Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 August, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 192/2018
Rajendra Singh S/o Shri Bheem Singh, Aged About 46 Years, B/c
Rajput, R/o Sania, P.s. Khunkhuna, District Nagaur. Presently
Shivpuri, Garh, P.s. Sri Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar
(Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
and Ms. Sampatti Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, AGC
Mr. Vikas on behalf of Mr. Rakesh
Matoria
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
JUDGMENT
Judgment pronounced on ::: 31/08/2022
Judgment reserved on ::: 09/05/2022
BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MEHTA, J.)
The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as
below vide judgment dated 26.07.2018 passed by learned
Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.24/2012:-
Offence Sentences Fine Sentence in lieu of
under default of payment of
Section fine
302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.5,000/- 2 months' Additional
S.I.
309 IPC 1 Year's S.I. -- -
(2 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
3/25 (I-B)(A) 1 Year's SI Rs.2000/- 1 Month's Additional S.I.
Arms Act
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
He has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 (2)
Cr.P.C. for assailing the said judgment.
Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal
are noted hereinbelow:-
Prem Chand (PW.1) (hereinafter referred to as the
informant) submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) to the SHO PS Sri
Vijaynagar District Sri Ganganagar on 09.04.2012 at 03:15 PM
alleging inter alia that he was a resident of Village 4 B.L.D. and
was working as a house-cleaner in the Shivpuri Garh (castle of
erstwhile ruling family). Shri Rajendra Singh Rathore who had
been elected as the Chairperson of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti,
Sri Vijaynagar was staying at the Garh with his wife Smt. Annu
Kanwar and Rani Sahiba. Shri Rajendra Singh indulged into
excessive consumption of liquor after winning the election of
Chairperson and thus, he had been admitted to a de-addiction
centre at Sri Ganganagar. In the morning, the informant reached
the Garh for his routine cleaning duties whereupon he saw
Rajendra Singh and his wife sitting under a tree outside the Garh.
They were quarreling over keys of the car. The informant cleaned
the ground floor and went upstairs. Rani Sahiba went to the
nearby school. Rajendra Singh's parents were staying on the
upper floor of the Garh. At about 12:45 PM, he heard a gunshot
on which he rushed down and saw Annu Kanwar lying on the
(3 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
ground imbrued in blood. Rajendra Singh was standing nearby and
went back to his room on seeing the informant. He approached
Rani Sahiba at the school and told her and Tejpal Guruji that
Rajendra Singh had shot his wife Smt. Annu Kanwar who was lying
down in the hall. Tejpal made a call to the police station. A police
vehicle came and took Smt. Annu Kanwar to the hospital in an
injured condition where, she expired while undergoing treatment.
On the basis of this report, an FIR No.98/2012 came to be
registered at the Police Station Sri Vijaynagar for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
It may be stated that prior to registration of the above FIR,
the Incharge SHO Sri Vijaynagar Sawai Singh (PW.15) who
received the call of Tejpal master at around 01:05 PM had reached
the Garh where, he saw Smt. Annu Kanwar lying down in an
injured condition. Her guts were spilling out and blood was
smeared all around. He got some photographs taken. Annu
Kanwar though seemingly alive was not speaking. Shri Sawai
Singh immediately took her to the hospital and got her admitted.
He then, collected a police team and came back to Shivpuri Garh
where he heard sound of glass breaking from the upper floor. He
proceeded to the upper storey of the building where he saw that
Rajendra Singh was trying to break the windowpanes and his
hands and clothes were stained in blood. Rajendra Singh
confessed before the police officials that he had made a mistake
and that he would commit suicide. Rajendra Singh was
overpowered and was taken to the hospital. Annu Kanwar
succumbed to her injury. Prem Chand thereafter submitted the
written report (Ex.P/1) whereupon FIR No.98/2012 came to be
(4 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
registered at the Police Station Sri Vijaynagar. Initial investigation
was undertaken by Shri Sawai Singh, Incharge SHO. Naresh
Kumar (PW.23) SHO, Police Station Sri Vijaynagar returned to the
police station in the late hours of the day and further investigation
was undertaken by him. Shri Naresh Kumar interrogated the
accused Rajendra Singh in custody and in furtherance of the
informations provided by the accused under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act, got recovered the incriminating articles.
The broken 12-bore gun recovered at the instance of
Rajendra Singh was sent to the FSL for ballistic examination.
However, the FSL authorities returned the gun with a remark that
the cartridge stuck in the chamber should be got unloaded
through the armourer.
Accordingly, the two cartridges stuck in the chamber of the
gun were got unloaded with the assistance of the armourer and
thereafter, the weapon, cartridges and other incriminating articles
were again forwarded to the FSL from where a report (Ex.P/98)
was received. The IO concluded the investigation and filed a
charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 302 & 309 IPC. However, the matter was kept
pending regarding the offences under the Arms Act for receiving
sanction, which was procured and then, a supplementary charge-
sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Section 3/25 of
the Arms Act. Since the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC
was exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, the case was
committed and then transferred to the Court of Special Judge,
Women Atrocities Cases, Sri Ganganagar where, charges were
framed against the accused for the offences punishable under
(5 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
Sections 302, 309 IPC and Section 3/25 (1-B)(A) of the Arms Act.
He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined
as many as 24 witnesses and exhibited 103 documents to prove
its case. The accused upon being questioned under Section 313
Cr.P.C. was confronted with the circumstances appearing against
him in the prosecution evidence which he denied and claimed to
be innocent. He took a pertinent plea in defence that the deceased
was distressed and disturbed because she was not able to
conceive. She was also unhappy and dissatisfied in living at Sri
Vijaynagar being a very small place. He assured the deceased that
she would conceive in due course of time. However, she could not
reconcile with the circumstances and committed suicide. He was
not present at the time of the incident, and when he came to
know that his wife had committed suicide, he returned home.
However, before he had reached, his wife had been taken to the
hospital. He became perturbed and in this process, he hit the
window-glass with his hands and got injured. He claimed to be
completely innocent stating that he and his wife were deeply in
love with each other. Five documents were exhibited but no oral
evidence was led in defence.
After hearing the arguments advanced by learned Public
Prosecutor and the defence counsel and appreciating the evidence
available on record, the learned trial court proceeded to convict
and sentence the accused appellant as above by judgment dated
26.07.2018 which is assailed in this appeal.
Shri J.S. Choudhary, learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. Pradeep Choudhary representing the appellant vehemently and
fervently contended that there is hardly any evidence worth the
(6 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
name on the record of the case so as to bring home the charges
against the appellant. The star prosecution witness, the first
informant Prem Chand did not support the prosecution case and
was declared hostile and thus, there is no witness to prove that
the accused appellant fired the gunshot at his wife, the deceased.
The prosecution could not lead any evidence to prove that the
appellant was present in the house at the time of the incident and
thus, the conclusions drawn by the trial court against the accused
by raising the reverse burden of proof under Section 106 of the
Evidence Act are totally illegal and unjustified. The police
inspected the entire house on 09.04.2012 and site inspection
memo/map (Ex.P/9 & Ex.P/10) were prepared on the same day.
