Mahender Singh & others Mahender Singh … v. State of Haryana State of Haryana
Case Details
(O&M) CRA-332-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 1 ) FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH CRA-332-DB-2005 (O&M) CRA ate of Decision: 19.03.2025 Date of Decision: Mahender Singh & others Mahender Singh ……Appellants Versus State of Haryana State of Haryana …...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL JASJIT SINGH BEDI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate, , Advocate, for , Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Munish Sharma, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Munish Sharma, DAG, Haryana. GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. 1. Appellants, Mahender Singh, Kamla and Sunita, who stand namely, Mahender Singh, Kamla and Sunita, who stand convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC convicted for offences punishable under Sections convicted for offences punishable under Sections read with Section 34 IPC vide judgment dated 15.04.2005 passed by read with Section 34 IPC vide judgment dated 15.04.2005 read with Section 34 IPC vide judgment dated 15.04.2005 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, assail their conviction by way learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, assail their conviction by way learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, assail their conviction by way of filing instant appeal. of filing instant appeal. 2. The matter pertains to homicidal death of Rajbala in her matrimonial The matter pertains to homicidal death of Raj The matter pertains to homicidal death of Raj home in respect of which FIR No.64 dated 23.05.2002 home in respect of which FIR No. 23.05.2002 registered at Police Station Kasola, under Sections 304-B, 201, 120 Station Kasola, under Sections 304 B, 201, 120-B IPC lodged at the instance of her father Bhoop Singh. The translated gist instance of The translated gist of Bhoop Singh’s VIMAL KUMAR 2025.03.20 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CRA-332-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 2 ) of which formal FIR (Ex.PL/2) came to be statement (Ex.PL) on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.PL/2) came to be statement (Ex.PL) on the basis lodged reads as under: lodged reads as under: I am resident of Village Jonaicha Khurd, District Alwar (Rajasthan) “I am resident of Village Jona Khurd, District Alwar (Rajasthan). I have 4 sons and a daughter namely Rajbala, who was married to have 4 sons and a daughter namely Rajbala have 4 sons and a daughter namely Rajbala Mahender Singh son of Nathu Singh resident of Kanina Mahender Singh . son of Nathu Singh resident of Kanina on 26.01.1999. However, is residing at village Garhi Bolni with his owever, Mahender Singh is residing at village Garhi Bolni with his maternal grandfather Sajjan Singh of Village Garhi Bolni, as he had been maternal grandfather Sajjan Singh of Village Garhi Bolni, as he had been maternal grandfather Sajjan Singh of Village Garhi Bolni, as he had been adopted by his maternal grandfather. A son adopted by his maternal grandfather A son, presently aged about 2 ½ years, ck and Rajbala was now also carrying a , was born out of the wedlock and Rajbala was now also carrying a pregnancy of 7/8 months. pregnancy of 7/8 months. Madan Lal, elder brother of Mahender Singh, died in November, 2001. Madan Lal, elder brother of Mahender Singh, died in November, 2001. Madan Lal, elder brother of Mahender Singh, died in November, 2001. Madan Lal, elder brother of Mahender Singh, died in November, 2001. After his death, Madan Lal’s widow namely Sunita developed illicit After his death, Madan Lal’s widow namely Sunita developed illicit After his death, Madan Lal’s widow namely Sunita developed illicit relations with Mahender Singh and Mahender Singh wanted to keep relations with Mahender Singh and Mahender Singh wante relations with Mahender Singh and Mahender Singh wante Sunita as his second wife. Even Mahender Singh’s mother namely Sunita as his second wife. Even Mahender Singh’s mother namely Sunita as his second wife. Even Mahender Singh’s mother namely Mahender Singh started harassing and Kamla also wanted the same. Mahender Singh started harassing and Kamla also wanted the same. beating Rajbala in order to pressurize her for keeping Sunita as second beating Rajbala in order to pressurize her for keeping Sunita as second beating Rajbala in order to pressurize her for keeping Sunita as second wife of Mahender Singh. I and my son had tr wife of Mahender Singh. I and my son had tried to convince Mahender Singh to give up his stubbornness for second marriage. However, Singh to give up his stubbornness for second marriage. However, Singh to give up his stubbornness for second marriage. However, on the asking of his mother Kamla Mahender Singh murdered Rajbala on the asking of his mother Kamla Mahender Singh murdered Rajbala at about 8.00 AM and that after murdering her (Rajbala), he and Sunita at about 8.00 AM and that after murdering her (Rajbala), he and Sunita set her dead body ablaze so as to destroy evidence. t her dead body ablaze so as to destroy evidence. I received this information through Dalip Singh son of Sheo Singh of I received this information through Dalip Singh I received this information through Dalip Singh Village Garhi Bolni. I alongwith my son Suresh and other co