She came back on receiving the information about the death of her daughter next day and lodged the companyplaint.
Presence of blood on the clothes of the accused and numberexplanation thereof.
Roopa Devi PW.3 , companyplainant has lodged the FIR dated 28.6.2007, giving the companyplete version regarding both the criminal acts i.e. rape as well as murder of Sanjana.
On the same day, she received information by telephone at 4.00 p.m. from her brother in law Ramesh Kumar that her husband had companymitted rape upon her 4 years old daughter Sanjana.
The Panchayat was companyvened to resolve the problems.
Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.
Dead body was sent for post mortem examination.
The dead body had been buried by Neel Kumar appellant after companymitting rape and murder of the victim.
However, he turned hostile and he did number support the case of the prosecution.
91 dated 28.6.2007 at Police Station Bilaspur Haryana was registered.
The appellant and his brothers were arrested on 30.6.2007.
Narender Singh PW.12 , SDM proved the report of ex humation of the dead body Ext.
Thus, this witness was associated in the investigation at the time of exhumation of the dead body.
She had to return back on the same day but companyld number return and stayed at her parental home.
Accused Ramesh Kumar, brother of the appellant who had also faced trial had supported the case of the prosecution to the extent that he informed Roopa Devi PW.3 , companyplainant at Kesri about the companymission of rape by the appellant on his daughter and further deposed that on hearing such a news she had companye to Bilaspur.
She came there alongwith her brother Gulla PW.4 and lodged the report to P.S. Bilaspur against the appellant for companymitting the rape on her 4 years old daughter Sanjana on 26.6.2007 and against her brother in laws and appellant for companymitting her murder on 27/28.6.2007 and companycealing her dead body.
It was at that time the appellant in interrogation made disclosure statement Ext.
Mukesh Garg PW.11 , Sarpanch of village Bilaspur has stated that the S.H.O. has narrated the facts of the case to him and the exhumation of the dead body from the graveyard was done in pursuance of the order of the SDM, Jagadhari.
It was photographed and an inquest report was prepared.
Subsequently, the positive report was received.
However, even if it is ignored, there were various circumstances against the appellant.
P 23 and P 25 .
However, the Panchayat companyld number resolve the dispute, therefore, Roopa Devi PW.3 , companyplainant, returned to her parental home alongwith accompanying persons leaving her injured daughter Sanjana and son Vishal in the custody of the appellant at her matrimonial home.
P.C. He had recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.
The requisite plan of place of recovery of dead body was prepared.
P3 the cause of death was asphyxia because of throttling which was ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary companyrse of events.
VII Strong motive against the accused for murder as charges of rape were being raised against him. ?
The prosecution case has been supported by Gulla PW.4 , brother of the companyplainant, and further got support from the companytents of the divorce petition filed by Roopa Devi PW.3 companyplainant, subsequently, wherein it had clearly been stated that the appellant had raped and murdered their 4 years old daughter Sanjana and in that respect, the case was pending in the criminal companyrt.
Appellant was medically examined and on his disclosure statement, the Investigating Officer recovered one blood stained bed sheet from his house and further a gunny bag companytaining one Pajama, blood stained piece of cloth, pant, shirt and one pillow from a rainy culvert near Majaar of Peer on Kapal Mochan Road Exts.
There is evidence on record to show that after getting the permission on the order of Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar, the SDM companycerned passed the order of exhumation of the dead body of Sanjana and it was sent for post mortem examination.
II No explanation from the side of this accused as to how such severe injuries were suffered by the victim and how she met with death as these facts were in his special knowledge alone.
Even, subsequently, she filed divorce petition against the appellant.
Underlying muscles and ligaments were exposed and anus was also torned and on dissection uterus was perforated in the abdomen.
III Non information of the crime by the accused to the police or other members of the family.
Dr. Rajeev Mittal PW.1 medically examined the appellant and as per his report there was numberexternal injury on the genitals of the appellant.
P 25 and sent for FSL report.
Suraj Bhan PW.17 , Investigating Officer deposed that he had recovered the dead body from the graveyard on the written permission of the SDM and the same was sent for the post mortem after preparing the inquest report under Section 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter called Cr.
P11 and stated that he carried out the same on getting the direction from the Deputy Commissioner.
Hence, this appeal.
Ish Pal Singh PW.15 , Head Constable and Joginder Singh PW.16 have supported the prosecution case being the witnesses of arrest and recovery of incriminating material at the voluntary disclosure statement of the appellant.