However, at that point of time, no recovery of any weapons etc.
was shown to have been effected. The accused was shown
arrested on 10.04.2012 and fake informations were shown to
have been recorded at his instance on 13.04.2012 and the
recoveries were planted upon the accused whereas, all the articles
including weapons etc. had already been recovered on 09.04.2012
itself. Despite the incident having taken place in a thickly
populated area of Vijaynagar, only two police officers PW.4
Manguram and PW.5 Resham Singh and some stock panch
witnesses were associated in the process of recoveries and no
effort was made to involve independent witnesses and hence also,
the process of recoveries is tainted. Except for the blood group on
the shirt of the accused, no other article recovered from or at the
instance of the accused gave positive test for blood group identical
to that of the deceased. On the sole basis of presence of matching
blood group on an isolated piece of clothing, inference of guilt
(7 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
could not be drawn against the accused. The prosecution did not
lead proper link evidence to establish safekeeping of the gun
recovered at the instance of the accused and hence, the ballistic
expert's report Ex.P/98 is of no value whatsoever. Shri Choudhary
further urged that the appellant had no motive whatsoever to kill
his wife. The parents and brother of Smt. Annu, admitted in their
evidence that Annu was not able to conceive despite seven years
of the marriage and hence, she was perturbed. Shri Choudhary
fervently contended that Smt. Annu Kanwar committed suicide
and the charge of murder attributed to the appellant is totally
false and remained unsubstantiated. On these grounds, Shri
Choudhary implored the Court to accept the appeal; set aside the
impugned judgment and acquit the accused appellant of the
charge.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel
representing the complainant vehemently and fervently opposed
the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. They urged
that the prosecution has proved the motive attributed to the
appellant for the murder. The witnesses being close relatives of
the deceased gave clear evidence to the effect that the accused
was maltreating the deceased on account of demand of money.
The deceased called her father just before the incident and
conveyed to him that the accused was pressurizing her for a sum
of Rs.2,00,000/- and was threatening to kill her in case the money
was not paid. Since, this demand was not satisfied, the accused
who was heavily intoxicated, murdered Smt. Annu by firing his 12-
bore gun. Thereafter, he went to the upper storey room and tried
(8 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
to hurt himself in an endeavour to show that he was deeply
perturbed on account of the fate which had befallen his wife.
However, this futile attempt of the accused is of no consequence
because the clothes worn by him at the time of incident were
found stained with the same blood group as that of the deceased.
The accused claimed that he was not in the house when the
incident took place. This defence taken by the accused is falsified
because the accused failed to offer any explanation for presence
of same blood group as that of the deceased on his own clothes.
The first informant Prem Chand was an employee in the fort and
thus, he was pressurized not to give evidence against his
employer and hence, he turned hostile. However, when the
witness was confronted by the learned Public Prosecutor after
being declared hostile, he made significant admissions establishing
the incriminating circumstances giving strong indications pointing
to the guilt of the accused. He further urged that the 12-bore gun
recovered at the instance of the accused and empties found in the
barrel thereof were tested at the FSL and a clear opinion was
given that the firing pin impression found on the fired cartridge
matched with the firing pin of the weapon and hence, it is well and
truly established that the accused fired the fatal gun shot on his
wife Smt. Annu Kanwar thereby killing her. The prosecution has
led unimpeachable direct and circumstantial evidence to bring
home guilt of the accused and that the impugned judgment is
based on apropos appreciation of evidence. On these submissions,
they craved dismissal of the appeal.
(9 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the
impugned Judgment and have minutely re-appreciated the
evidence available on record.
At the outset, it may be stated here that the sole
eyewitness, the first informant Shri Prem Chand (PW.1) did not
support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. Shri Prem
Chand lodged the written report (Ex.P/1) wherein he alleged that
he was employed to do cleaning activitites in the Garh where,
Rajendra Singh, Annu Kanwar and Madhuri Singh, owner of the
Garh used to reside. He was on duty on the day of occurrence i.e.,
on 09.04.2012. He heard the sound of a gunshot and rushed to
the hall at the ground floor and saw Smt. Annu Kanwar lying in a
pool of blood. Rajendra Singh was standing nearby. However,
when the witness was examined on oath, he disowned his own FIR
and stated that Rajendra Singh was not present in the Garh at the
time of the incident. He did not hear the sound of the gushot.
However, he heard a noise on which, he came down and saw that
Annu Kanwar was lying down calmly and blood was oozing out
from her abdomen. He went to the school where Tejpal Singh and
Madhuri Singh were sitting and he told them of the incident. He
denied having submitted report (Ex.P/1) to the police and claimed
that he was forced to sign the report. The Public Prosecutor,
declared the witness hostile and cross-examined him whereupon
the witness admitted that he was employed by Rani Madhuri Singh
who used to pay salary to him. He was expecting next salary on
Deepawali. There are two rooms each on the ground floor and on
(10 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
the first floor of Shivpuri Garh. Rajendra Singh used to reside with
his wife in the room on the ground floor whereas, Madhuri Singh
resided in the room on the first floor. One of the rooms was kept
reserved for guests. The parents of Rajendra Singh was not
present in the Garh on the day of the incident. He feigned
ignorance as to whether Rajendra Singh was in a habit of
consuming liquor or whether he was made to attend the
de-addiction camp at Ganganagar. He admitted his signatures on
the written report (Ex.P/1) but denied that the report bore his
signatures. Upon being confronted with the police statement
(Ex.P/11), the witness denied to have given such statement to the
police. He admitted that police came to the spot and took Annu
Kanwar to hospital. He could not say as to whether Rajendra Singh
came near Annu Kanwar after the incident. He denied all other
suggestions given to him by learned Public Prosecutor. The reason
for Shri Prem Chand resiling from the FIR and the orginal version
is apparent. He was a lowly paid employee doing cleaning
activities at the Garh and Rajendra Singh's adotptive mother
Madhuri Singh was his employer. Apparently thus, the witness
could not be expected to muster the courage to give evidence
against his employer's son. Be that as it may. Since the witness
has denied having any knowledge about the incident, except the
fact that Rajendra Singh and Annu Kanwar used to reside together
in the Garh, the remaining part of his testimony is of no avail to
the prosecution.
PW.2 Tejpal Singh was working as a Director in Azadshatru
Singh Memorial School being operated by Smt. Madhuri Singh.
(11 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
This witnss only supported the prosecution case to the extent that
he and Madhuri Singh were sitting together in the school on
09.04.2012. At about 01:30 pm, Prem Chand came running to the
school and blurted out that Annu Kanwar was lying injured in the
hall. Madhuri Singh asked him to call the police and he did the
needful. He denied having gone to the spot when the police came.
Thus, the evidence of this witness is also not of much
consequence to the prosecution case.
PW.3 Rajaram was another employee working in the Shivpuri
Garh. He resiled from his earlier version as stated to the
Investigating Officer and was declared hostile. Learned Public
Prosecutor, confronted him with his previous statement (Ex.P/20)
but the witness denied all the suggestions given by the prosecutor.
However, one important fact which the witness admitted is that no
unknown person came inside the Shivpuri Garh on the day of the
incident.
PW.4 Manguram was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector at
the Police Station Sri Vijanynagar. He stated that the SHO Shri
Naresh Kumar along with him and officials of the Police Station Sri
Vijaynagar proceeded to Shivpuri Garh in furtherane of an
information provided by the accused Rajendra Singh who led the
police team to his residential room, opened the box of a double
bed lying therein, took out a pair of blood stained trousers, a
blood stained shirt and a pair of shoes kept therein and handed
the same over to the SHO. These articles were sealed at the spot.
