Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 391 (PAT)

Mukund Deo @ Mukund Deo Rawat v. State Of Bihar

2001-04-27

A.K.SINHA, R.N.PRASAD

body2001
Judgment A.K.Sinha, J. 1. This appeal has been directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Munger, in Sessions Trial No. 350 of 1989, whereby he convicted the appellants under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The appellants were further convicted for the offence under Sections 201/34 of the IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each. All the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story, unfolded in the written report of the informant, in short, is that the daughter of the informant Anju Devi (deceased) was married with appellant Upendra Rawat five years before the alleged occurrence and after "Gauna" she came to live at her in-laws place where she used to be assaulted by her mother-in-law, Ram Sakhi Devi (appellant No. 2) her sister-in-law Daya Devi, Mukunddeo Rawat, the husband of Daya Devi and Upendra Rawat for bringing insufficient dowry and used to demand tape recorder and money in dowry. But the informant was helpless to meet the demand due to his poor economic condition. It is alleged that accused/appellants had threatened the informant that it will be difficult for his daughter to survive if he demands are not fulfilled. The informant and is brother tried to persuade the above named accused-persons to stop torturing his daughter on the ground of his poor economic condition but to no effect and they continued to torture Anju Devi. Further case of the prosecution is that on 27.6.1988 the informant, his brother, his friends Trilok Chawala, Shyamdeo, Ganesh Gadakar and his Samdhi Vijay Anand went to village Kashipura and persuaded the family members to stop the torture but they clearly gave out that Anju Devi will remain in danger till too their demands are fulfilled. 3. It is further alleged that on 7.7.1988 at about 4.30 p.m. the appellant Mukundeo Rawat came to Lakhisarai and informed the informant that his daughter Anju Devi has fled away from the house. Meanwhile, the informants brothers Durga Prasad Arya, Rajendra Prasad Arya and his Samdhi Vijay Anand also came there and began to probe but Mukundeo Rawat slipped away from that place on some pretext causing worry to the informant who went to village Kashipura along with witnesses and found that Anju Devi is lying dead. Meanwhile, the informants brothers Durga Prasad Arya, Rajendra Prasad Arya and his Samdhi Vijay Anand also came there and began to probe but Mukundeo Rawat slipped away from that place on some pretext causing worry to the informant who went to village Kashipura along with witnesses and found that Anju Devi is lying dead. As such, they had reason to believe that all the accused-persons committed the murder of Anju Devi and threw her dead body into the well. Thereafter, the informant went to Jhajha police station on the same day and submitted written report (Ext. 4} at 12.00 noon on the basis of which a case under Section 302/34/ 102-B of the IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against the appellants and others and after investigation charge- sheet was submitted under the aforesaid counts. The learned SDJM, Jamui took cognizance in the case and committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. The appellants and accused Daya Devi were charged under Sections 302/34, 102/34 of the IPC as also under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The defence case is complete denial of the alleged occurrence and it is the case of the defence that Anju Devi (deceased) accidentally fell into the well, as result of which, she died. On behalf of appellant No. 3 Upendra Rawat a plea of alibi has been taken on the ground that he had accompanied a Barat Party on 6.7.1988 at about 4.00 p.m. and he returned back on 8th July, 1988 at about 9/10 a.m. along with the Barat party and learnt about the death of his wife. 5. The prosecution has examined altogether nine witnesses in this case out of whom PW 6 Chote Lal Prasad is the informant, Trilochan Singh is the friend of the informant, PW 2 Rajendra Prasad Arya, PW 4 Durga Prasad Arya are own brothers of the informant and Vijay Anand is the Samdhi of the informant whose daughter was married with the informants son. PW 5 Ganesh Gadkar is another friend of the informant who has been tendered. PW 7 Dr. Arun Kumar Singh performed the postmortem examination on the dead body of Anju Devi and granted postmortem reported (Ext. 1). PW 5 Ganesh Gadkar is another friend of the informant who has been tendered. PW 7 Dr. Arun Kumar Singh performed the postmortem examination on the dead body of Anju Devi and granted postmortem reported (Ext. 1). PW 8 Tarani Singh is the I.O. of the case and PW 9 Raj Kumar Singh is the formal witness who has proved the fardbeyan (Ext. 4) as also the sanction letter (Ext. 5). 6. The defence has also examined as many as seven witnesses in support of its case. 7. The learned trial Court, however, acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and accused Daya Devi was given benefit of doubt and was acquitted of the charges. 