JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Vide this order, above mentioned two appeals would be disposed of as they have arisen out of common judgment/order
dated 18.05.2017 passed by the trial court.
(2.)Appellants had faced trial under Section 302 read with Section 120-B and Section 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as ' IPC ') in FIR No. 6 dated 04.01.2002
registered at Police Station Shahpura, District Jaipur Rural.
(3.)Appellant Dharmendra Kumar has appeared in person and has submitted that he had been falsely involved in this case
by co-convict Prerana. He was innocent. He had no reason or
motive to commit the murder of his first wife Archana and
daughter Aroma. He was living happily with his first wife and
daughter and had no reason to commit their murder. He has
drawn our attention to the Post Mortem Report of deceased
Archana and has highlighted that the left finger nails and toe nails
were painted and pubic hair had been recently shaved. This
showed that deceased (wife Archana) was living happily with him.
Hence, he had no reason to commit her murder. The entire story
of commission of offence by him had been concocted by Prerana,
whose relatives were journalists. Prerana using the influence of
her relatives and by bribing the police as well as advocates had
falsely involved him in this case. A Perusal of the Post Mortem
Report of Archana revealed that undigested non-vegetarian food
had been found in her stomach. He was a pure vegetarian,
whereas, Prerana was a non-vegetarian. Hence, Prerana with a
view to please Archana might have served her non-vegetarian
food and had thereafter, committed her murder as she was jealous
of Archana. So far as Aroma is concerned, she had not taken non-
vegetarian food as his daughter might have been scared that she
would get scolding from him as he was a pure vegetarian. In the
present case, investigation had been conducted in such a designed
manner with a view to falsely implicate him in this case. In
support of his arguments, appellant Dharmendra Kumar has
placed reliance on the judgment of Gauhati High Court in Rakesh
Kr. Singh Vs. State of Assam, 2003 CriLJ 3206, wherein it
was held as under:
"14. There is another aspect of the matter also. On perusal of the record we find that although PW 6 was arrested on 26.9.1996 and when she was sent to the Magistrate for recording her confession under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she declined to confess. Thereafter, she filed an application seeking pardon and pardon was granted after recording her statement on 27.11.1996. Ext. 5 is the said statement and this seems to be the only statement of PW 6, besides the evidence given by her before the Court. Learned Public Prosecutor could not show any statement of PW 6 recorded by I.O. prior to this date although police was required to record her statement soon after her arrest. Thus, we find that after two months of the incident the witness PW 6 disclosed for the first time and made a statement implicating the accused appellant in the above incident. In ASN Reddy (supra) the Apex Court observed that the evidence of a person witnessing the occurrence but not divulging the same to anybody for 2/3 days should be scanned with much caution. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in absence of any corroboration whatsoever we hold that the statement of PW 6 does not inspire much confidence and cannot be relied on for basing conviction. As we feel that she has not stated the whole truth after two months of the incident and there is something against, her evidence no doubt cast a strong suspicion regarding the involvement of the appellant. But in a criminal trial the conviction cannot be based on the basis of suspicion only."
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.