Village Gar i Bolni. I alongwith my son Suresh and other co-villagers reached village Garhi Bolni. Yesterday i.e. on reached village Gar i Bolni. Yesterday i.e. on 22.05.2002 at about 10.00 AM, Mahender Singh had come from village AM, Mahender Singh had come from village Kanina. Mahender Singh had murdered Rajbala at the instance of his mother Kamla and bhabhi had murdered Rajbala at the instance of his mother Kamla and had murdered Rajbala at the instance of his mother Kamla and Sunita. Sd/- Bhoop Singh.” Sunita. Sd/ 3. The aforesaid statement was recorded by Inspector/SHO Rameshwar The aforesaid statement was recorded by The aforesaid statement was recorded by Dayal (PW- -11) when the complainant Bhoop Singh Bhoop Singh met him at bus stand of village Garhi Bolni. After recording the aforesaid statement, the same of village Garhi Bolni. After recording the aforesaid statement, the same of village Garhi Bolni. After recording the aforesaid statement, the same VIMAL KUMAR 2025.03.20 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CRA-332-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 3 )
Legal Reasoning
was sent to police station for lodging a formal FIR, which was was sent to police station for lodging a formal FIR, which was was sent to police station for lodging a formal FIR, which was accordingly recorded. Inspector Rameshwar Dayal went to the house of accordingly recorded. Inspector Rameshwar Dayal went to the house of accordingly recorded. Inspector Rameshwar Dayal went to the house of Village Garhi Bolni where the dead body of Rajbala was the accused in Village Garhi Bolni where the dead body of Rajbala was the accused in found lying in the courtyard in burnt condition. Inquest proceedings were found lying in the courtyard in burnt condition. found lying in the courtyard in burnt condition. conducted. A rough site plan was prepared. A pair of slippers, clothes, conducted. A rough site plan was prepared. A pair of slippers, clothes, conducted. A rough site plan was prepared. A pair of slippers, clothes, arate recovery memos. soil, plastic can were taken into possession vide separate recovery memos. soil, plastic can were taken into possession vide sep soil, plastic can were taken into possession vide sep Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The dead body of Rajbala was Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The dead body of Rajbala was Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The dead body of Rajbala was sent for post-mortem examination. sent for post 4. Accused Mahender Singh was arrested on 24.05.2002, whereas accused Accused Mahender Singh was arrested on Accused Mahender Singh was arrested on Kamla and Sunita were arrested on 28.05.2002 Kamla and Sunita were arrested on 28.05.2002. Upon completion of investigation, challan was presented against all the three accused in the investigation, challan was presented against investigation, challan was presented against Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari on 12.06.2002 Court of Rewari on 12.06.2002, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 16.07.2002. committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide order dated committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide order dated The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari The Court of Rewari, framed charges against all the three accused on 30.07.2002 for all the three for offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 201, 120-B IPC read with Section 34 IPC Sections 304 read with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Subsequently, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Subsequently, on an application the prosecution for amendment of the charges, the charge in the prosecution for amendment of the charge moved by the prosecution for amendment of the charge respect of offence under Section 304-B was respect of offence under Section 304 as altered to charge for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC on 04.02.2003 punishable under Section 04.02.2003. 5. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 11 The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 1 The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 1 witnesses. The gist of The gist of their statements is briefly referred to hereinunder: statements is briefly referred to hereinunder:- VIMAL KUMAR 2025.03.20 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CRA-332-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 4 ) Dharampal, who had prepared the scaled site plan, proved the PW-1 Dharampal, who had prepared the scaled site plan, proved the Dharampal, who had prepared the scaled site plan, proved the same as Ex.PA. same as Ex.PA. PW-2 MHC Laxman Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered into MHC Laxman Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PB, wherein he deposed that evidence his affidavit Ex.P , wherein he deposed that being the custodian of Malkhana, Police Station Kasola, four parcels duly custodian of Malkhana, Police Station Kasola, four parcels duly custodian of Malkhana, Police Station Kasola, four parcels duly sealed had been deposited with him sealed had been deposited with him by SI/SHO Rameshwar Dayal on 29.05.2002. He further deposed that on Dayal on He further deposed that on the same day, he had handed over the three parcels he had handed over the three parcels to Constable