Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sharwan Ram vs State on 6 September, 2017
Bench: Gopal Krishan Vyas, Manoj Kumar Garg
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 135 / 2011
Sharwan Ram S/o Shri Ganga Ram, by caste Jat, Resident of
Surpura Khurd, P.S. Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.
[At presently confined in Central Jail, Jodhpur]
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Tak.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
JUDGMENT
Date of Judgment: 06/09/2017 The instant criminal appeal has been filed by accused appellant- Sharwan Ram, under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. laying a challenge to the validity of the judgment dated 20 th of January, 2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FT) No.1, Jodhpur (Trial Court) in Session Case No.48/2008, whereby the accused appellant was convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentence for life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5000/- was imposed with default stipulation to further undergo one year‟s simple imprisonment.
(2 of 14) [CRLA-135/2011] As per facts of the case, on 31.12.2007, complainant- Shivlal (brother of deceased Smt. Babudi) submitted a written report (Ex.P/1), in which following allegations were levelled against accused appellant, Sharwan Ram, which reads as under: -
"lo s k eas Jheku Fkkuns kj lkgc iqfyl Fkkuk Hkkis kyx<+ tk/s kiqj ekU;oj th] uez fuonus gS fd eSa f"koyky iq= dkyjw ke tkV fuoklh nkMeh rglhy Hkkis kyx< eas fjikVs Z djrk gaw fd ejs h cfgu ckcMw h+ tks xkoa lqjijq k [kqnZ eas C;kgh gqbZ Fkh Jo.kjke iq= xxa kjke yfy;kr ljq ijq k [kqnZ ds lkFk C;kgh gqbZ Fkh vkt jkr Jo.kjke ds NkVs s HkkbZ ckcqyky i=q xxa kjke us viuh cfge fcnkeh W/o vkes izdk"k dks lqcg djhcu 4 cts lpw uk nh Qkus fd;k fd Jo.kjke us viuh iRuh ckcqMh+ dks ekj Mkyk rc fcnkeh us ckcy w ky ls ejs h ckr djokbZ rc ckcqyky us crk;k fd rqEgkjh cfgu ckcMw h+ dks Jo.k jke us ekj nh gS lks rqe rqjUr vkoks rc ckn eas geus iqfyl Fkkuk dks lfw pr fd;k vkjS xkoa ds ekfs tt vkneh Jh nner jke th iow Z ljip a nkMe+ h] ekxa hyky S/o Fkkojjke th] Hkxkjke th S/o lxjkth] o gekjk ijw k ifjokj euhjke th S/o uus kjke th] cMs+ firk dkyjw ke th firkth gikjke th] mxjk jketh] dkdth gMe+ ku jke S/o ies kjke th eq.My s cgukbs Z ;s lHkh lqjijq k [kqnZ ds fy, jokuk gq, ge ekSds ij igqp a s rks iqfyl igys ls ekSds ij igp aq xbZ Fkh ekSds ij Jo.kjke ds jgoklh dejs eas esjh cfgu ckcMw h+ [kkV ij ejh gqbZ iMh+ Fkh ftlds "kjhj ij vufxur pkVs as vkbZ gqbZ FkhA Jo.kjke ejs h cfgu dks ekjrk ihVrk jgrk Fkk o ekrko firk ikl eas [kMs+ jgrs Fks blls eq>s ijs ifjokj ij ekjus dk "kd gSA Jo.kjke ds cMs+ firk dk cVs k Hkoa jyky S/o jkenhu Hkh bleas "kfkey gSA eqdnek ntZ dj dk;oZ kgh rqjUr djkoAs rkjh[k 31-12-07 Sd/-
f"koyky S/o dkyjw ke"
(3 of 14) [CRLA-135/2011] Upon aforesaid written complaint, the SHO, Police Station- Bhopalgarh registered an F.I.R. No.148/2007 on 31.12.2007 under Section 302 IPC and went on the spot, where investigating officer prepared site plan (Ex.P/2) of place of occurrence on the same day and recorded details of the place along with site plan. The dead body lying at the place of occurrence was inspected and condition of the dead body was recorded vide Ex.P/3 at 11.00 AM on 31.12.2007. The „Panchnama‟ of the dead body of deceased, Smt. Babudi (wife of accused appellant) was prepared vide Ex.P/4 in the presence of five "Pancha(s)", namely, Mangilal S/o Thanwar Ram, Ugra Ram S/o Girdhari Ram, Jairam S/o Pancha Ram, Hadman Ram S/o Pema Ram and Dadmat Ram S/o Bhanwarlal. The dead body of the deceased was taken for postmortem at Primary Health Centre, Bhopalgarh, where postmortem of the dead body of deceased was conducted by the Medical Board and postmortem report (Ex.P/28) was prepared and handed over to the investigating officer for investigation. As per opinion of the Medical Board, the cause of death was asphyxia due to throttling.
After performing postmortem, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to her brother-in-law, Babulal vide Ex.P/5 for cremation. The clothes of the deceased wearing when the occurrence took place, were taken in possession vide Ex.P/6 by the investigating officer in front of two witnesses viz. Mangilal and Ugraram. Accused appellant was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P/11) on 02.01.2008 at 09.00 PM. During police custody information was given by accused appellant for recovery of a plastic and nylon rope, by which throttling was committed by him.
(4 of 14) [CRLA-135/2011] The said recovery was made vide Ex.P/8 in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Ramniwas and Sanwataram.
During investigation, statements of eyewitness, Ganesh (son of deceased and appellant) under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-cum- Judicial Magistrate, First Class No.2, Jodhpur, which is available on record as Ex.P/33. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused appellant in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Pipar City, from where the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Jodhpur for trial.
The learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur transferred the case for trial to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge (FT) No.1, Jodhpur. The learned trial court after considering the entire evidence granted an opportunity of hearing to the accused appellant before framing charge and after hearing arguments, framed charge against the accused appellant under Section 302 IPC but accused- Sarwan Ram denied and prayed for trial.
In the trial, statements of 24 prosecution witnesses were recorded including child eyewitness PW.12 Ganesh (son of the deceased), in which he has categorically narrated the incident which took place in front of him. The statements of the accused appellant were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in which following explanation was furnished by him, which reads as under: -
"eSu a s viuh ifRu dks ugha ekjk eSa ?kVuk okys fnu jkf= eas ?kj ij ugha FkkA ejs h ifRu dh e`R;q ckcr iqfyl okykas us eq>s crk;k Fkk fd viuh ifRu dh e`R;q gks x;h gS ftls fdlh us ekj fn;k gSA eaS ?kVuk okyh jkf= viuh d`f'k dk;Z ls cqVkVh x;k gqvk FkkA prqjnklth ds /kke ij x;k gv q k (5 of 14) [CRLA-135/2011] FkkA okfil vk;k rc ekyqe pyk fd ejs h ifRu ej x;h gSA eaS ifRu ls cgrq I;kj djrk FkkA eSa dHkh viuh ifRu ds lkFk ekjihV ugha dh u dHkh yMk+ bZ >xMk+ fd;kA xkoa okykas us vucu ds dkj.k t;jke ljip a ejs s vucu ds dkj.k ejs s dks tkuc> w dj >Bw k Ql a k;k tkjgk gSA t;jke ejs s okVs kas dk >xMk+ FkkA eSa dHkh t;jke th ds ikl ugha x;kA t;jketh us lkft"k dj ejs s uke >Bw k case djok;k gSA eSa funkZs'k gAaw ejs s f[kykQ llqjky okykas dks Hkh t;jke us HkMdk;k gSA ejs s yMd + s dks t;jke th us ejs s f[kykQ HkMd + k;k gS A "
Despite granting of opportunity to lead evidence, no defence witness was examined by the accused appellant in his defence.
The learned trial court after recording evidence of both the sides, finally heard arguments and decided the case vide impugned judgment dated 20.01.2009 in Session Case No.48/2008 and convicted the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC and punished him for life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation to undergo further one year‟s simple imprisonment.
