Data Ram vs State of U.P.

Allah Raham, J.—This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 15.12.2003, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. 5, Sitapur in Sessions Trial No. 725/2002, whereby accused Data Ram was found guilty of the charge u/s 304 IPC and sentenced to ten years'' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5000/-; in default of payment of fine, six months'' simple imprisonment was awarded.

The prosecution story, as it appears from the record, is that informant Mohammad (P.W.1) is a resident of village Bhuriya, P.S.Maholi, District Sitapur while accused Data Ram is a resident of village Khedrapur, P.S.Hargaon, District Sitapur. On 17.5.2002, informant Mohammad was sitting in front of his house alongwith his neighbours. One person (who was later identified as the accused) came on a bicycle. His wife was also sitting on the same bicycle. Both of them got down from the bicycle and sat on the informant''s Chabutara. The accused drank water from the hand-pump and started talking with his wife. Suddenly the exchange grew heated. The accused out of anger stabbed his wife at about 9-30 p.m. His wife died on the spot. The accused-assailant started running out of village. The informant, Rohan Lal, Lekhraj Singh and others chased him and overpowered him on the road. On interrogation, he disclosed his name as Data Ram and his wife''s name as Lata Devi. An F.I.R Ext.Ka 1 was prepared and the accused and the report were taken to the police station, where a Chik of F.I.R Ext.Ka 3 was prepared and a case was registered against the accused vide G.D.Ext.Ka 4.

Inquest report Ext.Ka 6 and other connected papers Exts.Ka 7 to Ka 11 were prepared and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. Dr. S.C.Sundariyal conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased and found the following ante-mortem injuries on her body:

Stab wound 9.5 cms x 2.5 cms x cavity deep on right side abdomen, 10 cms above umbilicus.

Stab wound 4 cms x 1.5 cm x cavity deep over left side abdomen, 5 cms above umbilicus.

Stab wound 5.5 cms x 2.5 cms x cavity deep over upper border of left breast, 5 cms below middle collar bone.

Incised wound 3 cms x 0.5 cm x bone deep on anterior surface left side arm, 15 cms below left shoulder top.

Incised wound 2 cms x 1 cm x bone deep on anterior surface left elbow joint.

The doctor has reported that the deceased''s uterus contained full term male foetus. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. Post-mortem examination report is Ext.Ka 2. The doctor has further opined that the death of deceased could be caused on 17.5.2002 at about 9-30 p.m by stabbing.

S.I. Sri Sabhajeet Singh P.W.6 was entrusted with the investigation of this case. He inspected the site of occurrence and prepared a site-plan Ext.Ka 5. He took into custody the blood-stained and simple earth from the scene of occurrence and prepared a memo Ext.Ka 12. He also took into custody a knife, a Lota and a pair of Hawai Chappals, which were blood-stained and prepared a memo Ext.Ka 13. The bicycle of the accused was also taken into custody and a memo Ext.Ka 14 was prepared. On conclusion of investigation, he submitted a charge-sheet Ext.Ka 15 against the accused.

Accused Data Ram pleaded not guilty to a charge u/s 304 IPC and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. He stated that son of witness Rohan Lal (P.W.2) is married in his village. On the day of occurrence, sons of Rohan had molested his wife. On his protest, Rohan''s sons and others overpowered him and murdered his wife. In collusion with the police, he was falsely implicated in this case.

In support of its case, prosecution has examined Sri Mohammad Hussain P.W.1, Sri Rohan Lal P.W.2, Sri Lekhraj Singh P.W.3, Dr. S.C.Sundariyal P.W.4, constable Shri Ram Verma P.W.5 and S.I. Sri Sabhajeet Singh P.W.6.

No witness has been examined in defence by the accused. P.Ws. 1 to 3 are the witnesses of fact. They have supported the prosecution story before the trial court. The learned trial court placed reliance upon the statements of these three witnesses and found the accused guilty of the charge u/s 304 IPC and having heard him on the question of sentence, awarded him the sentence noted hereinabove.

Aggrieved against the said judgment and order, appellant Data Ram has preferred this appeal.

I have heard Sri Qazi Mohammad Ahmad, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and learned A.G.A for the State and have carefully perused the record.

The submission of learned Counsel for the appellant is that there is no source of light disclosed in the F.I.R; therefore, the identity of the appellant is in serious doubt. A perusal of the F.I.R Ext.Ka 1 shows that the occurrence took place at 9-30 p.m. Admittedly, no source of light is disclosed in the F.I.R. In the site-plan Ext.Ka 5 also, no source of light has been shown. However, the informant P.W.1, in his examination-in-chief, has stated that there was electric light on the pole standing by the side of the road. Similar statement has been given by P.W.2. P.W.3, in his cross-examination, has stated that he was having a torch. The Investigating Officer, on the other hand, says that the electric pole, where the witnesses say that there was electric light, has not been shown in the site-plan by him. The question is whether these statements are sufficient to suspect the presence of the appellant on the scene of occurrence. The appellant himself says that he was present on the scene of occurrence with the only difference that he did not commit this crime. According to him, this crime was committed by the sons of witness Rohan (P.W.2) and some others. Therefore, the source of light loses much of its importance. We must bear in mind that this is a case where the witnesses had nothing to do with the accused. It was just a chance that the accused in the company of his wife was passing by the village and had stayed there to drink water from the hand-pump. There, all of a sudden, started heated exchange between the accused and his wife and the former stabbed the latter. All the three witneses of fact, like good citizens, chased the appellant, overpowered him and took him to the police station. The entry of the accused in the police lock-up is recorded in the G.D.Ext.Ka 4. Therefore, the factum of light is not an important factor in this case as it does not affect the result of the case.

The appellant not only committed his wife''s murder, but he also killed his child in womb. It is recorded in the post-mortem examination report that the deceased contained a full term male foetus. Generally it happens in such cases that when an accused is apprehended on the spot, witnesses give him a thrashing. Here, in this case, the accused was spared of that also. He was examined at P.H.C.Maholi, District Sitapur on 18.5.2002. The doctor found no evidence of any external injury on the accused''s body. These factors go to show that the witnesses were fully neutral and bore no ill-will or prejudice against the appellant.

It has also been submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been in jail from 17.5.2002; therefore, he should be let off with the sentence of imprisonment already undergone. The appellant has been found to have committed his wife''s murder, who was carrying a full term male foetus. No obvious reason for this murder has been disclosed by the accused. All that has come in the F.I.R is that the accused "AAVESH MEIN AA GAYA TATHA APNI PATNI KE SAMAY KAREEB 9-30 BAJE RAAT CHAAKOO MAAR DI...." Even the witnesses could not gather as to what transpired between the accused and his wife. All that the witnesses could gather was that the accused got annoyed and inflicted fatal knife blows to his wife. For such a brutal act, no leniency in sentence is called for.

The appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order under appeal is hereby confirmed.

The appellant is in jail. The appropriate authorities shall allow him remissions as may be permissible under law and rules and if his sentence has been completed, he shall be released if not wanted in any other case.

A sum of Rs. 5500/- shall be paid to Sri Qazi Mohammad Ahmad, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant.