T.U.MEHTA,C.J. - - (1.)The appellant accused has been convicted under sections 302 and 201, I. P. C. by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kangra in Sessions Case No. 41 of 1976. For the offence under section 302, I. P. C. he has been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 and in default further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. For the offence under section 201, I. P. C. the accused appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to the payment of a fine of Rs. 300 in default of which he is ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.
(2.)The appellant -accused is said to have committed the murder of his young daughter aged about 1 - 1/2 years. The case of the prosecution is that at about 11 -30 A. M. on 16 -4 -1976, the accused committed tins crime on being provoked by his wife who taunted him that though he had produced three children he had no capacity to maintain them. It is said that the accused was being taunted by his wife in this manner very often, but at the time of the occurrence the accused lost his head and took out a drat Ex. PI and pierced the body of the deceased child and thereafter cut it to several pieces.. He is said to have concealed the drat in an almirah of his house along with a shirt of the deceased. The head of the deceased was severed and was concealed in the oberi of his house. The arms and legs of the deceased were thrown away at a place called "Bhoot Nala". The trunk of the deceased is said to have been concealed in the kitchen garden of a neighbour.
(3.)The prosecution case is that Smt. Khema, the wife of the accused, who is not examined during the course of the trial, immediately informed about the incident to PW 5 Jagat Ram, who is a chowkidar of the village. Jagat Ram on receipt of this information sent another chowkidar Jharu Ram to give information about this incident to Lamberdar Hoshiar Singh, PW 2, and Pradhan Diwan Singh, PW 3, and himself went to the house of the accused along with Khema, the wife of the accused. He found that the accused had gone to take bath at a Baori. Some time thereafter the accused returned to his house. Jagat Ram thereafter enquired from him as to why he killed his daughter. The accused is said to have told him that his wife used to nig him that he had produced three children, but could not provide food for them and, therefore, he killed the deceased. Thereafter the accused disclosed to Jagat Ram about the disposal of the different limbs of the deceased at different places. Jagat Ram thereafter did not allow the accused to leave the place. In the meanwhile, Lamberdar Hoshiar Singh, PW 2, came over to the house of the accused. He prepared a rukka which is treated as a first information report and sent the witness Jagat Ram along with that rukka to the police. Jagat Ram handed over that rukka to the police and from his deposition it is found that he also informed that police about the different places where the different Jimbs of the dead body of the deceased child were concealed as also the place where the weapon of the offence namely, the drat, was concealed. The police thereafter arrived at the house of the accused where the accused is said to have made the disclosure statement under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act as found at Ex. PE, After making this disclosure statement, he pointed out the place at which the head of the deceased was concealed in his oberi. At Ex. PF is the memo of this recovery. He also pointed out the almirah in which the mudamal drat and the shirt of the deceased were kept. These articles were recovered as per memo. Ex. PH. On his pointing out the police and the parties recovered the severed arms and the legs of the deceased from "Bhoot Nala" as found from the recovery Memo. Ex. PK The trunk of the deceased was recovered at the instance of the accused from the kitchen -garden of the neighbour as found from the recovery memo. Ex. PM.