Rajendra Singh then took out a key from underneath the mattress
of the double-bed with which, he opened an almirah and
(12 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
presented a double barrel gun which was broken in three pieces to
the SHO. The SHO seized and sealed the gun at the spot. He also
stated that the accused took out two firearms from the almirah,
one was of 450-bore and the other was a broken 12-bore gun
wherein two empty cartridges were stuck. The key provided by
Rajendra Singh was also seized and seizure memos were
prepared. The SHO also prepared the site inspection plan. The
significant part of cross-examination which was undertaken from
the witness pertained to the non-association of independent
witnesses in the recovery proceedings. The witness denied the
suggestion that all the recoveries were fabricated or that the
memos had been prepared at the police station.
PW.5 Resham Singh was a Constable at the Police Station Sri
Vijaynagar. He too was associated in the same proceedings as
Manguram (PW.4) and his statement is also on the same lines.
PW.6 Bhiluram gave formal evidence regarding presentation
of compact discs containing recording of the marriage ceremonies
of Rajendra Singh and Annu Kanwar.
PW.7 Sudhir Kumar was also a formal witness, not directly
connected with the events which took place at the Garh. The
witness did not support the prosecution case and was declared
hostile. In cross-examination, the witness supported the defence
theory and stated that Annu Kanwar had come to stay with
Rajendra Singh at Sri Vijaynagar six months before the incident.
However, she was not happy at Vijaynagar it being a very small
(13 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
place. She was also depressed on account of not being able to
conceive.
PW.8 Jaswant Singh was also declared hostile. He also
supported the defence theory regarding Annu Kanwar being
depressed. He also stated that there was a rumour going on that
Annu Kanwar had committed suicide because she was under
depression.
PW.9 Surendra Singh is Annu Kanwar's relative. He stated
that Annu Kanwar was married to Rajendra Singh at Pilani on
30.06.2005. Significant dowry was given in the marriage. About
ten days after the marriage, Madhuri Singh sent her clerk with a
demand for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and that Annu Kanwar's father
Shri Sawai Singh gave this amount to Madhuri Singh in presence
of the witness. Whenever, Annu Kanwar came to Pilani, she would
complain that Madhuri Singh and her husband Rajendra Singh
were harassing and humiliating her and were pressurizing her to
bring money. She was being maligned/insulted with the
insinuation that her father was a beggar. Annu Kanwar was turned
out of the matrimonial home. Rajendra Singh contested and won
the election of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sri Vijaynagar whereafter
a Sarpanch and two-three other persons came to Pilani and
assured that Annu Kanwar would not be harassed again and with
this assurance, she was taken back to Sri Vijaynagar.
Prolonged cross-examination was undertaken from this
witness but he could not be shaken from what he stated in his
examination-in-chief. What can be inferred from the statement of
(14 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
this witness is that accused Rajendra Singh and Madhuri Singh
were having a greed for money and the deceased would often be
maligned and pressurized to bring money and valuables from her
father. As a culmination of this cruel behaviour, Smt. Annu Kanwar
was turned out of the matrimonial home but after Rajendra Singh
won the election, he seems to have decided to bring his wife back
to the matrimonial home so as to maintain the impression of a
good human being in the society.
Shri Sawai Singh (PW.10) being the father of Smt. Annu
Kanwar gave evidence to the effect that marriage of his daughter
was solemnized with Rajendra Singh at Pilani on 30.06.2005.
Significant dowry was given at the time of the marriage. Rajendra
Singh was the adoptee son of Smt. Madhuri Singh. Right after the
marriage, the demands of money started coming from the side of
Shri Rajendra Singh and Madhuri Singh. Annu Kanwar returned
home after a few days of the marriage and complained about the
bad conduct of Madhuri Singh and Rajendra Singh and also told
that she was being harassed and humiliated for demand of money.
The witness called Madhuri Singh and Rajendra Singh and
requested them not to harass Annu Kanwar. He once went to
Shivpuri Garh and gave a sum of Rs.50,000/- to Madhuri Singh
and assured that he would keep on sending more money as per
his capacity. However, Madhuri Singh insulted him saying that they
were in habit of donating such small amounts amongst poor
persons. Rajendra Singh and Madhuri Singh abused and insulted
him and he was disgraced and sent out of the Garh. Rajendra
Singh pointed a gun towards him on which, the witness became
(15 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
frightened and took Annu Kanwar with himself and brought her
back to Pilani. She was sent to Indore for doing fashion designing
course. No one from the matrimonial home ever tried to take
stock of Annu Kanwar for a period of two years. Thereafter, Shri
Rajendra Singh came to his village with some leaders from
Shivpuri and assured that Annu Kanwar would not be maltreated
in future. On this assurance, he sent Annu Kanwar back to
Shivpuri Garh with some money but just a week later, the
illtreatment resumed. Annu Kanwar called him and told that the
family was indulged in dabauchary and Rajendra Singh and
Madhuri Singh would sit together and consume liquor. On
09.04.2012, Annu Kanwar called him. She was crying and was
requesting that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- should be provided or else
she would be killed. The witness agreed that he would come with
money but before he could make arrangement for the amount, he
received a call from the police at about 3 O' clock that his
daughter had been fired upon and killed by Rajendra Singh inside
the Shivpuri Garh. He and his family members proceeded for
Shivpuri Garh. They straight away went to the Vijaynagar hospital
where the dead body of Annu Kanwar was lying. In cross-
examination, the witness was grilled regarding the statement that
Annu Kanwar called him and made a complaint regarding accused
demanding a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from her. The witness stuck to
the story but could not recollect the mobile numbers. He explained
that Annu Kanwar always used to call on his son's mobile number
and that he himself did not use a mobile. The witness admitted
that the following parts of his examination-in-chief were
improvements from his police statement (Ex.D/2):-
(16 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
"eSus esjs iqfyl c;ku izn"kZ Mh&2 esa ;g ckr crkbZ Fkh fd ^^fQj g¶rk nl fnu
ds ckn vUuq daoj gekjs ikl ?kj vkbZ Fkh mlus crk;k fd jktsUnzflag o ek/kqZjhflag dk
pky pyu vPNk ugha gS ;s yksx v;;k"k fdLe ds gS vUuq us eq>s crk;k fd ek/kqZjhflag o
jktsUnzflag eq>s rax ijs"kku djrs gS** mDr ckr izn"kZ Mh&2 esa D;ksa ugha fy[kh eq>s ugha
irkA eSaus esjs iqfyl c;ku izn"kZ Mh&2 esa ;g ckr crk nh Fkh fd ^^os dgrs gS fd gekjk
ifjokj jkt?kjkus dk gS mlds fglkc ls "kknh ugha dh rFkk u gh jkt?kjkus ds fglkc ls
lkeku fn;k gS bl ckr ls jktsUnzflag o ek/kqZjhflag rax ijs"kku djrs gS ;g ckr eq>s vUuq
daoj us crkbZ Fkh** mDr ckr izn"kZ Mh&2 esa dSls ugha fy[kh eq>s ugha irkA ;g dguk
xyr gS fd eq>s vUuq daoj us ,slh dksbZ ckr u crkbZ gksA eSaus esjs iqfyl c;ku izn"kZ
Mh&2 esa ;g ckr fy[kokbZ Fkh fd ^^tc Hkh vUuq daoj fiykuh vkrh Fkh rc eq>s mDr ckrsa
crkrh Fkh rc mldks dqN iSlk nsdj o migkj nsdj Hkst nsrs vkSj Qksu ij jktsUnzflag o
ek/kqZjhflag dks le>krs Fks fd vUuq daoj dks rax ijs"kku er djks vUuq daoj dk Qksu vkrk
Fkk vkSj og crkrh Fkh fd eq>s rax ijs"kku djrs gS o ekjihV djrs gS rFkk iSlksa dh ekax
djrs gS eSa f"koiqjhx< fot;uxj esa iSlk ysdj vk;k vkSj 50 gtkj :i;k ek/kqZjhflag ds
lkFk esa fn, mudks le>k;k fd vUuq daoj dks ijs"kku er djks eSa viuh gSfl;r vuqlkj
iSlk nsrk jgwaxk ek/kqZjhflag us dgk fd ;g iSlk rks dqN Hkh ugha gS brus iSls rks ge xjhcksa
esa ckaV nsrs gS vkSj mlh oDr jktsUnzflag o ek/kqZjhflag xqLlk gks x, rFkk ek/kqZjhflag o
jktsUnzflag us eq>s xkyh xykSp fd;k** mDr ckr izn"kZ Mh&2 esa D;ksa ugh fy[kh eq>s ugha
irkA
eSa "kknh ds nks rhu efgus ckn esa ipkl gtkj :i, ysdj x;k FkkA ipkl
gtkj :i, "kknh ds 2&3 efgus ckn ysdj tkus okyh ckr eSaus iqfyl c;ku izn"kZ Mh&2
esa blh Øe esa fy[kokbZ Fkh fd ^^vkSj esjs lkeus esjh yM+dh vUuq daoj ds lkFk ekjihV dh
vkSj eq>s /kDdk nsdj ?kj ls ckgj fudky fn;k vkSj jktsUnzflag canwd ysdj [kM+k gks x;k
vkSj dgus yxk fd vki viuh yM+dh dks ys tkvks vxj ugha ys tkvkasxs rks vkidh yM+dh
dks tku ls ekj nsaxs rFkk esjs mij jktsUnzflag us canwd rku nh eSa ?kcjk x;k vkSj eSa esjh
yM+dh dks ysdj fiykuh vk x;k** mDr ckr izn"kZ Mh&2 esa dSls ugha fy[kh eSa ugh ckr
ldrkA esjs /;ku esa ugha fd mDr ?kVuk dh ckr eSaus iqfyl dks crkbZ ;k ughaA fQj dgk
(17 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
fd bl ?kVuk ckcr eSaus ml oDr iqfyl dks ugha crk;kA vkSj u gh bl ckcr dksbZ
eqdnek ntZ djok;kA "kknh ds ckn esjh yM+dh ds dksbZ cPpk iSnk ugha gqvkA ;g ckr
lgh gS fd eq>s ek/kqZjhflag us Qksu ij crk;k Fkk fd vki ukuk cuus okys gS ftl ij eSa
esjh cPph vUuq daoj ds llqjky f"koiqjhx< esa vk;kA ;g ckr lu~ 2007 dh gSA eq>s
ek/kqZjhflag us ugha dgk Fkk fd cPph esa dkcfy;r gS mls dkslZ djok nksA esjs iqfyl c;ku
izn"kZ Mh&2 dk fgLlk , ls ch ^^vkSj eSaus ----------- djok nks** lquk] mDr c;ku eSaus iqfyl
dks ugha fn,A ;g lgh gS fd 2007 esa eSus esjh yM+dh dks fot;uxj ls lruk ysdj vk;k
vkSj fQj bankSj Hkst fn;k vkSj fQj og bankSj esa QS"ku fMtkbZfuax dks dkslZ djus esa yx
xbZA esjh yM+dh vUuq daoj 2011 rd bankSj esa dkslZ djrh jghA ebZ 2011 esa esjh yM+dh
us dkslZ iwjk dj fy;kA esjh jktsUnzflag ls dksbZ ckr ugha gqbZ vkSj u gh eSus jktsUnz dks
crk;k fd vUuq us dkslZ iwjk dj fy;k gSA vUuq daoj ls ckr gksrh jgrh gks rks eq>s irk
ughaA eSus esjs iqfyl c;ku izn"kZ Mh&2 esa ;g ckr crk nh Fkh fd ^^ogka ij cPph dkslZ
dj jgh Fkh bu yksxksa us cPph dh dksbZ [kcj ugha yh o u gh dksbZ ckrphr dhA cPph nks
lky rd ogka ij jgh** mDr ckr izn"kZ Mh&2 esa D;ksa ugh fy[kh eS ugha crk ldrkA eSaus
esjs iqfyl c;ku izn"kZ Mh&2 esa ;g Hkh crk fn;k Fkk fd ^^iSlk nsdj yM+dh dks f"koiqjhx<
Hkst fn;k ,d g¶rs ckn esa budk O;ogkj fQj oSlk gks x;k eq>s vUuq daoj us Qksu ij
crk;k fd budk O;ogkj fQj igys tSlk gks x;k gS ;g ckr eq>s vUuq daoj us Qksu ij
crkbZ vUuq daoj us crk;k fd ;g yksx v;;k"k fdLe ds gS] nk: ihrs gS jktsUnzflag o
ek/kqZjhflag lkFk esa "kjkc ihrs gS vkSj crk;k fd esjs lkFk ekjihV djrs gS chp chp esa ;s
yksx iSlk ekaxrs o esjh yM+dk vUuq daoj ds ,dkmaV esa iSlk Myokrk Fkk** mDr ckr izn"kZ
Mh&2 esa D;ksa ugha fy[kh eq>s ugha irkA eSus esjs iqfyl c;ku izn"kZ Mh&2 esa ;g Hkh crk
fn;k Fkk fd ^^fnukad 09-04-12 dks yxHkx 12 cts esjs ikl vUuq daoj dks Qksu vk;k fd
ikik nks yk[k :i, ysdj vkvks vkSj dgk fd vkt gh vkbZ, esjh cPph Qksu ij jks jgh
Fkh yM+dh us ;g Hkh crk;k Fkk fd iSlk ysdj vkbZ, ugha rks ;s yksx eq>s tku ls ekj nsxsa
eS iSlksa dk bartke djds vkus ds fy, rS;kj gks x;k eq>s rhu cts bankSj ls [kcj iqfyl
us nh Fkh fd vkidh cPph f"koiqjhx< esa jktsUnz dqekj us xksyh ekjdj gR;k dj nh** mDr
ckr iqfyl c;ku izn"kZ Mh&2 esa D;ksa ugh fy[kh eSa ugh crk ldrkA "
(18 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
A suggestion was given to the witness that Annu Kanwar was
depressed because she was unable to conceive and that she
committed suicide for this reason. The witness emphatically
denied the suggestion. A suggestion was also given to the witness
that Annu Kanwar had stayed in a big town like Indore and thus,
she was not comfortable living at a small place like Sri Vijaynagar.
The witness denied this suggestion as well. From a threadbare
analysis of the statement of Shri Sawai Singh (PW.10), we are
duly satisfied that his evidence inspires confidence to the extent,
he alleged that Smt. Annu Kanwar was harassed and humiliated
by Shri Rajendra Singh for demand of money and that she had
been turned out of the matrimonial home after subjecting her to
cruelty on this count.