Ranjit Singh for the purpose of depositing the same in the office of FSL for the purpose of depositing the same in the office of FSL for the purpose of depositing the same in the office of FSL Madhuban, Karnal, which were Madhuban, Karnal, which w ere accordingly deposited on the case property remained in his 30.05.2002 and that as long as the case property remained in his 30.05.2002 possession, the same was not tampered with. possession, the same was not tampered with possession, the same was not tampered with PW-3 Constable Ranjit Singh Constable Ranjit Singh, who is also a lso a formal witness, tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PC into evidence his affidavit Ex.P C, wherein he deposed that on 29.05.2002, MHC of the Police Station 29.05.2002 of the Police Station had handed over to him the case property for depositing the same in the office of FSL, the case property for depositing the same in the office of FSL, the case property for depositing the same in the office of FSL, Madhuban adhuban, Chandigarh, which he , Chandigarh, which he accordingly deposited on the same day and that as long as the same day the case property remained in his not tampered with. possession, the same was not tampered with. possession, the same w Constable Ashok Kumar stated that on 23.05.2002, he had Constable Ashok Kumar stated that on PW-4 Constable Ashok Kumar stated that on delivered the special reports to the Illaqa Magistrate and to other delivered the special reports to the Illaqa Magistrate and to other delivered the special reports to the Illaqa Magistrate and to other senior officers. senior officers PW-5 HC Bhagat Singh stated that on HC Bhagat Singh stated that on 23.05.2002, after post 23.05.2002, after post-mortem examination had been conducted on the dead body, he was examination had been conducted on the dead body, he was examination had been conducted on the dead body, he was entrusted with a parcel, which he handed over to the SHO. entrusted with a parcel, which he handed over to the SHO. Vinay Kumar, photographer, stated that he had visited the place PW-6 Vinay Kumar, photographer, stated that he had visited the place Vinay Kumar, photographer, stated that he had visited the place of occurrence and had taken photographs Ex.PD/1 to Ex.PD/8 of occurrence and had taken photographs Ex.PD/1 to Ex.PD/ of occurrence and had taken photographs Ex.PD/1 to Ex.PD/ and proved negatives thereof as Ex.PD/9 to PD/14. and negatives thereof as Ex.PD/9 to PD/14. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.03.20 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CRA-332-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 5 ) PW-7 Sajjan Singh stated that 23.05.2002 at about 8.00 AM, when Sajjan Singh stated that on 23.05.2002 at about 8.00 AM, when he was present in his house and was sitting in courtyard, he saw he was present in his house and was sitting in courtyard, he saw he was present in his house and was sitting in courtyard, he saw that Rajbala, who was married to his maternal grandson that Rajbala, who was married to his maternal grandson that Rajbala, who was married to his maternal grandson Mahender Singh, had been caught hold of by Sunita and Kamla, Mahender Singh, had been caught hold of by Sunita and Kamla, Mahender Singh, had been caught hold of by Sunita and Kamla, whereas Mahender Singh was strangulating whereas Mahender Singh was strangulating Rajbala. He stated that when he tried to intervene, Mahender Singh gave him a push that when he tried to intervene, Mahender Singh gave him a push that when he tried to intervene, Mahender Singh gave him a push and he fell down and thereafter all three of them set ablaze the and he fell down and thereafter all three of them and he fell down and thereafter all three of them dead body of Rajbala by pouring kerosene oil. dead body of Rajbala by pouring kerosene oil. He further stated that upon seeing the flames, his brother Dalip Singh, nephew that upon seeing the flames, his brother that upon seeing the flames, his brother Ramesh Chand and one Satpal came at the spot, but by that time, Ramesh Chand and one Satpal came at the spot, but by that time, Ramesh Chand and one Satpal came at the spot, but by that time, Rajbala’s body had been burnt extensively. PW-7 further stated Rajbala’s body had been burnt extensively. PW Rajbala’s body had been burnt extensively. PW by the accused as Mahender Singh that Rajbala had been killed by the accused as Mahender Singh that Rajbala had been killed was having illicit relations with his bhabhi Sunita and wanted to was having illicit relations with his was having illicit relations with his He further stated that his daughter keep Sunita as his wife. He further stated that his daughter keep Sunita as his wife. Kamla had also talked to him in this regard as she also wanted Kamla had also talked to him in this regard as she also wanted Kamla had also talked to him in this regard as she also wanted Kamla had also talked to him in this regard as she also wanted Sunita as wife of Mahender Singh, but he refused for the same. Sunita as wife of Mahender Singh, but Sunita as wife of Mahender Singh, but He further stated that he had 2 children i.e. his daughter Kamla, He further stated that he had 2 children i.e. He further stated that he had 2 children i.e. whereas his son has expired in the year 1976 and thereafter, he whereas his son has expired in the year 1976 and thereafter, he whereas his son has expired in the year 1976 and thereafter, he had adopted his maternal grandson had adopted his maternal grandson Mahender Singh as his son. He further stated that initially relations between Mahender Singh He further stated that initially relations between Mahender Singh He further stated that initially relations between Mahender Singh and Rajbala were cordial, but subsequently, became strained and Rajbala were cordial, but subsequently, and Rajbala were cordial, but subsequently, when Mahender Singh started having extra marital relations with when Mahender Singh started having extra marital relations with when Mahender Singh started having extra marital relations with Sunita and that although he had tried to reason out and persuade Sunita and that although he had tried to reason out and persuade Sunita and that although he had tried to reason out and persuade Mahender Singh not to indulge in the same, but to no avail Mahender Singh not to in the same, but to no avail and in this regard. rather Mahender Singh started harassing Rajbala in this regard. rather Mahender Singh started harassing Rajbala rather Mahender Singh started harassing Rajbala He further stated that he informed the family of Rajbala through He further stated that he informed the family of Rajbala through He further stated that he informed the family of Rajbala through Dalip Singh and Ramesh. Dalip Singh Dr. Ashok Kumar Baghoria, Medical Officer, General Hospital, PW-8 Dr. Ashok Kumar Baghoria, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Dr. Ashok Kumar Baghoria, Medical Officer, General Hospital, 23.05.2002, he alongwith Dr. Ashok Rewari, stated that on 23.05.2002, he alongwith Dr. Ashok Rewari, stated Kumar Saini and Dr. Sharda Dabas Kumar Saini and Dr. Sharda Dabas had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Rajbala. He stated that as per examination on the dead body of examination on the dead body of the opinion of the Board, the cause of death was asphyxia as a the opinion of the Board, the cause of death was asphyxia as a the opinion of the Board, the cause of death was asphyxia as a VIMAL KUMAR 2025.03.20 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CRA-332-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 6 ) result of throttling and the burns were post-mortem in nature. He result of throttling and the burns were post result of throttling and the burns were post also proved the post-mortem report as Ex.PJ also mortem report as Ex.PJ. Bhoop Singh (complainant) stated in tune with his version, which PW-9 Bhoop Singh (complainant) stated in tune with his version, which Bhoop Singh (complainant) stated in tune with his version, which he had got recorded to the police on the basis of which FIR came he had got recorded to the police on the basis of which FIR came he had got recorded to the police on the basis of which FIR came to be lodged, which has already referred in the earlier part of the to be lodged, which has already referred in the earlier part of the to be lodged, which has already referred in the earlier part of the judgment. judgment.
Legal Reasoning
PW-10 Shri Shri A.K.Singhal, JMIC, Rewari, A.K.Singhal, JMIC, Rewari, stated that on 28.05.2002, he had recorded the statement of Sajjan Singh in terms of provisions had recorded the statement of Sajjan Singh in terms of provisions had recorded the statement of Sajjan Singh in terms of provisions of Section 164 Cr.P.C., which he proved as Ex.PI. of Section 164 Cr.P.C., which he proved as Ex.PI. of Section 164 Cr.P.C., which he proved as Ex.PI. PW-11 SI/SHO Rameshwar Dayal , who is the Investigating Officer in SI/SHO Rameshwar Dayal, who is the Investigating Officer in the present case, stated in detail with regard to the investigation the present case, stated in detail with regard to the investigation the present case, stated in detail with regard to the investigation right from the lodging of FIR upto the presentation of challan. right from the lodging of FIR upto the presentation of challan. right from the lodging of FIR upto the presentation of challan. right from the lodging of FIR upto the presentation of challan. He proved various documents and memos prepared during the He proved various documents and memos prepared during the He proved various documents and memos prepared during the course of investigation. course of investigation. 6. Upon closure losure of the prosecution evidence, of the prosecution evidence, statements of all the three accused were recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they accused were recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused were recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the case of prosecution and pleaded false implication. Accused denied the case of prosecution and pleaded false implication. Accused denied the case of prosecution and pleaded false implication. Accused Mahender Singh stated that his adoptive father Sajjan Singh had made a Mahender Singh stated that his adoptive fathe Mahender Singh stated that his adoptive fathe statement against him under pressure to save himself and that he was not statement against him under pressure to save himself and that he was not statement against him under pressure to save himself and that he was not present at his house on the date and time of occurrence. Accused Kamla present at his house on the date and time of occurrence. present at his house on the date and time of occurrence. stated that it was only pursuant to receipt of telephonic information on the stated that it was only pursuant to receipt of telephonic information on the stated that it was only pursuant to receipt of telephonic information on the 23.05.2002 from his father regarding death of Rajbala that she morning of 23.05.2002 from his father regarding death of Rajbala that she morning of alongwith her husband and others rushed to village Garhi Bolni in a Tata alongwith her husband and others rushed to village Garhi Bolni in a Tata alongwith her husband and others rushed to village Garhi Bolni in a Tata Sumo where they reached at about 11.00 AM. Sumo where they reached at abou 11.00 AM. She further stated that her son Mahender Singh had been adopted by her father Sajjan Singh since son Mahender Singh had been adopted by her father Sajjan Singh since son Mahender Singh had been adopted by her father Sajjan Singh since long and he was not even on visiting terms with her. Accused Sunita in long and he was not even on visiting terms with her. Accused Sunita in long and he was not even on visiting terms with her. Accused Sunita in VIMAL KUMAR 2025.03.20 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CRA-332-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 7 ) her statement stated that shortly after the death of her husband, she had her statement stated that shortly after the death of her husband, she had her statement stated that shortly after the death of her husband, she had started residing with her parents at village Nahar and that she used to go started residing with her parents at village Nahar started residing with her parents at village Nahar to village Kanina occasionally to enquire about the to village Kanina to enquire about the well being of her mother-in-law and father law and father-in-law and also to facilitate law and also to facilitate meeting of her son with his grandparents stated that she had never visited village grandparents. She further stated that she had never visited village Garhi Bolni nor was having any illicit relations with Mahender Singh Garhi Bolni nor any illicit relations with Mahender Singh and that allegations of illicit relations was a concocted story. that allegations of illicit relations was a concocted story. 7. The accused in their defence examined The accused in their defence examined two witnesses. DW-1 Ved Yadav, resident of Village Kanina, who stated that on Parkash Yadav, resident of Village Kanina, who stated that on Yadav, resident of Village Kanina, who stated that on had received a telephonic message from Sajjan Singh of 23.05.2002, he had received a telephonic message from Sajjan Singh of 23.05.2002, he village Garhi at about 8.30 AM and Sajjan Singh had requested him to village Garhi at about 8.30 AM and Sajjan Singh had village Garhi at about 8.30 AM and Sajjan Singh had call Kamla. He further stated that since Sajjan Singh was sounding call Kamla. He further stated that since Sajjan Singh was call Kamla. He further stated that since Sajjan Singh was perturbed, he enquired from him about the same upon which Sajjan Singh perturbed, he enquired from him about the same upon which Sajjan Singh perturbed, he enquired from him about the same upon which Sajjan Singh told him that Mahender Singh’s wife had been burnt and had died. He told him that Mahender Singh’s wife had been burnt and had died. He told him that Mahender Singh’s wife had been burnt and had died. He further stated that he immediately called Kamla from her house and that further stated that he immediately called Kamla from her house and that further stated that he immediately called Kamla from her house and that Kamla talked to her father Sajjan Singh over the telephone in his Kamla talked to her father Sajjan Sing Kamla talked to her father Sajjan Sing presence. He further stated that thereafter, he, Master Dalip Singh, Nathu presence. He further stated that thereafter, he, Master Dalip Singh, Nathu presence. He further stated that thereafter, he, Master Dalip Singh, Nathu Ram and his wife Kamla, Mahavir Singh and his wife went to village and his wife Kamla, Mahavir Singh and his wife went to village Garhi in a Tata Sumo where they reached at about 11.00/11.30 AM. Garhi in a Tata Sumo where they reached at about Garhi in a Tata Sumo where they reached at about 8. DW-2 Dalip Sing Dalip Singh Yadav son of Balbir Singh Yadav son of Balbir Singh stated that on 23.05.2002 at about 7.30 AM/8.00 AM, Kamla and her husband at about 7.30 AM her husband Nathu came to his house and told him that they had received a telephonic message from house and told him that they had received a house and told him that they had received a Sajjan Singh that Mahender Singh’s wife had died due to burns. He stated Sajjan Singh that Mahender Singh’s wife had died due to burns Sajjan Singh that Mahender Singh’s wife had died due to burns VIMAL KUMAR 2025.03.20 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CRA-332-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 8 ) that Kamla and Nathu requested him to accompany to village Garhi and that Kamla and Nathu requested him to accompany to village Garhi and that Kamla and Nathu requested him to accompany to village Garhi and hired a Tata Sumo vehicle in which, he alongwith Nathu accordingly they hired a Tata Sumo vehicle in which, he alongwith Nathu accordingly they Singh, his wife Kamla, Mahavir Singh, his wife Sushila, Ved Parkash and Singh, his wife Kamla, Mahavir Singh, his wife Sushila, Ved Parkash and Singh, his wife Kamla, Mahavir Singh, his wife Sushila, Ved Parkash and Hazari Lal illage Garhi where they reached at about Lamberdar went to village Garhi where they reached at about and that several persons had already gathered there. He further 10.00 AM and that several persons had already gathered there. He further and that several persons had already gathered there. He further stated that Sunita used to reside in village Nahar after the death of her stated that Sunita used to reside in village Nahar after the death of her stated that Sunita used to reside in village Nahar after the death of her husband. 