At the threshold, learned amicus curiae argued that the entire prosecution case is based upon testimony of child eyewitness, namely, Ganesh (PW.12), but his testimony cannot be accepted because he was only three years of age when the alleged incident took place. According to counsel for the appellant it is not possible for a three years‟ old child to narrate the entire story. Therefore, it is obvious that said child witness is tutored witness, therefore, his testimony has erroneously accepted by the trial court. It is further submitted that even if entire evidence is accepted, then also it is a fit case in which conviction can be (6 of 14) [CRLA-135/2011] altered from offence under Section 302 IPC to 304 Part I of IPC because incident in question is outcome of quarrel took place in between the husband and wife due to anger. It is thus prayed that conviction may be altered from offence under Section 302 IPC to 304 Part-I of IPC.
In support of his arguments, learned amicus curiae invited our attention towards recent judgment in the case of Devendra Nath Shrivastava Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2017) 5 SCC 769, in which the Hon‟ble Apex Court altered the conviction from 302 to 304 Part-I of IPC, therefore, in this case also conviction can be altered from offence u/s 302 IPC to 304 Part-I of IPC.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned amicus curiae and submit that as per evidence on record, the accused appellant being husband brutally murdered his wife, which is evident from the nature of injuries caused upon the body of the deceased, which is corroborated by the medical jurist, Dr. Bhagwati Prasad Sharma (PW.18), one of the Member of the Medical Board, conducted the postmortem of the dead body.
Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that occurrence took place in the presence of a small child, Ganesh (son of deceased and accused appellant) and statement of child eyewitness, Ganesh were recorded during investigation under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate, in which whole incident was reported by him. During trial, statements of said child eyewitness Ganesh were recorded as PW.12, in which he has categorically alleged that name of my mother is Babudi, and name of my father (7 of 14) [CRLA-135/2011] is Sharwan Ram (appellant herein) on the date of occurrence, my mother was assaulted by stick and rope in front of him by my father.
It is also pointed out that most of the relatives of accused appellant himself appeared in the trial as witnesses and categorically made allegation against the accused appellant that he used to beat his wife and his behaviour towards wife was so cruel. The recovery of rope was also effect as per information given by accused appellant. Learned public prosecutor lastly argued is that none of the witness turned hostile, more so, all the witnesses proved the occurrence beyond reasonable doubt and specific allegations are levelled by eyewitness Ganesh (PW.12) minor son of the appellant in his statement that my father killed me mother in front of him by causing number of injuries and throttling and this fact is established from the statements of PW.18 Dr. Bhagwati Prasad Sharma. As per Public Prosecutor judgment cited by the learned counsel the appellant does not apply upon the facts of the present case because there is no evidence to prove that incident took place in spur of moment or on sudden provocation in anger nor any witness turned hostile, therefore, no relief can be gratned to the accused appellant so as to alter the conviction from offence under Section 302 of IPC to the offence under Section 304 Part-I of IPC. He, therefore, argued that this appeal may kindly be dismissed.