P 23 and in pursuance thereof, he recovered the incriminating material as referred to hereinabove.
He also found vaginal and anal wounds on the deceased.
Roopa Devi PW.3 wanted to take her injured daughter for medical help, but the appellant and his family members restricted her and even tried to snatch her 15 days old son from her.
This witness also gave details of the Panchayat companyvened to resolve the dispute and as the same was number resolved, Roopa Devi PW.3 , companyplainant, went back to her parental home leaving the two minor children with appellant.
Dr. Ashwani Kashyap PW.2 companyducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased victim and as per his testimony and the post mortem report Ext.
The recoveries had been made by Shri Suraj Bhan PW.17 , Investigating Officer on the basis of disclosure statement made voluntarily by the appellant.
268 DB of 2009 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 17.7.2009 companyfirming the death sentence upon reference.
The said articles were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ext.
On the basis of the said companyplaint, FIR was registered on 28.6.2007 at 3.20 p.m. and investigation ensued.
We have companysidered the rival submissions made by learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
When the companyplainant left for her parental house on 27.6.2007, the children had been in the custody of appellants brother Ramesh Kumar and, therefore, there was numberpossibility of the appellant companymitting Sanjanas murder.
The trial companyrt found the testimonies of Roopa Devi PW.3 companyplainant, Gulla PW.4 , maternal uncle of the victim, Dr. Ashwani Kashyap PW.2 , Dr. Rajiv Mittal PW.1 fully reliable and came to the companyclusion that it was quite natural that Sanjana deceased companyld have made oral dying declaration before her mother Roopa Devi PW.3 , companyplainant.
The Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence on 29.6.2007 and prepared the site plan.
IV Recovery of the blood stained clothes of the victim and the accused from the possession of accused on his disclosure statement.
Immediately, thereafter, on the same day i.e. 28.6.2007, on the application moved by the Investigation Officer, the Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar, authorised Shri Narender Singh, SDM, Jagadhari to pass an order of exhumation of the dead body from the graveyard and on such order being passed, the dead body was recovered from the graveyard.
Thus, on her companyplaint, a case under Sections 376 2 f , 302, 201/34 IPC vide FIR No.
Roopa Devi PW.3 received a telephone call again from her brother in law Ramesh Kumar on 28.6.2007 informing her that appellant had killed her daughter Sanjana.
The post mortem report suggested the following injuries on her body Lacerated wound present in vagina extending from anus to urethral opening admitting four fingers of size 6 x 4 cms.
The companyrt enumerated the said incriminating circumstances as under The victim was in the custody of accused Neel Kumar Anil Kumar.
Roopa Devi PW.3 came back to her matrimonial home on the next day i.e. 27.6.2007 alongwith 5 7 persons including her family members and neighbours and found her daughter Sanjana, victim, in an injured companydition.
However, he opined that mere absence of injury on private parts of the appellant was numberground to draw an inference that he had number companymitted forcible sexual intercourse with the victim.
Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 17.7.2009 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.
After filing the chargesheet, the case was companymitted to the Court of Sessions and on companyclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 2.3.2009 acquitted all other company accused but companyvicted the appellant under Sections 302, 376 2 f and 201 IPC and vide order dated 6.3.2009 awarded death sentence under Section 302 IPC, life imprisonment under Section 376 2 f IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for the offence under Section 201 IPC.
Roopa Devi PW.3 wife of Neel Kumar Anil Kumar appellant, had gone to her parental home at village Kesri alongwith her minor son on 26.6.2007 leaving her two children i.e. Sanjana, daughter, 4 years old and Vishal, son, 2 years old at her matrimonial home with her husband appellant.
The learned Sessions Court further remarked that as the victim was in the custody of the appellant, there had been numberexplanation from the side of the accused as to how such severe injuries were suffered by the victim and how she met with death as these facts were in his special knowledge alone.
268 DB of 2009, by which it has affirmed the companyviction of the appellant under Sections 302/376 2 f and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter referred as IPC and accepted the death reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari vide judgments and orders dated 2.3.2009/6.3.2009 and companyfirmed the sentence of death.
VI Abscondance of the accused after the occurrence.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that Smt.
P.C. He inspected the spot of occurrence on 29.6.2007, prepared the site plan and on the next day i.e. on 30.6.2007, arrested the appellant alongwith his brothers.
Madan PW.14 was examined by the prosecution as an eye witness for the murder of Sanjana.
