Advocates appeared :
For the Appellant : S. S. Gautam, Deependra Singh Raghuvanshi
For the Respondent : R. K. Awasthi

JUDGMENT RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, J. : – The present jail appeal has been preferred by appellant Morari, son of Harivilas Sakhwar challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24-12-2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambah, District Morena in Sessions Trial No. 06/2009, by which he has been convicted under section 302 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default thereof, he has been further directed to undergo six months’ Rigorous Imprisonment.

2. It is an admitted fact that deceased Anguri Devi was the wife of the appellant- accused.

3. Prosecution case, in brief, are that on 17-9-2008 at around 09:00 p.m., Complainant Raghuveer Sakhwar (PW1) lodged a verbal report at Police Station Nagra, District Morena stating therein that his aunt Anguri Devi had returned back from her parental house two- three days back on the occasion of death of his grandfather. Other relatives had also come to the house of the complainant. On the date of incident i.e. 17-9-2008, all of a sudden, accused-appellant Morari, who is a habitual drunkard, started quarrelling and beating his wife Anguri Devi. After sometime, on hearing screaming of Priyanka, who is the daughter of Anguri Devi and appellant-accused Morari, Complainant along with his sister Munni and brother Balveer and reached inside the room and saw that appellant-accused Morar was strangulating deceased Anguri with the help of one scarf (safi) and thereafter, absconded from the spot and Anguri was found dead. Then, complainant informed the parents of deceased Anguri. On the basis of merg No. 16/2008 recorded under section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code, the matter was investigated and Crime No. 81/2008 for offence under section 302 of INDIAN PENAL CODE vide Ex.P1 was registered and after due completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court and thereafter, case was committed to the Court of Session.

4. Appellant-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and the prosecution proceeded to examine its witnesses. Complainant Raghuveer Singh (PW1), Balveer Singh (PW2), Havaldar Singh (PW3), Priyanka, daughter of deceased (PW4), Sunil (PW5), Chatur Singh (PW6), SHO DS Sengar (PW7), Head Constable Devendra Singh (PW8), Patwari Kalicharan (PW9) and Dr. S. N. Mevafarosh (PW10) were examined by the Prosecution in its support.

5. The statements of accused under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code were recorded and in order to lead any defence evidence, the appellant- accused did not examine any witness. In the statement recorded under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant-accused has stated that he has an agricultural land and a house. His family members are interested in getting the possession of agricultural land as well as house, therefore, they have falsely implicate him. It is further stated that he is having two minor daughters and nobody in his family is available to look after them, therefore, they were tutored witnesses to speak against him.

6. The trial Court, after marshalling the evidence available on record, found the appellant guilty under section 302 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him, as described in paragraph 1 of this judgment.

7. Challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the trial Court has erred in considering the evidence produced before it as there were various contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. It is