He further stated that Sadhu Ram was married to Rukma 3 4 years ago.
The panchnama also records the fact that Jagdish, the father in law of deceased Rukma and Bahadur, father of deceased Rukma were also present.
In this background the facts number in dispute may be numbericed.
Thereafter he reminded Mala Ram of the oath in the name of Goddess Ganga.
Statement of Mala Ram, PW.3 was thereafter recorded in the companyrse of investigation as well.
It was fairly submitted before us by the companynsel for the parties that apart from the evidence of PW 3, Mala Ram, numberother witness had seen the occurrence and there is numberevidence to companyroborate the testimony of PW 3, Mala Ram though large number of witnesses were examined.
As we have observed earlier the only evidence which implicates the appellants is the evidence of Mala Ram, PW.3 His evidence is number companyroborated by any other evidence on record.
He did number tell anyone in the village about what had happened earlier.
R.C. Sharma, ASI, PW.10 has stated that he was posted as A.S.I. at Police Station Nimkathana on 22nd November, 1996.
Narain knocked at the door asking Rukma deceased to open the door but the door was number opened.
S.P. and once by some other police officer.
In the companyrse of enquiry under Section 176 Cr.
However, when companyfronted with portion of earlier statement Ext.
From the evidence of this witness it also appears that the bodies were badly burnt and the post mortem examination of the dead bodies was companyducted at the place of the incident itself.
He rushed to the house of Jagdish where large number of villagers had assembled.
He then came to the house of Jagdish alongwith them and found that the door was closed.
P 9 was given to him by Jagdish at 4.00 a.m Earlier he had left for the place of occurrence between 3.00 and 3.30 a.m. on telephonic information regarding the occurrence.
He then went to his house.
Thereafter the appellants and Narain in league with Mohan set the bodies ablaze with the result that the huts got burnt.
P.C. The two versions given by Mala Ram are so much at variance with each other that they cannot be reconciled, the first version supporting the case of death by accidental fire and the second supporting the case of suicide and burning of the bodies thereafter.
The medical evidence, therefore, is to the effect that the deceased were burnt alive and the burn injuries were ante mortem in nature.
D 1, he denied having made such a statement.
He rushed to the place of occurrence where many villagers had assembled.
In his examination in chief he reiterated that on the night of occurrence at about 1.00 a.m. Jagdish had companye to him and asked him to accompany him to his house since the wife of his son was number opening the door.
D 1 and Ext.
Mala Ram was told by Jagdish to wait for five minutes so that in the meantime the family members may have companysultation in the house of Mohan.
The High Court observed that the attention of Mala Ram was number drawn to his later statement Ext.
After about half an hour the appellants came to him and administered him oath in the name of Goddess Ganga that he would number disclose what he had seen to anyone in the village.
D 1 bears his signatures.
P.C. Accordingly, the Sub Divisional Magistrate proceeded to the place of occurrence to enquire into the cause of death and prepared the inquest panchnama in the presence of Phulchand, PW 4 and Ganpat Ram Saini, PW 5 neighbours of the appellants, Bugla Ram, brother of the deceased and two other witnesses who have number been examined.
This report has been marked as Ex.
The appellants told him that they have been ruined and they will settle the matter after negotiations.
Thereafter he went to his house.
He had number numbericed any differences between Sadhu Ram and his wife Rukma.
20 of 1996 under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
It is worth numbericing that the medical board companysisted of three doctors who companyducted the post mortem examination.
He further stated that Sadhu Ram often used to beat his wife and on an earlier day also he had beaten her and that is why Rukma companymitted suicide by hanging herself.
P.4 he claims to have gone to the house of Jagdish at his request and found that the two dead bodies were hanging from the hook with rope around their necks and that on account of harassment by the appellants, Rukma had companymitted suicide.
The trial companyrt as well as the High Court have placed reliance upon the evidence of PW.3 Mala Ram.
The marks of burning of skin were ante mortem.
However, on the basis of this report made by Mala Ram a formal First Information Report was recorded and a fresh case No.372 of 1996 was registered.
Narain since acquitted is a brother of Jagdish.
In his deposition before the Court he supported the later version given by him in Ext.
They had a child Munni who was about 8 months old on the date of occurrence.
This statement of Mala Ram Ext.
The Station House Officer, police station, Nimkathana treating the report as one under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure recorded Case No.
The burns were ante mortem in nature and all the burn wounds were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary companyrse of nature.
The case of the prosecution rests entirely only on the evidence Mala Ram, PW 3.
The post mortem examination of the dead bodies was companyducted by Dr. M.C. Sharma at about 1.00 p.m. on the same day.
They alongwith one Narain since acquitted were put up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nimkathana Sikar in Sessions Case No.4 of 1997 charged variously under Sections 498A, 302, 201 and 436 I.P.C. for the murder of Rukma, wife of Sadhu Ram and Munni, daughter of Sadhu Ram who was about 8 months old at the time of occurrence.
Narain knocked at the door but the door was number opened and thereafter Sadhu Ram by lifting the thatched roof went inside and opened the door from inside.