8. It is no doubt true that there is no direct evidence in the case to prove the charges and the learned trial Court has convicted the appellants on the basis of circumstantial evidence. I will discuss hereinafter the evidence, facts and circumstances of the case in order to find out as to whether the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court can be sustained or not. 9. PW 1 has been examined to say that on 15th/16th July, 1988 PW 4 Durga Prasad Arya had disclosed to him that his neice is being tortured by the members of her Sasural family for giving cash and tape recorder so he went to village Kashipura on 27th June, 1988 along with PWs 4 and 6 and persuaded the appellants Upendra Rawat and his mother Ram Sakhi Devi to give up the demand but they were rigid to their stand and stated that unless cash and tape recorder are given, the girl would not be allowed to stay at their place and when the informant asked for Vidagri of his daughter, the appellant Ram Sakhi Devi gave out that she will be sent after two to three days. So, they returned back and then he was informed about the death of Anju Devi. This witness has stated that prior to 27th June, 1988 he never visited village Kashipura and was not knowing Ram Sakhi Devi or Daya Devi nor he had seen Mukund Deo Rawat and appellant Upendra Rawat. 10. So, they returned back and then he was informed about the death of Anju Devi. This witness has stated that prior to 27th June, 1988 he never visited village Kashipura and was not knowing Ram Sakhi Devi or Daya Devi nor he had seen Mukund Deo Rawat and appellant Upendra Rawat. 10. PW 2 Rajendra Prasad Arya has been examined to say that on 7.7.1988 Mukund Deo Rawat came to Lakhisarai at 4.30 p.m. and stated to his brother Chote Prasad (informant) that his daughter had fled away and thereafter he slipped away from that place. He has further stated that he along with his brother went to Jamui but Anju Devi was not traced out. Hence, they went to village Kashipura where they saw the dead-body of Anju Devi by the side of a well situated in front of the house of his son-in-law. 11. PW 3 Vijya Anand who is "Samdhi" of the informant has stated about the demand of tape recorder and cash made by the accused-persons as also on the point of the alleged torture which he came to know from the informant and he had also accompanied the informant and other witnesses to village Kashipura on 27.6.1988 in order to pacify the matter and his evidence is similar to that of PW 1. He has also stated that on 7.7.1988 at 4.30 p.m. he was present when accused Mukund Deo Rawat had informed Chote Prasad that his daughter has fled away and thereafter Mukund Deo Rawat slipped away from that place and he had also accompanied the informant to village Kashipura on 8.7.1988 along with witnesses and had seen the dead- body of Anju Devi lying near a well. 12. PW 4 Durga Prasad Arya is another brother of the informant and it appears from his evidence that Anju Devi was married in the year 1983 and her "Gauna" was performed after two years of the marriage and she went to live in her "Sasural". 12. PW 4 Durga Prasad Arya is another brother of the informant and it appears from his evidence that Anju Devi was married in the year 1983 and her "Gauna" was performed after two years of the marriage and she went to live in her "Sasural". He has also stated that husband of Anju Devi, her mother-in-law and brother- in-law of Anju Devi and his wife used to assault her for not bringing tape recorder and cash and at the time of marriage of his nephew Anju Devi had come to her fathers place and had complained to him regarding the non-fulfillment of the demand of tape recorder and she had requested him to fulfill the demands. She also complained about the torture meted out to her. According to him the son of the informant was married four to five months before the alleged occurrence and the husband of Anju Devi took her on Vidagri after the marriage was over. PW 4 has further stated that on 27.6.1988 he along with his brother Chotelal, Trilochan Singh Chawala, Vijayanand and one Ganesh Gadkar had gone to village Kashipura and met his niece there who complained to him regarding the assault for non-fulfillment of the demand in presence of her husband, mother-in- law, sister-in-law and her husband. He further stated that they were persuaded to stop the torture but they replied that the condition of the girl would not remain well unless the demand is fulfilled and when the informant asked for "Vidagri" of his daughter they replied that she would be sent later on. He has then stated that on 7.7.1988 at 4.30 p.m. Mukund Deo Rawat came to Lakhisarai and informed him and other witnesses that Anjv Devi had fled away and after sometime he slipped away from there. Thereafter, he went to village Kashipura in the morning of 8.7.1988 and found the dead body of his niece which was lying on a cot. He also noticed scratch around the neck and blood coming out from nose and mouth. So. he went along with his brother to Jhajha Police Station and submitted a written report regarding the alleged occurrence. The statement of his brother was also recorded by the police. He also noticed scratch around the neck and blood coming out from nose and mouth. So. he went along with his brother to Jhajha Police Station and submitted a written report regarding the alleged occurrence. The statement of his brother was also recorded by the police. He has stated that he had not informed the Mukhiya and Sarpanch of village Kashipura nor any information was given to Chowkidar and Dafadar of the village but he had informed about the occurrence to some of the villagers but he could; not disclose their names. 13. PW 6 is the informant of the case who has fully supported the prosecution case as detailed in his report (Ext. 4) and his evidence is similar to that of PW 5. 14. The most important witness in this case is PW 7 Dr. Arun Kumar Singh who held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 8.7.1988 at 5.20 p.m. PW 7 has deposed that he found the following injuries on the dead body of the deceased : (i) Bruise 5" x 2.1" over neck and anteriorly in its upper part. (ii) Multiple abrasions in area of 2" x 1.1/2" over forehead on the left side. On dissection he found the following : (i) Subcutaneous haematoma 6" x 3" over anterior aspect of neck with laceration of muscles and fracture of upper three tracheal rings. (ii) Blood tinged forth in larynx and trachea was found. (iii) Both lungs were collapsed and heavily congested and on cutting section dark blood came out. No water was found in bronchial tree or in lungs. (iv) Heart was full of dark blood. (v) No water was found in stomach. (vi) Brain was congested. 15. PW 7 also found that the rigor mortis was ahsent and the body was partially decpmposed. Both eyes were open and congested. Mouth was partially opened, tongue protruding out and clinched between teeth. Bloody froth was coming out of mouth and nostril. Face was blackish and swollen and the body above the waist was swollen and peeling off skin over various regions above waist. 16. In the opinion of PW 7 all the injuries were ante mortem in nature caused by hard and blunt substance and death was caused due to asphyxia as a result of injury to neck leading to cardio respiratory failure. 16. In the opinion of PW 7 all the injuries were ante mortem in nature caused by hard and blunt substance and death was caused due to asphyxia as a result of injury to neck leading to cardio respiratory failure. Time elapsed since death till his postmortem examination was within 48 hours. He has further stated that the bruise injuries found on the anterior aspect of the neck of the dead body suggests the possibility of the victim being pressed by foot or by bamboos stick or by lathi. The fracture of tracheal ring is also due to impact of the same injury causing bruise. He has stated that multiple abrasion over forehead of the dead body suggests that the victim might have sustained those injuries by the assailants when she was struggling and also by the fact that the deceased might have been assaulted on the forehead by some blunt object in order to facilitate the commission of the offence. He has clearly stated that absence of water in bronchial area or in lungs or in the stomach of the deceased suggests that the accused might have been done to death before she was thrown in the well. PW 7 has then stated that injury No. (i) bruise on the neck of the dead body was sufficient to cause the death. He has further stated that the dead body which was swollen above the waist is possible due to process of decomposition and putrefaction in the upper part of the body which might be exposed to air while floating in the well and the rest portion of the body might be submerged under the water and the changes of decompositor and putrefaction was delayed in the lower part and hence the lower portion of the body was not swollen and only the upper portion was swollen. He has proved the postmortem report (Ext. 1). 17. In his cross-examination PW 7 has stated that he found 10 ounce of undigested rice meal in the stomach, in large intestine fluid and gas and also found fluid and gas in small intestine. The bladder was empty. The uterus was nulliparous which means that she (deceased) had never conceived. He further stated that usually in 18 to 24 hours, rigor mortis disappears but if the body is in water the rigor mortis may last longer. The bladder was empty. The uterus was nulliparous which means that she (deceased) had never conceived. He further stated that usually in 18 to 24 hours, rigor mortis disappears but if the body is in water the rigor mortis may last longer. In the present case the rigor mortis might have lasted for 24 to 36 hours. He has further stated that if injury No. 1 is inflicted by foot it would be accompanied by swelling and since the process of decomposition had advanced, he found the swelling from waist to scalp. PW 7 has stated that if the injury No. 1 is caused by bamboos stick or lathi it is not necessary that it would be necessarily accompanied by laceration and the laceration is not possible if the neck is pressed. Similarly, ligature mark is not possible by pressing the neck with bamboo or lathi. He admitted that he did not find any ligature mark on the neck. He has further stated that if the body is thrown into the well and the neck is trapped in the ring fixed in the wall of the well, the bruise in the anterior aspect of the neck can be caused by the iron ring and if the body is dashed with iron rod and if the neck strikes against the iron ring or rod projection, bruise on the anterior aspect of the neck can be caused. 