PW.11 Jagjot Singh was posted as an Armourer at the Police
Line Sri Ganganagar. He gave evidence that on 21.05.2012,
Shrawan Kumar, FC, Police Station Sri Vijaynagar brought a sealed
packet with the requisition of the SHO. The packet was intact and
bore the seal of SHO. When the packet was opened, a 12-bore
gun broken in pieces was found therein. Two cartridges were stuck
in the chamber of the gun. The witness checked the gun and on
joining the broken parts, found it to be serviceable. He took out
two stuck cartridges and after testing the weapon and finding it to
be serviceable, he re-packed the same and handed it over to FC
Shrawan Kumar. He prepared a report on the overleaf of the letter
(Ex.P/36) forwarded by the SHO.
PW.12 Kamlesh Kumar was a Foot Constable at the Police
Station Sri Vijaynagar. He snapped 23 photographs of the place of
(19 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
the incident on the instructions of the SHO. No such fact emerges
from the statement of this witness which can have a bearing on
the outcome of the case and his evidence is more or less formal in
nature.
PW.13 Dholaram was posted as Malkhana Incharge at the
Police Station Sri Vijaynagar. He gave evidence regarding
deposition of the Malkhana articles of this case in the Malkhana
and the forwarding thereof to the concerned laboratories through
constables of the police station. On thorough appreciation of
evidence of the Constable Dholaram, we find that his testimony is
unimpeachable and acceptable.
PW.14 Manjeet Chalana was posted as a Constable at the
Police Station Sri Vijaynagar. He gave evidence regarding
transmission of some sample packets of this case to the S.P. Office
and then, onwards to FSL, Jodhpur. The evidence of this witness is
also trustworthy.
PW.15 Sawai Singh is the most important witness of
prosecution. He was posted as Incharge of the Police Station at
the relevant point of time. He testified stating that at 01:15 pm,
Tejpal, teacher posted at the Shivpuri School gave a telephonic
call regarding sounds of firing being heard from the Shivpuri Garh.
The witness, along with Head Constable Bhagat Singh, and
Constables Ramkumar, Manjeet, Kamlesh left for the Shivpuri
Garh after making an entry in the Roznamcha (Ex.P/69). He and
the members of the police team reached the Garh and saw Annu
Kanwar W/o Shri Rajendra Singh lying injured in the hall at the
(20 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
ground floor. Her guts were spilling out of the abdomen and blood
was spilling all around. He immediately lifted Annu Kanwar and
took her to the hospital. The witness then returned to the Garh
and heard sounds of glass breaking coming from the upper-floor.
He went to the first floor and saw the accused Rajendra Singh in
the room. His hands and clothes were stained with blood. He was
trying to break the glass windowpanes. The witness asked Shri
Rajendra Singh as to why he was doing so on which, Rajendra
Singh blurted out that he had made a mistake and would commit
suicide. He was overpowered and then admitted to the
Government Hospital. In the meantime, Annu Kanwar passed
away. Prem Chand (PW.1), employee of the Garh gave the written
report (Ex.P/1) to the witness on which, he marked an
endorsement and forwarded the same to the Police Station with
Ramkumar, FC for registration of FIR. The witness undertook
following steps of investigation:-
(1) Taking photographs of the injured Annu Kanwar
(2) Preparation of site-inspection plan (Ex.P/9)
(3) Recovery of cartridge (Ex.P/2), hairclip and cap (Ex.P/5),
bottle, glass, steel tumbler, one plate (Ex.P/7) seized from
the place of incident.
(4) Getting the photographs of place of incident-ground floor
(Ex.P/a), near the banyan tree, etc.
(5) Collection of dried blood of Annu Kanwar from place of
incident (Ex.P/3)
(6) Seizure of a pair of slippers (Ex.P/4) from place of
incident.
(7) Preparation of seizure memo of scissors (Ex.P/8) from
place of incident.
(21 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
(8) Preparation of seizure memo of blood stains (Ex.P/4) from
the wall.
(9) Preparation of seizure memo of live cartridge (Ex.P/12)
from the place of incident.
(10) Preparation of site-map plan of upper floor-place of
incident.
(11) Preparation of seizure memo of 2 phones recovered
(Ex.P/13) from the place of incident.
(12) Preparation of seizure memo of an iron knife with a plastic
handle (Ex.P/17) from the place of incident.
(13) Preparation of seizure memo of broken pieces of blood
stained glass shards (Ex.P/14) & plain broken glass pieces
(Ex.P/16) from the upper floor of the garh.
(14) Preparation of seizure memo of revolver (Ex.P/15) from
place of incident-upper floor.
(15) Recorded statement of the Informant Premchand
(Ex.P/11), witness Tejpal (Ex.P/19) & witness Rajaram
(Ex.P/20)
(16) Getting photographs of the place of incident (Ex.P/37-
P/53)
The witness effected following seizures from inside the
Shivpuri Garh and from the outer areas:-
Sr. No. Articles Exhibits
1. 4 empty cartridges Ex.P/2
2. Hair-clip & Cap Ex.P/5
3. Pair of leather woman's slippers Ex.P/6
4. Collection of dried blood of Annu Kanwar Ex.P/3
5. Collection of dried blood from wall Ex.P/4
6. Empty 'Royal Stag' liquor bottle, steel Ex.P/7
tumbler, plate
7. 1 Steel scissor with plastic handle Ex.P/8
(22 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
8. 1 live cartridge Ex.P/12
9. 2 blood covered Nokia mobile phones Ex.P/13
10. Broken blood stained glass shards Ex.P/14
11. 1 dummy revolver Ex.P/15
12. Broken Glass Shards Ex.P/16
13. 1 Knife with plastic handle Ex.P/17
He completed the process of investigation at the Shivpuri
Garh and proceeded back to the Police Station and marked his
return in the Roznamcha Entry No. 306 (Ex.P-78) at 8:30 PM. The
SHO Naresh Kumar returned to the Police Station in the evening
on which, Shri Sawai Singh handed over the file to him. The
significant extracts from the cross-examination conducted from
the witness are noted hereinbelow:-
He and the police team reached Shivpuri Garh at 01:15 in
the afternoon. Smt. Madhuri Singh, owner of the Shivpuri Garh
was not present and was called from the nearby school. He got
Annu Kanwar admitted to the Sri Vijaynagar hospital in an injured
condition where doctors started her treatment. He reached the
hospital and gave a requisition to the doctor on which, Smt. Annu
Kanwar was admitted and he came back to the Garh. When he
firstly reached the crime scene, Annu Kanwar was lying in the
lower hall in an injured condition and her eyes were blinking. He
thought fit to take her photographs and then shifted her to the
hospital. While he was lifting the injured from the spot, many
people reached there. Prem Chand met him in the hospital.
(23 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
Rajaram came to the Garh later. Pram Chand gave him the report
at 3:15 pm. The witness took Prem Chand to the Garh and
completed the spot proceedings. He did not prepare any
requisition before taking control of Shri Rajendra Singh nor did he
prepare any document regarding the observations made by him at
that point of time. Shri Rajendra Singh was not made to sign any
document pertaining to the words spoken out before the witness.
