojraj and charge under Section 302 read with Section 120B and in alternative, under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC were framed, which were denied by all the accused and they sought trial.
(3.) In the trial, the prosecution produced witnesses, PW-1 Choth Mal, father of deceased, PW-2 Dhanne Singh and PW-3 Nath Mal, neighbours of the house of the appellant Sumitra, PW-7 Radhey Shyam, sister's uncle-in-law of victim Satya Narayan, who stated that he accompanied the victim Satya Narayan on motor cycle to appellant's house. Statements of other witnesses including of Daulat Ram, Investigating Officer (PW-10) was also recorded in the trial court. The documentary evidence, referred above, as well as the articles were produced in the trial court.;