Back
2016 Supreme(J&K) 301
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Janak Raj Kotwal and B.S. Walia, JJ.
Girdhari Lal and Anr.
Vs.
State of J&K
Criminal Appeal No.7/2001, MP No.20-A/2001 c/w Confirm No.7/2001
Decided on 31.12.2016
Appearing Counsel:
For the Appellant(s):Ms. Surinder Kour, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Vandana Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. L.K. Moza, AAG
IMPORTANT POINT
– Statement of accused can be used to test veracity of exculpatory of admission made by accused.
Headnote:(A) Ranbir Penal Code – Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 – Murder and disappearance of evidence – Conviction – Prosecution has lead evidence in regard to change in attitude of appellants towards deceased to establish motive of appellants to do away with life of deceased – Absence of proof of motive does not break link in chain of circumstances connecting accused with crime nor militates against prosecution case – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 40, 69, 77 and 78)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 342 – Examination of accused – Statement of accused can be used to test veracity of exculpatory of admission made by accused – It can be taken into consideration in any inquiry or trial but still it is not strictly an evidence in the case. (Para 35)
Result – Appeal dismissed.
Janak Raj Kotwal, J.—Appellants, Girdhari Lal, who was accused No.1 (hereinafter to be referred as A-1) and Janki Devi, who was accused No.2 (hereinafter to be referred as A-2), have filed this appeal against Judgment dated 27.08.2001 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Poonch whereby they have been convicted under sections 302 and 201 RPC read with section 34 RPC and order dated 14.09.2001, whereby each one of them has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/ in proof of offence under section 302 RPC and imprisonment for a term of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/ in proof of offence under section 201 RPC.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. Facts of the prosecution case are that on 13.10.1997 Police Station, Poonch received source information about commission of suicide by Nirmal Devi the wife of A-1 (hereinafter to be referred as the deceased). On this information police registered offence under section 306 RPC as FIR No. 127/1997 and took up the investigation. The Investigating Officer (I.O.) proceeded to the spot, seized the dead body and dispatched it for autopsy. He seized two bottles, one of them smelling kerosene, one half burnt matchbox and one partially burnt lady-suit from the spot. He prepared the sketch map (Ex. PW-MN) of the crime scene. He arrested A-1, his brother Amrit Lal, father, Jia Lal and mother, the A-2. On obtaining the autopsy report, I.O. found commission of offence under sections 302/34 and 201/120-B RPC as strangulation was the cause of death and therefore, dropped the offence under section 306 RPC. On 22.10.1997 A-1 made a disclosure statement and on its basis I.O. on the same day recovered a ‘dupatta’ (cloth used for cover her head by a woman), which, according to the prosecution was used by the appellants for strangulating the deceased. The I.O. in the course of investigation recorded statements of witnesses in terms of section 161 CrPC. On the basis of investigation, it was found that A-2 wanted to solemnize another marriage of A-1 for the reason that deceased had not given birth to any child. A-2 was also desirous of solemnizing second marriage and therefore, the appellants had been harassing and quarrelling with the deceased. They hatched a conspiracy to liquidate her and in furtherance of that conspiracy on 13.10.1997 at 1.30 PM the appellants took the deceased in a room of their house where A-1 put a noose around her neck, A-2 gave a beating to her and both of them killed her. After the deceased was dead, appellants in order to destroy the evidence doused the dead body in kerosene and set it ablaze. Thereafter the appellants screamed that deceased has burnt.
4. After completion of the investigation, police, preferred charge sheet under sections 302, 120-B, 201 and 34 RPC against the appellants in the committal court. No evidence about involvement of Amrit Lal and Jia Lal in the offence, however, was found and they were given benefit under section 169 Cr.P.C. On committal the case came up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge. Learned trial court framed charges under sections 302, 201/34 RPC against the appellants. Appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Prosecution, therefore, entered its evidence.
5. Prosecution case proceeded on circumstantial evidence only as there was no eye witness of the incident. The prosecution examined a number of witnesses before the trial court. We are giving a detailed resume of the evidence of important prosecution witnesses though shorn of unessential:
6. PW Khem Raj, Chowkidar, cited as PW-1 in the charge, has stated that Parshotam Lal had called him saying that the deceased has died of burning. He went to the house of the appellants. He saw the deceased dead in the house. He went to Police Station, Poonch for lodging report. He was declared as hostile witness by the prosecution. In cross-examination by the prosecution he stated that he had entered the room i
