PAPPU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(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:

(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.

(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: