MATHUR, J. - (1.) THIS murder reference has been made by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities) Sri Ganganagar for the confirmation of the death sentence having held the accused Kashi Ram guilty of murder of his wife Mst. Kalawati aged 24 years, two daughters namely Suman aged 2 1/2 years and Guddi 2 1/2 months by judgment dated 29. 9. 99. The accused Kashiram has also preferred an appeal from jail challenging the confirmation of death sentence awarded by the trial court which has been registered as D. B. Cr. Jail Appeal No. 619/99. The accused has also preferred a regular appeal through the counsel which has been registered as D. B. Cr. Appeal No. 622/99 Kashi Ram vs. State. Both the appeals are also heard alongwith the murder reference. The accused Kashiram hereinafter shall be referred as the appellant.
(2.) IN short the prosecution case as set out during the trial is that the accused appellant Kashiram had married to the deceased Kalawati 7 years back from the date of incident. Out of their wedlock two children were born namely the deceased Suman aged 2 1/2 years and Guddi aged 2 1/2 months. The relations between husband and wife were not cordial. Accordingly, the appellant wanted to get rid of his wife Kalawati. Thus, he committed the murder of his wife Mst. Kalawati and both the daughters during the period 3. 2. 98 to 6. 2. 98. The F. I. R. of the incident was lodged by PW/6 Indrabhan on 6. 2. 98 at 10. 15 a. m. at Police Station Anoopgarh stating that Bholuram is his aunt's (Bhua) son, his daughter Kalawati was married to the accused appellant Kashiram resident of Chuk No. 17-A. For last two months' he was living in the locality known as `prem Nagar' on rent alongwith his wife and two daughters Suman and Guddi. After six months of their marriage their relations became strained. The appellant Kashi Ram used to taunt her for bringing camel instead of buffalo. The appellant Kashi Ram also used to say that her complexion was black. He also used to beat her. A panchayat was also assembled at the house of the father of the accused Harchand in Chuk No. 17-A. His father Harchand told the Panchayat that the appellant Kashi Ram was not under his control. Mst. Kalawati did not come to her inlaw's house for about 1 1/2 to 2 years. Thereafter Harchand visited the house of Kalawati and told that there is improvement in Kashiram. On assurance being given that she will be well treated. Kalawati was sent alongwith Kashiram and Harchand. The appellant Kashiram thereafter went to the Mohangarh for 2-3 months. On return, he again started beating her. It was also stated that about 6 to 7 months' back PW/7 Nandram brother of the deceased met the accused Kashiram near the panchayat office and enquired as to why he sold the ring given to him, on which the accused appellant retorted "he can kill his sister even. " It is also stated that the appellant Kashi Ram was living with his wife and children for last two months in a separate house. The appellant was working as `mistri' on the shop of Bhagirath. On 3. 2. 98 PW/2 Kalawati's brother Mamraj as usual had gone to the house of the accused to deliver the milk. At that time, Kalawati told him that henceforth he should not bring milk to their house. On the next date i. e. on 4. 2. 98 when Mamraj passed through the house of the accused, he found that the house was locked. On enquiry appellant's neighbour Gurudayal disclosed that till last evening they were there but he was not aware as to when and where, they have gone in the morning. It was also stated that the mother of the deceased Kalawati came to his house and expressed suspicion about missing of Kalawati. She requested him to enquire about the Kalawati and her daughters. On this he alongwith Sonarayan on a motor-cycle went to Chuk No. 17-A. On the way Kashmirilal and one more person met them. It was stated by them that Kashiram alongwith his children has gone to Suratgarh for attending the fair. They also stated that they are waiting for them. At that time, father of the accused Harchand also arrived. He disclosed that Kashiram and his children were living separately in a house in the locality known as `prem Nagar'. Thereafter the informant Harchand and Sonarayan went to the house of the appellant on a motor cycle. They found the house locked. They pushed the door and peeped inside. They saw that Kalawati was lying on a cot. They gave her call but there was no response. They got suspicion and as such they made entry in the house by removing the doors from axle. They found that dead body of Mst. Kalawati was lying on one cot and dead bodies of two daughters were lying on the another cot. It was suspected that Kashiram has murdered his wife and two daughters at some time on 3. 2. 98. On this information, Police registered a case of offence under Sec. 302 I. P. C. and proceeded with the investigation. The police prepared inquest and sent the dead bodies for post-mortem. During the investigation, the statement of PW/3 Dinesh Kumar and PW/4 Om Prakash were recorded under Sec. 164 Cr. P. C. After usual investigation police led chargesheet against the appellant of offence under Sec. 302 I. P. C. The accused appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined as many as 13 witnesses. The prosecution relied on the following piece of circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused appellant:- 1. that all the three deceased persons were last in the company of the appellant, 2. recovery of cord and key in pursuance of the information given by the appellant, 3. extra judicial confession of the guilt before PW/3 Dinesh and PW/4 Om Prakash by the accused appellant. 4 motive for the accused appellant to kill his wife Kalawati. In statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. the accused appellant Kashi Ram pleaded that the entire evidence collected by the prosecution against him is false. He also produced Birbal Ram as DW-1. The trial court found the circumstantial evidence sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of the charge of murder of Kalawati and two daughters. Accordingly, the trial court convicted him of offence u/s 302 I. P. C. In the opinion of the learned trial Judge the crime falls in the category of arrest of rate case and as such, awarded the death sentence and has made a reference to this court. Assailing the judgment, it is contended by Mr. M. L. Garg, learned counsel for the appellant that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution have not been firmly established and that in any case they are not enough to bring home the offence of the accused appellant. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial court. We have considered the rival contentions and scaned the prosecution evidence carefully. PW/10 Dr. Prem Arora has stated that he conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased Mst. Kalawati on 7. 2. 98. He has proved the post-mortem report Ex. P/16. He found following injuries on her person: " Mark of ligature present on neck 2cm in width and knot present on back of neck, ligature mark is situated just below the thyroid cartilage & encircling the neck completely. Base of mark is pale, dry and hard. One cut section tissue below ligature mark is dry and white. No external injury present any where in body. In his opinion cause of death was Asphyxia.
(3.) HE also conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased Suman aged 2 1/2 years. HE has proved the post-mortem report Ex. P/17. In his opinion the cause of death was Asphyxia. He also stated that he performed the post-mortem of the dead body of Guddi aged 2 to 3 months. He proved the injury report Ex. P/18. In his opinion cause of death was Asphyxia. Thus, the prosecution has established that Mst. Kalawati, Suman and Guddi died of homicidal death. ;