JUDGMENT

1. The appellant Jhuntha Ram and one Smt. Shyalu @ Shyaldi were indicted in Sessions Case No. 132/98 before the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu for having committed murder of Smt. Santosh. Learned trial judge vide judgment dated August 24, 1999 convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC and sentenced as under:-

U/s. 302 IPC	to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
U/s. 498-A IPC	to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Smt. Shalu Shyaldi was, however, acquitted.

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that Gopi Ram, elder brother of the appellant submitted a written report on June 28, 1998 at 1.15 F.M. with the Station House Officer, Police Station Maisisar, District Jhunjhunu stating therein that he and his brother Jhuntha Ram had gone to take part in a feast hosted in a village on the occasion of some marriage there he received the message that Smt. Santosh Devi wife of his brother Jhuntha Ram suddenly died. A prayer was made in the report to conduct the inquiry. The Station House Officer, Police Station Malsisar initiated proceedings under Section 174 Cr.PC. and forwarded the report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jhunjhunu.

3. On June 28, 1998 itself, Mohan Lal PW 1 also handed 0ye; a written report to the In-charge Police Station Maisisar at 9.30 PM. with the averments that his sister Santosh used to be harassed and humiliated by the appellant in connection with dowry. The appellant had also illicit relationship with his Bhabhi Snyaldi On June 28. 1998 Sarnosh was killed by the appellant, Shyaldi and Gopi. On the basis of the said report a case under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC was registered and investigation commenced. On completion of the investigation. charge sheet was piled. in due course, the case came up before the learned Sessions Judge. Jhuejhunu for trial. Charges under Sections 120-B, 302 in the alternative 498-A, 306 in the to alternative 304-6 were framed. The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case, examined' as many as 21 witnesses. In his explanation under Section 313 Cr.PC. the appellant claimed innocence and steed that he was falsely implicated in the case. No defence witness was, however. examined. The learned trial court on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above.

4. We have heard the rival submissions and scanned the record.

5. Mrs. Madhuri Singh, learned Amicus Curiae pointed out the following infirmities of the prosecution case:-

(i) Co-accused Shyalu @ Shyaldi in her explanation under Section 20, 313 Cr.PC. categorically denied to have any relationship with the appellant. She stated that she was mother of six children and her eldest daughter was of 15 years of age;

(ii) As the appellant performed 'Nate marriage' with Santosh, question of dowry as per their custom did not arise at all;

(iii) The prosecution case at the trial is mainly based on extra judicial confession allegedly made by appellant but in the FIR Mohan Lal did not state that extra judicial confession was ever made by the appellant;

(iv) No witness from Itawa where the death of Santosh was occurred was examined by the prosecution; and

(v) All the witnesses who had deposed against the appellant were related to Mohan Lal and there are material contradictions in their testimony

6. We shall now delve deep into the facts and circumstances of the case in order to adjudge the tenability of the submissions advanced before us. Undoubtedly, there is no eye-witness of the occurrence and the case of prosecution is mainly based on circumstantial evidence. Although the learned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document