SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Raj) 499

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Sandeep Mehta, Vinod Kumar Bharwani, JJ.
Prakash Bharti S/o Sh. Laxman Bharti - Appellant
Versus
State, through Public Prosecutor - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 97/2020
Decided On : 30-06-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Pradeep Shah, Mr. Vivek Mathur, Ms. Geeta, Mr. Pushkar.
For the Respondents: Mr. R.R. Chhaparwal, PP.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 120B, 201 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313, 374(2) – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106, 65B – Offence of murder – Criminal conspiracy – Criminal Appeal – Power to examine the accused – Appeals from convictions – Appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, District in Sessions Case –Held, Facts of said case are distinguishable from case at hand and hence, judgment in case, is of no avail to accused – As a consequence of discussion made hereinabove, Court are of firm view that prosecution has proved chain of incriminating circumstances summarized below which point exclusively to guilt of accused and are totally inconsistent to his innocence – Trial court discussed the evidence in an apropos manner and was absolutely justified in recording guilt of accused by impugned judgment, which does not suffer from any infirmity, factual or legal, warranting interference whatsoever – Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

By The Court : Per Mehta, J.

1. The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 28.02.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, District Pali in Sessions Case No.27/2012. He has filed the instant appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC for assailing the impugned Judgment:-

Offences

Sentences

Fine

Fine Default Sentences

302 IPC

Life Imprisonment

Rs.15,000/-    

6 months’ additional Simple Imprisonment

201 IPC

3 years’ Rigorous Imprisonment  

Rs.5,000/-

3 months’ additional Simple Imprisonment

(Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently)

2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow.

Prakash Puri (P.W.10), lodged a written report (Ex.P./14) to the SHO Police Station, Khinwada, District Pali on 02.04.2012 alleging inter alia that his sister Madhubala Goswami had been married to Bhupesh Puri, resident of Hathi Pol, Udaipur in the year 1990. The couple got divorced in the year 2001 whereafter, Madhubala remarried Prakash Bharti (the appellant herein), resident of village Gawada, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali. Two children were born from the wedlock, both of whom were being looked after by the informant and were at the relevant point of time staying in a hostel at Kanod for their studies. He alleged that Prakash Bharti regularly indulged in harassing and humiliating his sister on account of demand of dowry and money. About 7-8 years ago, Prakash indulged in violence and broke his sister’s hand. On another occasion, 3-4 years ago, Shri Prakash Bharti inflicted an injury on his sister’s head upon on which, she left the matrimonial home and started living with the informant. Thereafter, Prakash Bharti would extend threats that if Madhubala did not return to the matrimonial home, she would be killed. Prakash came to his house and told that he had sold the house in Bombay for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- and got a house constructed at Gawada. He offered that he and his wife would live together at Gawada. He promised to invest a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-in the name of Madhubala and through this allurement, he took Madhubala with him on 12.10.2011. Smt. Madhubala regularly talked to their mother Radhabai (P.W.11).

On 28.10.2011, Smt. Madhubala called their mother and told that she had come to Nadol to buy a door for their newly constructed house. Thereafter, no further information was forthcoming regarding Smt. Madhubala on which, the informant tried to make enquiries at his own level but did not receive any update on which, he, accompanied with Jaswant Singh (P.W.15), Umesh Giri (P.W.16) and Prahlad Puri (P.W.26) reached the house of the accused but did not find anyone present there. Foul smell was emanating from the house and thus, they started bearing a suspicion that the dead body might have been buried inside the house. He alleged that his brother-in-law Prakash Bharti and his brother Lehar Bharti, who were both missing might have hatched a conspiracy, murdered Madhubala and buried the dead body in the house.

3. On the basis of this report, an enquiry was started. Body of Smt. Madhubala’s body had been buried inside the house of her husband Prakash Bharti and was dug out and FIR No.33/2012 (Ex.P/30) came to be registered at the Police Station Khinwada, District Pali on 02.04.2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B and 201 IPC. Investigation was assigned to SHO Shri Bhabhut Singh (P.W.23). The dead body was subjected to autopsy at the hands of Medical Board, which issued a Postmortem Report (Ex.P/31), concluding that the cause of death of the victim was head injury and the probable time of death was between 3-6 months. The dead body was totally decomposed.

4. The accused was arrested and acting in furtherance of the information provided by him, the implements used to bury the dead bo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top