D 1 was put to this witness when he was in the witness box but he had denied the same.
The different versions put forward by Mala Ram were brought to the numberice of the High Court but the High Court was companytent with observing that some part of his earlier statement Ext.
The appellants put off the fire but the wife of Sadhu Ram and his daughter were burnt to death.
P 4 which was treated as the First Information Report in this case and, therefore, the defence has number succeeded in impeaching the credibility of Mala Ram, PW.3.
P 4 were recorded by police officers in the companyrse of enquiry which was being companyducted under Section 176 Cr.
P 4 it appears that the statement was recorded in companynection with the investigation of case No.
The post mortem reports are Exts.
D 1 between 5.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. The statement was read over to Mala Ram and finding it to be companyrect he had signed the same.
On November 22, 1996 at about 4.00 a.m. the appellant, Jagdish lodged a report before the Station House Officer, police station Nimkathana stating therein that at about 2.15 a.m. in the night while his son Sadhu Ram alongwith his wife, Rukma and his daughter aged about 8 months was sleeping in the house, suddenly a fire broke out and Rukma and her daughter, Munni were burnt to death.
The bodies were brought down by the appellants herein and Narain.
He went to the house of Jagdish where Narain was also called.
Apart from his evidence there is medical evidence on record which supports the case of death by burning and to that extent goes against the evidence of Mala Ram, PW.3 Mala Ram was examined during trial as PW.3.
His statement was recorded by the police officer on the same day in the evening, while his statement was recorded by Dy.
P 4 was recorded by S.I. Gokul Singh, P.W. 13 at 6.30 p.m From Ext.
The High Court has upheld the companyviction and sentence of the appellants recorded by the trial companyrt mainly relying upon the evidence of PW 3, Mala Ram, a neighbour who lodged the F.I.R. on the basis of which this case was investigated.
P 14 and P 15, which fully support the evidence of Dr. Sharma, PW.11.
According to him at about 1.00 a.m. on the night of occurrence he was sleeping in his house when appellant Jagdish came to him and asked him to accompany him to his house as the wife of his son Sadhu Ram was number opening the door.
J U D G M E N T P. Singh, J. This appeal by special leave has been preferred by the two appellants namely, Sadhu Ram, appellant number1 and Jagdish, appellant number2.
The above statement of Mala Ram Ext.
20 of 1996 and informed the Sub Divisional Magistrate about the occurrence and requested him to prepare an inquest panchnama of the dead bodies under Section 176 Cr.
S.P. on the next day.
P 4 though he admitted that the statement recorded by ASI Sharma, PW.10 marked as Ext.
He stated that his statement was once recorded by the Dy.
He went with Jagdish first to the house of Narain and then to the house of Mohan.
They deliberately destroyed the evidence by burning the bodies and had got lodged a false report of accidental fire.
It is numbere worthy that both the statements, Ext.
P.C. the statement of Mala Ram, PW.3 was also recorded in which he stated that he was in his field when the fire broke out in the village.
At the place of occurrence he had also recorded the statement of Mala Ram, Ext.
In his subsequent statement Ext.
He lighted the lamp and it was seen that the wife of Sadhu Ram and his daughter were hanging from the hook with plastic rope around their necks.
P In this statement Mala Ram gave a different version of the occurrence.
According to this witness the written report Ex.
At about 2.00 a.m. a hue and cry was heard by him to the effect that a fire had broken out.
It was found that Rukma and her daughter were hanging and this he saw from outside.
According to Dr. Sharma the cause of death was suffocation due to burns.
His son Sadhu Ram was married to Rukma 4 years ago.
Two huts of Jagdish had been companypletely burnt.
The dead bodies were hanging two feet above the ground.
Sadhu Ram is the son of Jagdish.
Dr. Sharma also deposed that they numbericed the presence of sooty carbon particles in larynx, trachea, pharynx and oseophagus, which indicated that the deceased were burnt alive.
It thus appears that the witness attempted to exclude his statement recorded earlier by PW.10, though he admitted his signatures on the statement, Ext.
It appears, in the enquiry which was being companyducted under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, PW.14 Sub Inspector Gokul Singh again recorded the statement of Mala Ram, W. 3 at 6.30 p.m The said statement has been marked as Ex.
Even in his subsequent statement he did number allege that the appellants had killed either Rukma or his daughter Munni and at best an allegation was made that Rukma had companymitted suicide.
Thereafter Sadhu Ram lifting the thatched roof entered the room and opened the door latch from inside.
Rukma, deceased, was married about 4 years ago and since she was harassed, she was companypelled to companymit suicide.
On inquiry, he came to learn that at about 2 2.30 a.m. while they were sleeping in the house a fire broke out all of a sudden, the cause of which was number known.
The appellant Sadhu Ram was married to Rukma deceased about 3 1/2 or 4 years before the occurrence.
D 1 recorded by PW.10 ASI R.C. Sharma disclosed the version which supports the case of death by burning in an accidental fire.
At that time Sadhu Ram had a tin of kerosene oil and he sprinkled the kerosene oil on the dead bodies.
Jagdish and Narain examined them and found that both of them had died.
