KANTI LAL MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant cr. jail appeal has been filed by the accused appellant Kanti Lal S/o Dinesh from Central Jail, Udaipur to challenge the judgment dated 17.8.2007 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions judge (FT) No. 3, Udaipur camp Salumbar in Sessions Case No. 48/2007 by which the accused appellant was convicted for the offence under Sec. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000.00 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months imprisonment on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

(2.) As per facts of the case PW-1 Kava Meena S/o Bada Meena filed a written complaint on 1.4.2007 at Police Station Pahada in which it was stated by him that today at about 8.30 am one Vela Meena came to my residence and informed that your niece Manjula W/o Kanti Lal had died. Upon receiving aforesaid information, I made a phone call-to my brother Jeeva at Himmatnagar and after receiving information, my brother came at Guda. Thereafter, I gave information Jeeva, Banshi Lal, Thawara, Kedara, Somraj and Jagdish that I have been informed by Vella Meena that my niece Manjula died. After giving formation to aforesaid persons the complainant went at village Boslathi at the house of deceased Manjula, where they saw that inside the house there is pathsal in which dead body of Kanjula was lying at cot and under the cot, blood was spread and upon moving the neck of deceased, the neck of the deceased was found to be revolving all around and there is swelling upon the neck and her tody was in strut condition. As per allegation by the complainant husband of Manjula, Kanti Lal while inflicting upon her forehead by stone pushed her inside :he house and committed murder by throttling her neck. In the F.I.R. it is also stated that marriage of Manjula solemnized 13 years back with Kanti Lal but from last 3-4 years due to domestic work, some quarrel took place, therefore, Manjula came to the house of in-laws but after conciliation, she was sent back because she was having children.

(3.) In the F.I.R., it is also stated by the complainant Kava that accused appellant usually said that character of Manjula is not good, sometime, I will kill tor, therefore, it is a case of murder committed by Kanti Lal, hence, action may betaken against him.