9. The learned trial Court, upon appreciating The learned trial Court, upon appreciating the evidence on record, held charges framed against the accused stood duly established and that the charges framed against the accused stood duly established and charges framed against the accused stood duly established and having committed offence punishable under while holding them guilty of having committed offence punishable under while holding them guilty Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC read with Section 34 IPC Sections 302, 201, 120 B IPC read with Section 34 IPC, sentenced them as under: Under Section Under Section 302 302/120-B/34 IPC IPC - To undergo rigorous a fine of Rs.1000/- fine to undergo further RI for six months. fine to undergo further RI for rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay - each and in default of payment of Under Section Under Section 201/120 201/120-B/34 IPC IPC - To undergo rigorous imprisonment for To undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for three payment of fine to undergo further RI for months 10. It may here be mentioned that appellant Kamla It may here be mentioned that appellant Kamla expired on 19.09.2014 and as such, proceedings qua her stand abated. as such, proceedings qua her stand abated. 11. Learned counsel Learned counsel for the appellants while assa while assailing the impugned judgment accused have been falsely implicated by the complainant, submitted that accused have been falsely implicated by the complainant, submitted that law (Mahender Singh) was having illicit as he suspected that his son-in-law (Mahender Singh) was having illicit as he suspected that his son relations with his sister-in-law (Sunita). It has bee relations with his sister law (Sunita). It has been submitted that in fact the medical evidence is not clear as to whether it is a case of death by the medical evidence is not clear as to whether it is a case of death by the medical evidence is not clear as to whether it is a case of death by VIMAL KUMAR 2025.03.20 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CRA-332-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 9 ) strangulation or by burns. Learned counsel further submitted that strangulation or by burns. Learned counsel further submitted that strangulation or by burns. Learned counsel further submitted that admittedly the complainant was not even present at the spot when the admittedly the complainant was not even present at the spot when the admittedly the complainant was not even present at the spot when the lace and the prosecution mainly banks upon the occurrence had taken place and the prosecution mainly banks upon the occurrence had taken p statement of PW-7 Sajjan Singh, who was an old man, aged about statement of PW , who was an old man, aged about 80 years, and had been pressurized by the police into making statement in years, and had been pressurized by the police into making statement in years, and had been pressurized by the police into making statement in favour of the prosecution. It has been submitted that the statement mad favour of the prosecution. It has been submitted that the statement made 7 Sajjan Singh is in conflict with his statement made under by PW-7 Sajjan Singh is in conflict with his statement made under 7 Sajjan Singh is in conflict with his statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and as such, is not a reliable witness. Learned Section 161 Cr.P.C. and as such, is not a reliable witness. Section 161 Cr.P.C. and as such, is not a reliable witness. counsel further submitted that in any case admittedly the accused Kamla counsel further submitted that in any case admittedly the counsel further submitted that in any case admittedly the and Sunita are not even residing in the house w and Sunita are not even residing in the house where the occurrence had re residing in different villages and had no role taken place and were residing in different villages and had no role taken place and whatsoever to play in the alleged murder of deceased Rajbala. Learned whatsoever to play in the alleged murder of deceased Rajbala. Learned whatsoever to play in the alleged murder of deceased Rajbala. Learned whatsoever to play in the alleged murder of deceased Rajbala. Learned has, thus, prayed for acceptance of appeal and setting aside of the counsel has, thus, prayed for acceptance of appeal and setting aside of the has, thus, prayed for acceptance of appeal and setting aside of the impugned judgment. impugned judgment. On the other hand, learned State counsel, while opposing the appeal, On the other hand, learned State counsel 12. On the other hand, learned State counsel it is a case