Requisition given to the doctor for admitting Rajendra Singh was
not available on the file. He took the accused to the hospital and
reached there at about 2:30 PM. He could not state the precise
time when he reached the Garh after getting Annu Kanwar
admitted in the hospital. He did not make a note in the
Roznamcha entry (Ex.P/78) that he had seen Rajendra Singh
breaking windowpanes and that he confessed to have made a
mistake and that he would commit suicide. It was also not
mentioned in the Roznamcha entry (Ex.P/78) that he took
Rajendra Singh to the hospital and got him admitted. When he
went back to the Garh for the spot proceedings, a little later, the
Additional Superintendent of Police, C.O. Shri Ramkishan Songara
and Raisinghnagar SHO also reached there. He could not recollect
the name of Addl. SP. He stated that Abdul Kayyum, SI had also
reached the spot from Ganganagar. However, he did not get the
signatures of any of these police officials on the spot documents.
He remained in the Garh till 08:15 and then proceeded to the
Police Station. Rajaram and Prem Chand were present in the Garh
during these proceedings. The witenss denied the suggestion that
he did not prepare the documents faithfully and that Rajaram and
Prem Chand were called to the police station at a later point of
(24 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
time where they were made to attest the spot documents. He
stated that Madhuri Singh entered the Garh while Annu Kanwar
was lying in an injured condition but she immediately returned
and did not come back. The witness did not record any statement
of Smt. Madhuri Singh.
PW.16. Kistura Ram was posted as ASI at the Police Station
Sri Vijaynagar. He received the report (Ex.P/1) forwarded by Sub
Inspector Shri Sawai Singh through Shri Ram Kumar, FC and
registered the FIR No.98/2012. Thereafter, the FIR was sent to the
place of incident.
Subsequent investigation was undertaken by Naresh Kumar,
SHO who appeared in the witness box as PW.23 and stated that he
verified the place of incident. Dead body of Annu Kanwr was got
subjected to postmortem through a medical board. The clothes of
the deceased and the pellets recovered from the dead body were
presented by the medical jurist and were taken into possession.
The accused Rajendra Singh was arrested vide memo Ex.P/93.
The SHO recorded statements of various witnesses including
Sawai Singh (PW.15). He gave evidence regarding informations
provided by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and
the recoveries effected as a consequence thereof which are
reproduced hereinbelow in a tabular form for the sake of ready-
reference:-
Name of Information Date of Details of Recovery Date of Details of
the Memo Information Information Memo Recovery Recovery
Appellant Memo Memo
Rajendra Ex. P94 13-04-2012 at Pertaining to Ex. P21 13-04- 1 pant, 1
Singh 07:00 AM the place where 2012 t-shirt
clothes (pant & and 1
(25 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
t-shirt) and pair of
shoes worn shoes
during the time blood
of incident covered
Ex. P95 13-04-2012 at Pertaining to Ex. P23 13-04- Broken
07:40 AM the place where 2012 at 12 bore
he had kept the 11:50 gun
broken 12 bore PM
gun
Ex. P96 13-04-2012 at Pertaining to Ex. P25 13-04- Key of a
09:30 AM the place where 2012 at Vespa
he had kept the 02:00 lock
key to the lock PM
of the almirah
The broken 12-bore gun recovered at the instance of
Rajendra Singh was forwarded to the FSL in a sealed condition.
The Deputy Director, FSL returned the gun to the police station for
getting it unloaded through the armourer. The letter was exhibited
as Ex.P/36. The witness summoned the armourer Jagjot Singh and
utilized his services to take remedial steps as requested by the
FSL official. Thereafter, the gun was again sent to the FSL from
where reports Ex.P/79, Ex.P/80 & Ex.P/98 were received. The IO
filed a charge-sheet against the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 302 & 309 IPC. Investigation was kept
pending for the offences punishable under the Arms Act. In cross-
examination, the witness was put questions regarding the
condition of the weapon recovered at the instance of the accused
and the cartridges etc. The IO withstood stringent cross-
examination and stood firm on the aspect of recoveries. He stated
that the accused was arrested on the night next to the incident.
Vague suggestions were given to the IO regarding the recoveries
not being faithful. However, the IO refuted the same. From a
thorough appreciation of the statement of Shri Naresh Kumar, we
(26 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
are duly satisfied that he has given convincing evidence regarding
the steps of investigation viz. arrest of accused, informations
provided by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the
incriminating recoveries effected in pursuance thereof, forwarding
of the muddamal articles to the FSL in a sealed condition and his
testimony is beyond reproach.
PW.24 Shri Jagdish Charaya gave evidence regarding
issuance of permission to launch prosecution against the accused
for the offence punishable under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.
PW.11 Jagjot Singh was the armourer posted at the Police
Line Sri Ganganagar. The sealed packet of the broken 12-bore gun
recovered at the instance of the accused was presented to the
witness. He stated that he opened the packet which was in a
sealed condition. A 12-bore double barrel gun broken in pieces i.e.
barrel, butt and GHF was found in the packet. Two empty
cartridges were present in the chamber of the gun which were
taken out. The gun was in a working condition and was capable of
firing. After inspection and removal of empties, the weapon was
repacked in the same cloth bag and was sealed and the packet
was handed over to Shri Shrawan Kumar, FC, Police Station Sri
Vijaynagar. Nothing significant was elicited in the cross-
examination of this witness.
Two family members of the deceased namely Shri Sawai
Singh, father (PW.10) and Shri Nitin, brother (PW.17) gave
evidence regarding the marital disclord existing inter se between
the appellant herein and his wife the deceased Smt. Annu Kanwar.
(27 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
These witnesses emphatically stated that that marriage of Annu
Kanwar was solemnized with Shri Rajendra Singh on 30.06.2005.
Significant dowry to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- was given in the
marriage. A week after the marriage, Rajendra Singh and Madhuri
Singh called and demanded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- by way of
travelling expenses because the spouses were to go on a tour. Few
days later, Annu Kanwar came back to the parental home and
complained that Rajendra Singh and Madhuri Singh were not good
people and they were leading a wayward life. She was harassed
and humiliated in the matrimonial home imputing that the accused
Rajendra Singh belonged to a royal family and that dowry which
was given in the marriage was not upto the mark. Shri Sawai
Singh (PW.10) called Rajendra Singh and Madhuri Singh and
requested them to not to harass Annu Kanwar. However, the
maltreatment continued. Being fed up with the reports regarding
continuous maltreatment of Annu Kanwar, the informant went to
Shivpuri Garh where Rajendra Singh pointed a gun at him. On
this, Shri Sawai Singh brought his daughter back to the parental
home and then, sent her to Indore for pursuing fashion designing
course. She stayed there for about two years. 5-6 months before
the incident, Rajendra Singh accompanied with some community
leaders from Vijaynagar came to the house of the complainant and
assured that henceforth, Annu Kanwar would not be harassed. On
this, he sent his daughter to Vijaynagar with some money. Just
after a week, Annu Kanwar, again called and complained that she
was being maltreated. She stated that Shri Rajendra Singh and
Madhuri Singh would consume drinks together and demanded
money from her. On 09.04.2011, at about 12 O' clock, Annu
(28 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
Kanwar called him and she was crying on phone and was pleading
that he should make arrangment of Rs.2,00,000/- else she would
be killed. Shri Sawai Singh made arrangement of the amount and
was about to proceed to Vijaynagar when he received an
information that Annu Kanwar had been shot by Shri Rajendra
Singh in the Shivpuri Garh. Extensive cross-examination was
conducted from both the witnesses. They were confronted with
their previous police statements. Main thrust of the cross-
examination conducted from the witnesses was that Annu Kanwar
was not able to conceive and that is why, she was frustrated and
that she was not happily living in a small town like Vijaynagar and
that is why, she committed suicide by shooting herself. We are
duly satisfied that the deposition of these witnesses to the extent,
they alleged that the accused used to indulge in harassing and
humiliating the deceased with demand of money and valuables is
absolutely convincing. There is a distinct allegation of these
witnesses that Smt. Annu Kanwar was compelled to leave the
matrimonial home on account of this ill-behaviour and that
Rajendra Singh was compelled to bring back his wife to present a
clean image before the society after winning the election on the
post of Chairperson, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sri Vijaynagar.
