Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 440 (PAT)

Anil Kumar Yadav v. State Of Bihar

2000-03-16

ASHOK KUMAR VERMA, NARBDESHWAR PANDEY

body2000
Judgment NARBDESHWAR PANDEY and ASHOK KUMAR VERMA JJ. 1. The sole appellant Anil Kumar Yadav has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order, dated 13.2.1996 and 1.3.1996 respectively in Sessions Trial No. 235 of 1996/Tr. No. 21 of 1995, whereby, he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed the murder of his wife Smt. Chanchala Devi. 2. The case of the prosecution, as would appear from the fardbeyan of Savitri Devi (PW 6), recorded on 28.3.1993 at about 10.00 a.m., in brief, is that her daughter Chanchala Devi (deceased) was married with the appellant about two years ago and thereafter, she was residing with her husband. About one and half month prior to the date of occurrence, the appellant took Chanchala Devi to her fathers residence at Sahebganj where he was in service. Later the husband of the informant took Chanchala Devi to his village home since she was carrying pregnancy of four months. It is alleged that the appellant always used to pressurise her for the abortion of the child but she was not prepared. On Sunday, i.e., 27.3.1992, the appellant arrived at the house of the informant and stayed there. During the night, the informant, her daughter Chanchala Devi (deceased) and the other daughter Kalyani Kumari (PW 1), younger sister of the deceased, were inside the room, since the informant was not feeling well. It was alleged when Chanchala Devi came out of the room to urinate, this appellant asked her to go with him to Ranchi but Chanchala Devi did not agree and called her mother to see what the appellant was doing. On hearing the protest of Chanchala Devi, her younger sister Kalyani Kumari (PW 1) and the mother Savitri Devi (informant) came out of the room. In the meantime, this appellant gave dagger blows on the hand and right chest of Chanchala Devi, as a result of which she fell down and died at the spot. PW 3 (Murli Mohan Yadav), uncle of the deceased, also arrived there and witnessed the occurrence. In the meantime, this appellant gave dagger blows on the hand and right chest of Chanchala Devi, as a result of which she fell down and died at the spot. PW 3 (Murli Mohan Yadav), uncle of the deceased, also arrived there and witnessed the occurrence. On the basis of the above statement of the informant, the police registered a regular case and after recording the statements of the witnesses and observing necessary formalities, submitted charge-sheet whereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 3. The case of the defence as would appear from the statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses appears total denial. A plea was also taken that on the day of occurrence this appellant had not gone to the in-laws house. Therefore, entire allegation against him was false and concocted. 4. The prosecution in support of its case had examined altogether nine witnesses. Out of them, PW 1 Kalyani Kumari is the younger sister of the deceased. This witness has fully supported the case of the prosecution, because at the time of occurrence she was sleeping with the deceased Chanchala Devi. She has further stated that no sooner her sister went out of the room the appellant caught hold of her and started dragging. When Chanchala Devi protested for such a behaviour, the appellant took out a dagger and killed her. She was also examined by the police immediately after recording the fardbeyan of the informant and supported the prosecution version. In her deposition, this witness has also alleged that the accused was pressurising her sister for abortion of the pregnancy, but her sister was not ready. PW 3 (Murli Mohan Yadav) is the uncle of the deceased and had arrived at the place of occurrence on hearing hulla raised by the informant. This witness also had seen the accused assaulting the deceased with chhura on her chest and had also chased the appellant when he started fleeing away from the place of occurrence. 5. PW 6 (Smt. Savitri Devi), as stated above, is the informant. It has already been noticed above, that at the time of occurrence she was sleeping with her daughters, namely, Chanchala Devi (deceased) and Kalyani Kumari (PW 1). 5. PW 6 (Smt. Savitri Devi), as stated above, is the informant. It has already been noticed above, that at the time of occurrence she was sleeping with her daughters, namely, Chanchala Devi (deceased) and Kalyani Kumari (PW 1). She has said in her evidence that one day prior to occurrence, appellant Anil Kumar had arrived. She has further said that in the night when Chanchala Devi went out of the room, the appellant assaulted her with dagger on account of which she died. The statement of this witness has fully been corroborated by PW 1 Kalyani Kumari and PW 3 Murli Mohan Yadav. 6. PW 2 is Dr. H.I. Ansari, who had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Chanchala Devi on 29.3.1993 and had found stab wound 3" x 1-1/2" x lung deep on the right part of the chest. According to this witness, the cause of death of the deceased was due to punctured wound. From the evidence of this witness as well as the post-mortem report, it would appear that the case of the prosecution that Chanchala Devi died on account of dagger injury, stands fully supported. PWs 4 (Dinesh Yadav) and 5 (Awadhesh Kumar Yadav) are the witnesses, who arrived at the place of occurrence after hearing hulla. Both these witnesses have claimed to have seen this appellant fleeing away with a dagger in his hand. They have further stated that they learnt about the prosecution story from the informant, when they arrived at the place of occurrence. From the materials on record, it would appear that both these witnesses are independent persons and there was no occasion for them to make a false statement. PWs 8 (Shashi Lata) and 9 (Komal Singh) are the police officers, who had recorded the fardbeyan and after examining the witnesses had submitted charge-sheet. From the evidence of these witnesses, it would appear that the place of occurrence is the same where the prosecution had pointed out. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that from a bare reference to the evidence of PWs 8 (Shashi Lata) and 9 (Komal Singh), it would appear that the prosecution has not come forward with a true version and the murder of Chanchala Devi took place at a different time and in a different manner. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that from a bare reference to the evidence of PWs 8 (Shashi Lata) and 9 (Komal Singh), it would appear that the prosecution has not come forward with a true version and the murder of Chanchala Devi took place at a different time and in a different manner. He contended that from the evidence of these witnesses, it would appear that they proceeded at the place of occurrence on hearing a rumour about the death of the deceased. The sanha entry does not show actually, who had given such information to the police nor such a person was examined. It would further appear that both the police officers remained present at the house of the informant for whole of the night but inquest report of the deceased was prepared on the next morning. Therefore, it cannot be said with certainty that the time, place and manner of occurrence, as alleged by the prosecution, was true. 8. It was next contended that from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it would appear that the appellant was pressurising the deceased to agree for abortion of the pregnancy. From the case of the prosecution, it would further appear that prior to one and half month of the date of occurrence, the deceased was residing with her husband. Therefore if the appellant had any intention to commit murder of the deceased, because she was not agreeable for abortion, he could have Very well committed her murder at that place itself. 9. Learned counsel contended that apart from the unnatural conduct of the prosecution, there are other improbable circumstances also, which would be evident from the contradictory statements of the witnesses. Because according to PW 6 the informant, this appellant had arrived at her house one day prior to the date of occurrence, whereas as per PW 1, the younger sister of the deceased, the appellant had arrived fifteen days prior to the date of occurrence and was staying with them. While pointing out other improbabilities, learned counsel contended that the occurrence in this case had taken place in a town. From the case of the prosecution itself, it would appear that large number of persons assembled there on hearing hulla raised by the informant, but it appears absurd that nobody made any attempt to apprehend the appellant and allowed him to run away freely. 10. From the case of the prosecution itself, it would appear that large number of persons assembled there on hearing hulla raised by the informant, but it appears absurd that nobody made any attempt to apprehend the appellant and allowed him to run away freely. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, contended that from the materials on record, it would appear that there is no lacuna in the case of the prosecution. The occurrence in this case took place at 8.30 p.m. on 28.3.1993 and the fardbeyan of PW 6 (the informant) was recorded at 10.00 p.m. itself. It would further appear that two of the police officers, namely, PW 8 and PW 9 having heard about the occurrence, immediately arrived at the place of occurrence and got the fardbeyan recorded. They also examined witnesses and remained present for whole of the night. Therefore, simply because the inquest report was prepared in the morning on 29.3.1993 no doubt can be raised about the prosecution story. Because from the evidence of the witnesses, it would appear that due to darkness at the place of occurrence, the police officials could not prepare the inquest report. He further contended that apart from the consistent evidence of the eyewitnesses namely, PWs 1, 3 and 6, there are two independent witnesses, namely, PWs 4 and 5, who had seen the appellant fleeing away with a dagger in his hand. No suggestion was given to these witnesses why they made a false statement when there was no enmity with them. 11. Learned counsel, next contended that on the basis of mere fact that there was a delay in preparation of the inquest report or sending a copy of the First Information Report before the Magistrate, nothing adverse can be drawn against the case of the prosecution. Because as would appear from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the occurrence in this case took place at the darwaja of the informant in the night at about 8.30 p.m. on 28.3.1993. That apart, there is nothing on the record nor any suggestion on behalf of the defence under what circumstances attempt was made to implicate the appellant. Because admittedly Chanchala Devi was the wife of this appellant and the informant was the mother-in-law. That apart, there is nothing on the record nor any suggestion on behalf of the defence under what circumstances attempt was made to implicate the appellant. Because admittedly Chanchala Devi was the wife of this appellant and the informant was the mother-in-law. Therefore, unless and until there was strong reasons supported by cogent materials it cannot be expected for a mother-in-law to make a false allegation against the appellant, who is none-else but her son-in-law. Therefore, keeping in mind all these facts, simply because there was a delay in preparation of the inquest report or dispatch of the First Information Report, nothing adverse can be drawn. Reference in this regard can be usefully made to a decision of the apex Court in the case of Madru Singh and others V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1997 SC 3527 , and yet another decision in the case of The State of Karnataka V/s. Moin Patel and others, AIR 1996 SC 3041 . 12. In my view, there appears sufficient force in the submission of the learned counsel for the State. We have already noticed that there are three eyewitnesses in this case, who have categorically supported the case of the prosecution in the mariner it was described in the fardbeyan of PW 6. All these three witnesses have categorically alleged that appellant was pressurising Chanchala Devi for abortion to which she was not ready. They have also stated that in the night when Chanchala Devi went out of the room, this appellant, who was outside the house, committed her murder with dagger. The Doctor (PW 2) has also opined that the cause of death of the lady was stab wound. The police officers, namely, PWs 8 and 9, have also found sufficient evidence at the place of occurrence on the basis of which one can safely infer that the murder of Chanchala Devi was committed in front of the house of the informant. 13. That apart, on suggestion has been given to the prosecution witnesses on behalf of the defence actually what was the reason for the false implication of the appellant. No material has been pointed out on behalf of the defence to show that the relationship between the two families was bad and strained. Therefore, in our view, the trial Court has rightly held this appellant guilty for the murder of his wife. 14. No material has been pointed out on behalf of the defence to show that the relationship between the two families was bad and strained. Therefore, in our view, the trial Court has rightly held this appellant guilty for the murder of his wife. 14. Hence, considering all the facts and circumstances, noticed above, there appears no manner of doubt that it was this appellant, who had committed the murder of his wife Chanchala Devi. We, accordingly, confirm the conviction and sentences of the appellant, awarded by the trial Court and dismiss the appeal as devoid of any merit.