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the entire evidence and considered the arguments. First of all to assess the allegation, we have perused the statements of (8 of 14) [CRLA-135/2011] child witness Ganesh recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate. In the said statements, specific allegations were levelled by him against his father (accused appellant) for causing number of injuries to his mother Babudi, and said version is reiterated by him before the court when his statements were recorded during trial. The child eyewitness Ganesh (PW.12) categorically gave following statement during trial which reads as under: -
"cloky vij ykd
s vfHk;kt
s d dFku fd;k fd fd & ge nks HkkbZ
cfgu gS ,d eSa gaw o ,d ejs h cfgu gSA ejs h cfgu dk uke eSuk gSA esjh cfgu eSuk ukuh ds ikljgrh gAS ejs h eEeh dkuke ckcMw h+ FkkA ejs s ikik ds uke Jo.kjke gSA gkftj vnkyr vfHk;qDr dks n[s kdj xokg us dgk fd ;s ejs s firk gSA ejs h eka ej xbZ gSA ikik us ejs h eEeh dks ekj fn;kA ikik us ejs h eka dks jLlh o ydMh+ ls ekj fn;kA ejs h eka dks ekjk ml le;jkr FkhA ejs s ikik us tc ejs h eka dks ekjk ml le; eaS ikl eas FkkA ejs s ikik us esjs dks jkus s ugha fn;k vkSJ dgk fd rjs s dks Hkh ekjnawxkA eq>s ejs h nknh ds ikl Hkt s k nknh feyh ughA esjs dkdk vk, eSua s ejs s dkdk dks ijw h ckr crkbZA eSua s ejs s dkdk dks crkbZ fd ejs s ikik Jo.kjke us ejs h eka dks jLlh ls dVw dwV dj ekj fn;kA"
The whole prosecution case is based upon the testimonies of 24 prosecution witnesses, out of 24 witnesses, PW.1- Shivlal, who is real brother of the deceased, Smt. Babudi, PW.2- Mangilal, PW.3- Jairam, both the neighbourers of accused appellant, PW.4- Haparam, PW.5, Hanuman Ram, PW.6- Dadmat Ram, PW.7- Maniram (uncle of the deceased), PW.13- Bhanwarlal (cousin brother of the accused appellant), PW.14- Smt. Bidami (wife of Maniram, PW.15- Jamna Bai (mother of the deceased), and (9 of 14) [CRLA-135/2011] PW.22- Babulal (real brother of accused appellant), close relatives of accused appellant have categorically proved his behaviour with his wife, deceased Babdi, and said that his behaviour was quarrelsome and cruel; he used to beat his wife. The real brother and close relative of accused categorically stated on oath that conduct and behaviour of the accused appellant was very bad towards his wife and he used to beat her. In view of entire evidence, this case is a glaring example of serious offence which is not only proved by relatives of the deceased but relatives of accused appellant also.
As per postmortem report, number of injuries were reported by the Medical Board. The member of the Medial Board, Dr. Bhagwati Prasad Sharma (PW.18) gave following statement to corroborate the injuries suffered by the deceased in the incident occurred on 31.12.2007 in the house of accused appellant, where number of injuries were inflicted in front of child eyewitness son Ganesh (PW.12). The statements given by Dr. Bhagwati Prasad Sharma to prove the fact of injuries, read as under: -
"eSafnukda 31-12-07 dks lkeqnkf;r LokLF; dUs nz Hkkis kyx< eas ofj'B fpfdRlk izHkkjh ds in inLFkkfir FkkA ml fnu iqfyl Fkkuk Hkkis kyx< ds izfrons u ij euaS s e`rdk Jh ckcqMh+ dh e`R;q ckcr ikLs VekVZe djus gsrq efs Mdy ckMs Z ?kfVr fd;k] ftleas eSa p;s jeSu FkkA ejs s vkSj ckMs Z }kjk e`rd ckcqMh+ ds "ko ij {k.k ckcr fuEu tkp a gqbZ Fkh] tks fuEu izdkj ls gS %& 1- ckgjh ijh{K.k er` dk dk "kjhj LVkmV Fkk fVbefs "k;"s ku ugha FkkA pkjkas Hkqtkvkas eas jkbZdj ekfs VZl mifLFkr FkkA nkus kas vk[a ks v/k[kqyh FkhA eqga c/a k FkkA nkra fHkM gq, FkAs nkus kas gkFkkas dh eqfV~B;ka fQMh+ gqbZ FkhA 2- ,UVh ekVs Ze lcV~;lh dh pkVas As 1- fuyxw 2 x 2 les h yykV ij as 2 x 2 les h fpu ij 2- [kjkp (10 of 14) [CRLA-135/2011] 3- xnZu **,** ds bUVhfj;j Hkkx eas lt w u ,oa yykbZ Fkh xnZu **ch** fuyxw vkSj [kjkp as 1-50 x 1-50 les h- xnZu ds ck;as Hkkx ij xnZu **lh** xnZu ds nk;as Hkkx ij rhu fuyxw [kjkp as ds lkFkA xnZu **Mh** yjs hxa vkSj FkzkbjZ kVs Zl ds mij dh peMh+ ds Hkhrjh lrg eas xtw FkhA 4- fuyxw 6 x 3 les h iVs ds nkfa gus gkbiks ØkMs ªe Hkkx ij 5- fuyxw 4 x 4 les h iVs ds ,ihxLs fVx Hkkx ijA 6- ihB ij 20 x 25 vyx yx izdkj dh fuyxw tks ijw h ihB ij Nkrh ds ihNs Hkkx vkSj uhps ds yEcks lØ s y Hkkx rd vkbZ gqbZ gSA 7- nkus kas dYw gs izR;d s dYw gs ij djhc 10 ls 15 fHkUu fHkUu id z kj d h fuyxw FkhA 8- nkus kas tk?a ks nk;as vkSj ck;as Hkkx ij 10 ls 15 fHkUu fHkUu izdkj ds l kb t Z dh fuyxw FkhA ;g lHkh pkVs s ,Va h ekVs Ze izd`fr dh FkhA flj ,oa jh<+ dh gM~Mh e`Rrdk ds "kjhj dks [kky s us ij LoLFk ikbZ xbZA blh id z kj Nkrh eR` rdk dh [kky s us ij okYl] fjCl LoLFk Fkh] Iyjw k LoLFk] yfs jXa l dh ekl a ifs "k;k dUtVªsV FkhA nkfa guk QQ as Mk+ dUtLs VªVs FkkA ck;ka QQ as Mk+ dUtLs VªVs FkkA ijs h dkfM;e LoLFkA ân; LoLFkA yktZ ol s Yl LoLFkA ikbZ xbZ FkhA blh rjg iVs dks [kky s us ij okYl LoLFk] ifs jVkfs u;e LoLFk] eqga Qfs jXa l vkSj vkgkj uyh LoLFk ikbZ xbZA blh lUnHkZ es iVs es v/k idk Hkkt s u ik;k x;kA NkVs h vkra LoLFk ,oa ipk gqvk Hkkts u ik;k x;kA cMh+ vkra LoLFkA yhoj LoLFkA Liyus LoLFkA fdMuh LoLFkA CySMj LoLFkA U;Vw ªl LoLFk ik, x,A e`rdk ds fuEufyf[kr vfLFk Hkax FkAs 1- gk;kMs Z vfLFk ds nkus kas xzsVj vfLFkHkxa Fks vkSj Hkhrj dh rjQ eqMs gq, FkAs 2- FkkbjkMs dkfVZyt s ,oa fØdkbs M ØkfVZyt s dk vfLFk Hkxa FkkA 3- nkfguh vxz Hkqtk ds jfs M;l ,oa vYuk gM~mh ds uhps ds fgLls dk vfLFk Hkxa FkkA blh rjg ls ck;ha vxz Hkqtk ds jfs M;l ,oa vYuk vfLFk ds uhps fgLls vfLFk Hkax FkAs ;s lHkh vfLFk Hkax dh pkVs ,UVhekVeZ izd`fr dh FkhA e`rdk dh ikLs VekVZe fjikVs Z izn"kZ ih&28 gAS tks ejs k dyeh gS ftl ij , ls ch ejs s gLrk{kj gS vkSj lh ls Mh MkWDVj lra k's k [kk[s kj ds gLrk{kj gS vkSj bZ ls ,Q MkW gueq ku jke ds gLrk{kj gSA ejs h jk; eas e`Rrdk ckcMw h+ dh ekSr xyk xkVs us ds dkj.k ,DlfQdlh;k ls gqbZA e`Rrdk dh ekSr dk le; ikLs VekVZe ds le; ls 24 ?k.Vs ds Hkhrj dk gSA e`Rrdk ds ikLs VekVeZ (11 of 14) [CRLA-135/2011] ds le; ckga h o vkUrfjd pkVas vufxur vkbZ gbq Z FkhA ftjg vf/koDrk vfHk;qDr %& iz"u % jhxj ekfs VZt p<r+ s gq, Fks ;k mrjrs gq, FkAs mRrj % jhxj ekfs VZt ejus ds ckn ekl a ifs "k;kas dk f[kp a ok gkrs k gS D;kfas d f[kpa ok pkjkas ckgkas eas FkkA blfy, e`R;q dk le; 24 ?k.Vs ds Hkhrj Hkhrj r; fd;k tk ldrk gAS ;g dguk xyr gS fd xyk xkVs us ij eqga [kqyrk gkAs ;g ckr lgh gS fd xyk nckus ls ckgj vk[kas vkrh gS yfs du ;g ckr ncko ij fuHkjZ djrk gAS ;g dHkh&dHkh gh gkrs k gSA nkra fHkp a s gq, Fks vkSj eqga cna Fkk blfy, ykj ugha Vid jgh FkhA"
Upon consideration of the entire evidence and facts it is obvious that deceased was brutally murdered by the husband, accused appellant, Sharwan Ram, therefore, we have no hesitation to say that there is no substance in the prayer of the accused appellant to convert the conviction from the offence under Section 302 to 304 Part-I of IPC. Upon perusal of the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Devendra Nath Shrivasta (supra), it is apparent that facts of that case were altogether different. Although in that case nine injuries were found upon the body of deceased, but child eyewitness Shailendra Kumar (PW.6) turned hostile and there was evidence that occurrence took place all of sudden in anger, but in this case no such facts are in existence, more so, it is a case in which minor son of the accused appellant (PW.12- Ganesh) categorically proved which is further corroborated by the medical evidence as well as statements of close relatives of the accused appellant himself, therefore, there is no question to accept the prayer of the accused appellant to alter the conviction from offence under Section 302 IPC to 304 Part-I of IPC.