After thorough appreciation of the evidence available on
record, we are of the view that prosecution has proved the
following facts and circumstances beyond all manner of doubt:-
1. That Smt. Annu Kanwar was maltreated by the appellant on
account of demand of dowry.
(29 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
2. That marital discord also cropped up between Shri Rajendra
Singh and Smt. Annu Kanwar owing to the wayward lifestyle of
Rajendra Singh and Smt. Madhuri Singh.
3. That Annu Kanwar got fed up of these adverse circumstances
and was compelled to leave the matrimonial home and pursued
the fashion designing course at Indore, Madhya Pradesh for two
years. A few months before the incident, Rajendra Singh won the
election on the post of Chairperson, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sri
Vijaynagar and in order to present a clean image in the society,
assured that Annu Kanwar would not be maltreated in future and
brought her back to Vijaynagar.
4. Rajendra Singh and Annu Kanwar were present in the Shivpuri
Garh on the date of the incident. His parents were present on the
top floor of the house. Some time before the incident of gun firing,
Rajendra Singh and Annu Kanwar were seen sitting together in the
open area outside the Garh where Rajendra Singh was consuming
liquor. This fact is corroborated by recovery of glasses and liquor
bottles around the sitting arrangement underneath the tree in the
grounds of the Garh.
5. That gunshots were heard from the Garh on which, Prem Chand
(P.W.1) rushed there. Though, Prem Chand did not support the
prosecution case and was declared hostile but he admitted the fact
that when he reached near Annu Kanwar after hearing the sound
of explosion, she was lying on the floor and was bleeding from her
abdomen. The witness being an employee of the Garh, was won
over by the accused. He admitted having signed all the documents
from Ex.P/2 to Ex.P/10, but denied the contents thereof. However,
(30 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
Prem Chand did not state that he saw any firearm lying near Annu
Kanwar.
6. Shri Sawai Singh (P.W.15) ASI reached the Garh soon after the
incident. At that time, Annu Kanwar was lying injured in the lower
hall of the Garh. The witness immediately took her to the hospital
and came back. When he returned, he heard noise of glass
breaking on which, he went on the first floor and saw the accused
damaging the windowpanes. The confession made by the accused
before Shri Sawai Singh is not admissible in the evidence as being
hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act but the presence of
the accused in the Garh soon after the incident and his conduct in
trying to hurt himself is a relevant fact under Section 6 of the
Indian Evidence Act. The accused was arrested on 10.04.2012. He
gave voluntary informations under Section 27 of the Evidence Act
to the SHO Naresh Kumar (P.W.23) leading to the recovery of a
broken double barrel gun. Two empty cartridges were found in the
barrel of the gun. The empties bore a matching firing pin
impression connecting them with the weapon. The accused took
up totally a flimsy plea that Smt. Annu Kanwar committed suicide
because she was frustrated on account of not being able to
conceive and she was unhappy in the small town like Sri
Vijaynagar.
7. The witnesses Sawai Singh and Nitin Singh have given
conclusive evidence establishing that Smt. Annu Kanwar was
being maltreated in the matrimonial home and that she had been
brought back by Rajendra Singh after winning the elections on the
post of Chairperson, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Vijaynagar so that
he could present a clean image in the society. The accused failed
(31 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
to offer any explanation as to how he came into possession of the
12-Bore Firearm from which, shots had been fired and empties
were lying in the chamber thereof. The pellets which were
recovered from the body of Smt. Annu Kanwar were of 12 Bore
cartridges as per the FSL report (Ex.P/98).
In view of these material incriminating facts and
circumstances, the burden shifted on to the accused by virtue
under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to explain as to how
his wife received fatal gunshot injury on her abdomen while he
was present in the home. If at all, the defence theory regarding
Smt. Annu Kanwar having attempted suicide was correct, then in
natural course of events, Rajendra Singh should have taken
immediate steps to take his wife to the hospital because she was
still alive even when Sawai Singh (P.W.15) reached the Shivpuri
Garh. However, the accused made no such attempt and instead
was seen on the first floor of the Garh creating a sharade as if he
was grieving because his wife had committed suicide even though
she was alive till then. The accused emphatically claimed in his
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he was not present in
the house. If that was so, he could not have any idea as to the
attempted suicide by his wife and thus, there was no reason as to
why he was trying to break the windowpanes. No attempt was
made by the accused to find out about the condition of his wife.
He did not go to the hospital where Smt. Annu Kanwar was taken
in an injured condition. These circumstances point towards the
guilty mental state of the accused. A perusal of the postmortem
report (Ex.P/84) of the deceased would also indicate that a
(32 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
ligature mark was found present on her neck. In this background,
the conclusion drawn by the learned trial court that as a matter of
fact, Smt. Annu Kanwar was murdered and that too by someone
close in the family is reinforced. Apparently, there was no access
of anyone other than the accused appellant inside the Garh and
as, a clear attempt was made to first strangulate Smt. Annu
Kanwar and thereafter, she was shot dead from a point blank
range, the entire story putforth by the accused that his wife
committed suicide is nothing but a bunch of lies. He did not utter a
single word that he made any attempt to save his wife. In this
background, presence of 'AB' group blood on the t-shirt of the
accused which was recovered during investigation and the blouse
of the deceased, clearly establishes the fact that it was accused
and no one else who shot his wife Smt. Annu Kanwar inside the
Garh and also tried to stangulate her. Failure of the accused to
offer any explanation regarding presence of the same group blood
as that of the deceased on his clothes and the attending
circumstances which we have discussed above prove that the
circumstantial evidence available on record conclusively
establishes the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with his
innocence or the involvement of anyone else for the murder of
Smt. Annu Kanwar.
