In the companyrt, Geeta PW.16 witness indicated that she companyld read and write and she had written telephone number of her father Jaswant Singh PW.1 .
However, Geeta PW.16 was the sole eye witness of the occurrence, being deaf and dumb, her statement was recorded in sign language with the help of her father Jaswant Singh PW.1 as an interpreter.
The viscera was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory but the report did number show that any sort of poison had been administered to the deceased.
He had given a pill with water to Kaku Singh and thus he became unconscious.
ii Incised wound 5 1/2 x 2 bone deep all structure of neck cut wound.
It was on her request that Dr. Amarjeet Singh Chawla PW.4 informed her father.
Her version of giving a pill for intoxication of deceased companyld number be proved by medical evidence.
Dr. Amarjeet Singh Chawla PW.4 deposed that Geeta PW.16 had asked him to give a telephone call to her father and he had accordingly informed her father.
On the basis of the said report FIR No.
They met Jaswant Singh PW.1 and Geeta PW.16 , his daughter in the lane.
262 of 2001 was registered under Sections 449, 302, 201 and 120B IPC against the respondent at P.S Hanumangarh and investigation ensued.
After companypletion of all the formalities and companyclusion of the trial, the trial companyrt placed reliance upon the evidence of Geeta PW.16 and recovery etc.,
However, because of the intervention of the companymunity people, Kaku Singh, deceased, severed his relationship with Chhindri Bhatni, who became annoyed and had sent her brother Darshan Singh alongwith other persons who killed Kaku Singh.
On being asked, Geeta PW.16 deaf and dumb , wife of Kaku Singh deceased companymunicated by gestures that Darshan Singh, respondent accused, had stayed with them in the night.
III Geeta PW.16 had admitted in her cross examination that Chhindri Bhatni had 10 brothers and numbere of them had ever visited her house.
Therefore, the evidence of recovery of kulhari companyld number be used as incriminating circumstance against the accused.
P.C., sending the recovered material for FSL report and arrest of Darshan Singh, respondent accused etc.
They went inside through the window and found two companys lying on some distance where fresh blood was lying companyered with sand.
Undoubtedly, Kaku Singh, deceased, died a homicidal death.
VIII The evidence of Geeta PW.16 was recorded in sign language with the help of her father Jaswant Singh PW.1 .
The latter got annoyed and got Kaku Singh killed through her brother Darshan Singh, respondent accused.
Geeta PW.16 informed him through gestures that respondent accused Darshan Singh had killed him with kulhari while Kaku Singh was sleeping.
In the cross examination, he explained that Geeta PW.16 was dumb and deaf, however, companyld read and write and she had written the telephone number of her father as 55172 and, thus, he companyld companytact her father.
Hence, this appeal.
Two more persons, accomplice of Darshan Singh came from outside and all the three persons inflicted injuries on Kaku Singh with sharp edged weapons.
After sometime, her father Jaswant Singh PW.1 had arrived on scooter.
P 12 at the instance of respondent accused Darshan Singh supported the prosecution case to the extent of the said recovery.
Aggrieved, the respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No.
Jaswant Singh PW.1 deposed that he reached the place of occurrence after receiving the telephone call from Dr. Amarjeet Singh Chawla PW.4 and after companying to know about the murder of Kaku Singh, he informed Buta Singh PW.15 , brother of deceased Kaku Singh.
P 12 is companycerned, even if believed, did number lead to any interference for the simple reason that FSL report Ext.
After sometime, Jaswant Singh PW.1 came there on scooter and saw the place of occurrence.
The respondent was arrested and during interrogation, he made a voluntary disclosure statement on the basis of which the I.O. got recovered a blood stained Kulhari and clothes the respondent was wearing at the time of companymission of offence.
During the night two persons also joined the respondent accused.
She raised a cry but accused caught her by the hair and asked to keep quiet otherwise she would also be killed.
from the spot.
The accused and her husband companysumed liquor together.
VII The evidence on record revealed that Geeta PW.16 and Jaswant Singh PW.1 were apprehending that Kaku Singh deceased would alienate his irrigated land to Chhindri Bhatni and, therefore, it became doubtful whether Darshan Singh, respondent accused companyld have any motive to kill Kaku Singh, deceased.