(12 of 14) [CRLA-135/2011] We have considered the case for compensation to the children victims under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court while interpreting the aforesaid provision gave verdict in the case of Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2013) 6 SCC 770, held that is mandatory for the court to apply its mind to the question in every criminal case so as to provide compensation or to refuse compensation to the victims. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under:
"To sum up: While the award or refusal of compensation in a particular case may be within the Court's discretion, there exists a mandatory duty on the Court to apply its mind to the question in every criminal case. Application of mind to the question is best disclosed by recording reasons for awarding/refusing compensation. It is axiomatic that for any exercise involving application of mind, the Court ought to have the necessary material which it would evaluate to arrive at a fair and reasonable conclusion. It is also beyond dispute that the occasion to consider the question of award of compensation would logically arise only after the court records a conviction of the accused. Capacity of the accused to pay which constitutes an important aspect of any order under Section 357 Cr.P.C. would involve a certain enquiry albeit summary unless of course the facts as emerging in the course of the trial are so clear that the court considers it unnecessary to do so. Such an enquiry can precede an order on sentence to enable the court to take a view, both on the question of sentence and compensation that it may in its wisdom decide to award to the victim or his/her family."
(13 of 14) [CRLA-135/2011] In the present case, upon consideration of facts, the child witness Ganesh (PW.12) was 3 years of age at the time of incident, in which his mother died on account of injuries caused to her by her husband- Sharwan Ram. It is also on record that accused appellant was having two issues, viz. one daughter, namely, Maina and son Ganesh and on the date of incident daughter of the deceased was at her maternal grandfather‟s house and three years son Ganesh was living with his mother, but unfortunately in the incident on 31.12.2007, mother of both these children died and father was sent in custody as he murdered his own wife. Meaning thereby, both the persons are entitled for compensation as per Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011.
Deceased, Smt. Babudi, was non-earning member, therefore, both the victims are entitled to get compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- as per Scheme of 2011. Accordingly, the District Legal Service Authority, Jodhpur is directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the daughter of the deceased, viz. Ms. Maina and Rs.1,00,000/- to minor son Ganesh (son of the deceased). The said amount shall be deposited in Fixed Deposit in a nationalized Bank initially for a period of five years. The interest accrued on the amount deposited, shall be paid to the victims monthly for their maintenance. The victims on attaining the age of majority shall be entitled to receive the amount of compensation. The information for grant of compensation to the victims shall be communication to the District Legal Service Authority, Jodhpur forthwith for doing the needful.
(14 of 14) [CRLA-135/2011] Upon re-appreciation of entire evidence and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that it is well proved case in which allegations against the accused appellant for causing homicidal death of his own wife, is proved. In view of above, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the learned trial court whereby the accused appellant was convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC.
Consequently, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed. (MANOJ KUMAR GARG)J. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS)J. DJ/-
S-71