where the deceased had died an unnatural death submitted that it is a case where the deceased had died an unnatural death submitted that al home and in respect of which no justifiable in her matrimonial home and in respect of which no justifiable in her matrimoni explanation is forthcoming. It has further been submitted that the star explanation is forthcoming. It has further been submitted that the star explanation is forthcoming. It has further been submitted that the star witness of the prosecution is none else but PW-7 Sajjan Singh, who is witness of the prosecution is none else but PW witness of the prosecution is none else but PW maternal grandfather and adoptive father of accused Mahender Singh maternal grandfather and adoptive father of accused Mahender Singh and who was residing in the same house and had witnessed the occurrence. who was residing in the same house and ha who was residing in the same house and ha Learned State counsel submitted that under these circumstances, the Learned State counsel submitted that under these circumstances, the Learned State counsel submitted that under these circumstances, the findings of the trial Court as regards guilt of the accused do not call for findings of the trial Court as regards guilt of the accused do not call for findings of the trial Court as regards guilt of the accused do not call for any interference. any interference. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.03.20 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CRA-332-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 10 ) 13. We have consi dered the rival submissions addressed before this Court and We have considered the rival submissions addressed before this Court and with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the case. Since it is a case where the deceased was alleged to have been 14. Since it is a case where the deceased was alleged to have been Since it is a case where the deceased was alleged to have been strangulated and then her dead body was said to have been set on fire, it is strangulated and then her dead body was said strangulated and then her dead body was said apposite to refer to the medical evidence in this regard. The dead body of apposite to refer to the medical evidence in this regard. The dead body of apposite to refer to the medical evidence in this regard. The dead body of mortem examination, which was Rajbala had been subjected to post-mortem examination, which was Rajbala had been subjected to post conducted by a board of three doctors including PW-8 Dr. Ashok Kumar conducted by a board of three doctors including conducted by a board of three doctors including Baghoria, who , who has proved the post-mortem report as Ex.PJ. mortem report as Ex.PJ. Some of the relevant extracts from the statement of PW-8 Dr. Ashok Kumar Baghoria relevant extracts from the statement of PW relevant extracts from the statement of PW are reproduced hereinunder: are reproduced hereinunder: There were superficial burns all over the body, except on ……………There were superficial burns all over the body, except on “…………… armpit and groin with peeling of skin at dorsum of left hand, bi-laterial armpit and groin with peeling of skin at dorsum of left hand, bi places. Air filled bullae present at few places. The underlying skin was places. Air filled bullae present at few places. The underlying skin was places. Air filled bullae present at few places. The underlying skin was y………… leathering, parchment like dry………… leathering, parchment like dr , haemorrhage in the subcutanteous On further dissection of neck, haemorrhage in the subcutanteous tissue seen. Right cornu of thyoid bone was found fractured. On slit tissue seen. Right cornu of thyoid bone tissue seen. Right cornu of thyoid bone opening of traches, blood stained frothy fluid was present………….. opening of traches, blood stained frothy fluid was present………….. opening of traches, blood stained frothy fluid was present………….. In the opinion of the board, the cause of death was asphyxia as a In the opinion of the board, the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of throttling and the burns were post result of throttling burns were post-mortem in nature. The duration between injury and death was within few minutes The duration between injury and death was within few minutes and duration between death and post-mortem examination was 6 to and duration between death and post mortem examination was 6 to 36 hours.” hours. (…emphasis supplied) VIMAL KUMAR 2025.03.20 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CRA-332-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 11 ) 15. Although the witness i.e. Although the witness i.e. PW-8 was cross-examined examined at length on behalf of the accused, but nothing substantial could be the accused, but noth ing substantial could be elicited during the course of cross-examination examination so as to either doubt the veracity or either doubt the veracity or his opinion. The opinion as regards cause of death could not be shattered on any count. opinion as regards cause of death could not be shattered on any count. opinion as regards cause of death could not be shattered on any count. opinion as regards cause of death could not be shattered on any count. Under these circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that it Under these circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that it Under these circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that it is a case of homicidal death, wherein the deceased had been strangulated is a case of homicidal death, wherein the deceased ha is a case of homicidal death, wherein the deceased ha to death and thereafter her dead body was se to death and thereafter her de et on fire. 16. Role of accused It is the case of prosecution that Role of accused - Mahender Singh: It is the case of prosecution that Mahender Singh had been adopted by his maternal grandfather Sajjan Mahender Singh had been adopted by his maternal grandfather Sajjan Mahender Singh had been adopted by his maternal grandfather Sajjan Singh during his childhood and had been residing with him in village Singh during his childhood and had been residing with him in Singh during his childhood and had been residing with him in ad body was found lying in the house of Mahender Garhi Bolni. The dead body was found lying in the house of Mahender Garhi Bolni. The de Singh in the courtyard i.e. house belonging to his maternal grandfather Singh in the courtyard i.e. house belonging to his maternal grandfather Singh in the courtyard i.e. house belonging to his maternal grandfather Sajjan Singh in village Garhi Bolni. PW-7 Sajjan Singh has stated in Sajjan Singh in village Garhi Bolni. PW Sajjan Singh in village Garhi Bolni. PW unambiguous terms that the deceased had been strangulated to death by unambiguous terms that the deceased had been strangulated to deat unambiguous terms that the deceased had been strangulated to deat Mahender Singh and that her dead body was s Mahender Singh and that her dead body was set on fire. It needs to be emphasized that Sajjan Singh is none else, but adoptive father of accused emphasized that Sajjan Singh is none else, but adoptive father of accused emphasized that Sajjan Singh is none else, but adoptive father of accused residing in the same house in Village Mahender Singh and both were residing in the same house in Village Mahender Singh and both . Under these circumstances, he is the most natural witness to Garhi Bolni. Under these circumstances, he is the most natural witness to Garhi Bolni the occurrence. His statement was also recorded in terms of Section 164 the occurrence. His statement was also recorded in terms of Section 164 the occurrence. His statement was also recorded in terms of Section 164 28.05.2002, which is also consistent with the version put-forth 28.05.2002, which is also consistent with the version put Cr.P.C. on 28.05.2002, which is also consistent with the version put by him while in the witness-box. by him while in the witness from the factum of aforesaid statement of PW-7 Sajjan Singh, the from the factum of aforesaid statement of PW 17. Apart from the factum of aforesaid statement of PW fact that the dead body was found lying in the matrimonial home of fact that the dead body was found lying in the matrimonial home of fact that the dead body was found lying in the matrimonial home of VIMAL KUMAR 2025.03.20 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CRA-332-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 12 ) accused Mahender Singh leaves much to be accused Mahender Singh lea to be explained by Mahender Singh as regards cause of death. A burden lay heavy on as regards cause of death. burden lay heavy on Mahender Singh , who is none else but husband of the deceased to explain the , who is none else but husband of the deceased accused, who is none else but husband of the deceased circumstances regarding death and recovery of dead body from his own circumstances regarding death and recovery of dead body from his own circumstances regarding death and recovery of dead body from his own house. The accused has, however, not come out with any explanation in house. The accused has, however, not come out with any explanation in house. The accused has, however, not come out with any explanation in rence may be made to provisions of this regard. In this context, a reference may be made to provisions of this regard. In this context, a refe Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 106 of Indian Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 106 of Indian Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act is in the nature of an exception to general rule enshrined in Evidence Act is in the nature of an exception to general rule enshrined in Evidence Act is in the nature of an exception to general rule enshrined in Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act, which mandates that the burden of Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act, which mandates that the burden of Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act, which mandates that the burden of n the person who asserts the existence of such fact. Section proof lies on the person who asserts the existence of such fact. Section proof lies o 106 in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as follows :- 106 in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as follows : 106 in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as follows : 106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge. – “106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge. 106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge. When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, proving that fact is upon him.” the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” 18.