Hari Singh PW.7 , the recovery witness of kulhari Ext.
She also told Jaswant Singh PW.1 about the illicit relationship of Chhindri Bhatni with Kaku Singh, deceased and because of the intervention of companymunity persons, Kaku Singh had severed relationship with Chhindri Bhatni.
Admittedly, neither she number her father while acting as her interpreter had been administered oath.
After companypletion of the investigation, the police filed chargesheet against the respondent under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and the trial companymenced.
Dr. Rajendra Gupta, PW.17 , who companyducted the post mortem on the said dead body supported the case of the prosecution to the extent that Kaku Singh, deceased, died of homicidal death.
Buta Singh PW.15 , brother of deceased Kaku Singh, narrated the incident as had been stated by Jaswant Singh PW.1 .
The motive for companymitting the offence had been that one Chhindri Bhatni was having illicit relationship with Kaku Singh, deceased, and about 8 10 months prior to the date of incident Kaku Singh caused burn injuries to Geeta PW.16 at the instigation of Chhindri Bhatni.
Jaswant Singh PW.1 reached the clinic of Dr. Amarjeet Singh Chawla PW.4 , in the way, he met Buta Singh PW.15 and his son Gurmail Singh.
During the companyrse of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses and tendered several documents in evidence.
The respondent accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.
Geeta PW.16 got scared and ran outside.
96 of 2003 before the High Court which has been allowed vide impugned judgment and order dated 29.5.2006.
It was natural that a husband and wife would number allow a stranger to sleep with them, even if Darshan Singh, accused, was known to them.
Dr. Rajendra Gupta PW.17 , who companyducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Kaku Singh, found the following injuries Incised wound 4 1/2 x 1 bone deep fracture on the right lateral side of face mandible region.
She served the food to both of them and subsequently, all the three persons slept on companys in the same room.
P.C., denied all allegations.
Ramjilal PW.23 , Investigating Officer, gave full details of lodging an FIR at midnight and explained all steps taken during the investigation, recoveries referred to here in above, recording of statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.
In view of the fact that relationship between Geeta and Chhindri Bhatni had never been companydial, it companyld number be believed that Geeta PW.16 would permit the brother of Chhindri Bhatni to sleep with them.
The respondent accused had mixed a tablet in the glass of water and the same was taken by her husband Kaku Singh.
Gurtej Singh PW.2 the recovery witness deposed about the inquest report of the dead body and taking in custody of empty strip of tablet, blood stained soil and simple soil and moulds etc.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.5.2006 in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.
and companyvicted the respondent vide judgment and order dated 15.1.2003 and imposed the punishment as mentioned here in above.
It was at 11.30 p.m., accused Darshan Singh had taken out a kulhari from his bag and gave blows on the neck and cheek of her husband.
They came to the house of Kaku Singh, deceased and found the blood companyered with sand and also the dead body of Kaku Singh lying on a company in a room companyered with quilt.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that Buta Singh PW.15 lodged an oral report on 4.5.2001 at 1.00 a.m. at P.S. Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh stating that on intervening night between 3/4.5.2001 at about 12.15 a.m., Jaswant Singh PW.1 received a telephone call from Dr. Amarjeet Singh Chawla PW.4 to the effect that Jaswant Singhs daughter was perturbed and, therefore, he must immediately reach the house of his son in law Kaku Singh.
Buta Singh PW.15 , informant, also proceeded towards the house of Kaku Singh deceased, alongwith his son Gurmail Singh.
II The version of Geeta PW.16 did number appear to be trustworthy as she deposed that Darshan Singh accused, Kaku Singh deceased and the witness had slept in the same room.
The main door of the house was closed but the window of the door was open.
P 64 revealed that there was numberhuman blood found on kulhari.
The trial companyrt found the evidence on record trustworthy and in view thereof, companyvicted the respondent accused and sentenced him as referred to hereinabove.
They also found the dead body of Kaku Singh in the pool of blood companyered by a quilt in the room.
The dead body was taken by the accused alongwith accompanying persons and was put in a room and locked the same from outside.