The learned trial court appreciated evidence available on
record and drew the following conclusions for recording the guilt of
the accused appellant:-
"41- bl izdj.k eas e`rdk vUuq daoj dks vfHk;qDr jktsUnzflag }kjk xksyh ekjs tkus
dh dksbZ lh/kh lk{; ugha gS] ijUrq ifjfLFkfrtU; lk{; dk voyksdu djsa rks ;g
(33 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
Li"V gksrk gS fd ?kVuk ds ckn tc ih-M-15 lokbZflag f'koiqjhx<+ igqp
a k] e`rdk vUuq
daoj dh lkWals py jgh Fkh ,oa mldks vLirky HkrhZ djokus ds ckn tc lokbZflag
okil f'koiqjh x<+ vk;k rks Åij ds 'kh'ks VwVus dh vkokt vkus ij tc Åij igqapk
rks vfHk;qDr jktsUnzflag ekStwn feyk] mlds gkFkksa o diM+ksa ij [kwu yxk gqvk Fkk o
og f[kM+fd;ksa ds 'kh'ks rksM+ jgk FkkA ;fn vfHk;qDr dh e`rdk ds izfr fdlh izdkj
dh lgkuqHkwfr gksrh rks og ?kVuk ds rqjar i'pkr~ mls vLirky igqp
a krk ;k og Lo;a
Hkh vLirky tkrk ijUrq bl izdkj dk dksbZ iz;kl ugha djuk uSlfxZd vkpj.k ds
f[kykQ~ gS rFkk bl izdj.k esa vfHk;qDr jktsUnzflag dks fxjQ~rkj djus ds i'pkr~
vuqla/kkukf/kdkjh us mlls ?kVuk ds oDr igus gq, diM+s bR;kfn cjken fd, Fks mu
diM+ksa esa mldh Vh&'kVZ rFkk e`rdk ds Cykmt nksuksa ij *,ch* xzqi dk jDr vk;k]
ftldk Hkh dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls ugha fn;k x;k rFkk bl izdj.k esa
vfHk;qDr dh lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij vuqla/kkukf/kdkjh us ?kVuk eas iz;qDr dh xbZ 12cksj
dh canwd ds rhu VqdM+s Hkh vfHk;qDr ls cjken fd, Fks] bl canwd dks fdlds }kjk
rksM+k x;k] ,slk Hkh dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls ugha fn;k x;kA blh canwd
ls xksyh pykdj e`rdk dh gR;k dkfjr dh xbZ FkhA
42- vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls izfrj{kk eas bl rF; dks ykus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k gS fd
e`rdk ds 'kknh ds 7 lky i'pkr~ Hkh larku u gksus ds dkj.k og volkn esa jgrh
Fkh] bl dkj.k ls mlus vkRegR;k dh] vfHk;qDr dk ;g dFku Hkh lgh izrhr ugha
gksrk gS D;ksafd ;fn e`rdk fdlh izdkj ds volkn eas Fkh rks vfHk;qDr }kjk mldk
bu 7 o"kZ esa dksbZ bZykt djok;k x;k gks] ,slk dksbZ nLrkost i=koyh ij ugha gS
rFkk vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls e`rdk ds volkn ds laca/k esa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ
Bksl ,oa larks"ktud lk{; i=koyh ij is'k ugha dh xbZ gSaA rdZ ds fy, ;fn
vfHk;qDr dk ;g dFku fd e`rdk }kjk vkRegR;k dh xbZ gS] lgh Hkh ekuk tkos rks
Hkh vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls bl izdj.k esa ys'kek= Hkh lk{; vius bl dFku dks lkfcr
djus gsrq izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gSA ;fn e`rdk }kjk vkRegR;k dh tkrh rks
vfHk;qDr ;k vfHk;qDr ds f'koiqjh x<+ esa dk;Zjr deZpkjh bl laca/k esa fdlh izdkj
dh lwpuk lacaf/kr iqfyl Fkkuk esa nsrsA vuqla/kku ds nkSjku Hkh vfHk;qDr }kjk bl
rF; dks ugha mBk;k x;kA izsepan ih-M-1 gkykafd ftlus fd fyf[kr fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih-
1 ds rF;ksa ls badkj fd;k gS] oks ogka oDr ?kVuk ekSds ij Åij dh eafty esa
mifLFkr FkkA vkRegR;k ls lacaf/kr fdlh izdkj dh izfrijh{kk vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls
bl lk{kh ls ugha dh xbZA vfHk;kstu lk{kh ih-M-2 rstiky o ih-M-3 jktkjke ls
vUuq daoj ds volkn esa jgus ,oa mlds }kjk vkRegR;k fd, tkus dk dksbZ
lq>kokRed iz'u Hkh izfrijh{kk esa ugha fd;k x;k gSA
(34 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
43 vfHk;qDr ds vf/koDrk dk ;g rdZ fd vfHk;qDr ls tks /kkjk 27 lk{;
vf/kfu;e dh lwpuk ysus ds oDr rFkk cjkenxh ds oDr fdlh Hkh Lora= lk{kh dks
ugha cqyk;k x;k] blls rFkkdfFkr cjkenxh lafnX/k gksrh gS] mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk
gS] D;ksafd vuqla/kkukf/kdkjh dh vfHk;qDr ls dksbZ }s"krk gks ,slh dksbZ lk{; i=koyh
ij ugha gS rFkk 12 cksj dh canwd ls dksbZ O;fDr vius ij tSls e`rdk ds xksyh yxh
gS] oSls xksyh pyk ldrk gks] ,slh dksbZ lk{; i=koyh ij ugha gSA
44- vfHk;qDr }kjk ?kVuk ds oDr ekStwn u gksus ds laca/k esa tks izfrj{kk yh xbZ gS]
bl laca/k esa Hkh mlus ,slh dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha dh gS fd oDr ?kVuk og dgka ij
FkkA izsepan }kjk xksyh pyus dh lwpuk jkuh lkfgck dks nsuk ,oa ek/kqjhflag }kjk
rstiky dks iqfyl esa fjiksVZ ntZ djokus gsrq tks dFku fd;k x;k gS] ;fn e`rdk
vUuq daoj }kjk vkRegR;k dh xbZ gksrh rks fjiksVZ Hkh mlh vuq:i ntZ djokbZ
tkrhA vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls ckn esa gR;k izdj.k dks vkRegR;k dk :i nsus dk iz;kl
fd;k x;k gSA vfHk;qDr ds Lo;a ds tks pksVsa vkbZ] ml ckcr~ Hkh dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k
mlds }kjk ugha fn;k x;kA vuqla/kkukf/kdkjh lokbZflag tc ekSds ij x;k Fkk rks
mlus vfHk;qDr ds diM+ksa ij [kwu yxk gqvk ns[kk Fkk rFkk dkap rksM+us dh vkokt vk
jgh Fkh ,oa vuqla/kkukf/kdkjh ds le{k vfHk;qDr us ;g Lohdkj fd;k Fkk fd og
vkRegR;k djus dk iz;kl dj jgk gSA vr% bu lHkh rF;ksa dks ns[krs gq, vfHk;kstu
i{k vfHk;qDr ds fo:) /kkjk 302] 309 Hkk-na-la- o /kkjk [email protected] ¼1ch½ ¼,½ vk;q/k
vf/kfu;e ds vijk/k ds vkjksi lansg ls ijs lkfcr djus esa lQy jgk gSA "
Having considered the above findings on the touchstone of
the evidence available on record which we have threadbare
analysed and discussed, we are of the firm opinion that the
conclusions so drawn by the trial court are based on an appropos
appreciation of prosecution evidence and the theory putforth in
defence. The findings so recorded cannot be termed be to
unjusitified in any manner.
As an upshot of the above discussion, we find no reason to
interfere in the impugned judgment dated 26.07.2018, which is
(35 of 35) [CRLAD-192/2018]
affirmed. The appeal preferred by the appellant is dismissed as
beind devoid of merit.
Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.
(REKHA BORANA),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
Sudhir Asopa/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