18. PW 7 has clearly stated that if anybody is thrown in the well in unconscious stage, he would not drink water but the water will enter into the respiratory passage since the unconscious patient takes breath and if the patient is dead, water will not be found either in the respiratory passage or in the stomach. In the present case also PW 7 did not find any water in the stomach which is indicative of the fact that the deceased was thrown into the well in dead condition. The evidence of PW 7 further goes to show that the injuries found on the person of the deceased were ante mortem injuries for which PW 7 has given cogent and sufficient reasons in a vivid way. Although PW 7 was cross- examined at length but nothing has been elicited so as to disbelieve his expert opinion. The evidence of PW 7 further goes to show that the injuries found on the person of the deceased were ante mortem injuries for which PW 7 has given cogent and sufficient reasons in a vivid way. Although PW 7 was cross- examined at length but nothing has been elicited so as to disbelieve his expert opinion. PW 7 has given a very definite opinion regarding injury No. 1 which was the cause of death and in his opinion the same was caused by pressing with foot or bamboos stick or by lathi and fracture of tracheal ring was also caused due to impact of that injury causing bruise. Moreover, injury No. 1 found by the doctor is hardly possible in case of an accidental fall into the well. PW 7 has explained the other injuries found by him and has stated that those injuries may be caused in course of struggle made by the deceased to save herself from the attack. 19. So far the defence version that the deceased accidentally fell into the well and died due to drowning it may be pertinent to mention that the I.O. inspected the place of occurrence and found that the well was two feet in height from the ground level. As such, it rules out the possibility of accidental fall in the well. 20. The defence has examined DW 1 Dr. Jawahar Mahto who has deposed on the basis of the postmortem report (Ext. 1) that if the body remains in the water, the froth is expected to be washed away and there is no question of its coming out. He has further stated that usually the blood starts coagulating in one or two hours since the death and takes about six hours when the process of coagulation stops but in case of asphyxia coagulation takes longer time to complete. He has further stated that usually the blood starts coagulating in one or two hours since the death and takes about six hours when the process of coagulation stops but in case of asphyxia coagulation takes longer time to complete. DW 1 has stated that in all cases if the body falls in water, the head would remain under water for about four to five days unless the gases are formed to such an extent that the body becomes lighter than the water and in case of drowning when the body is taken out of the water, cupious froth would come out but in case of a man done to death, if the dead body is taken out, no froth would be found and no water will be found in the lungs. In such a situation, where there is an opening in the wind pipe, very small amount of froth will be found if the water runs into the wind pipe. He further stated that if the neck is constricted by any means till death, it would have an impression of the constricting materials and admitted that before giving his opinion he was served with a copy of postmortem report and had also made enquiry about the facts of the case. DW 1 has also admitted that except the aforesaid anomalies the postmortem report is otherwise quite correct. He farther admitted that he had not performed any postmortem examination for the last six or seven years and he had realised his professional fee from the lawyer of the accused. DW 1 has also admitted that the opinion of the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination will be more positive regarding the cause of death or time elapsed since death than the opinion of the doctor who had only seen the postmortem report since the doctor conducting the postmortem examination had seen the dead body. He further admitted that if no water is found in the lungs, stomach, bronchial track, it is indicative of the facts that the victim was made to fall in the water after death. He further admitted that if no water is found in the lungs, stomach, bronchial track, it is indicative of the facts that the victim was made to fall in the water after death. He also admitted that the fracture of tracheal rings or haematoma found on the dead body is indicative of the fact that the neck of the victim had been violently constricted or pressed during the life time of the victim and it is possible to cause death by sitting over the chest and pressing the neck which may cause protrusion of the tongue and clinching of the death but there would be sign over chest and he admitted that there would be possibility of sooner decomposition if the portion of the body is above the surface of the water and exposed to atmosphere than the portion which is within the water and if the neck is above the surface of water, there is no possibility of washing of the blood froth. It would thus appear from the evidence of DW 1 that he has supported the opinion of PW 7 as stated in his postmortem report to be correct. After carefully examining the evidence of PW 7 and DW 1 I am of the view that the opinion of PW 7 regarding the cause of death is more authentic and reliable which is based on scientific reasons and has been explained by PW 7. in his long cross- examination made by the defence. As against this; the opinion expressed by DW 1 appears to be quite vague and imaginary not supported by solid scientific reasons and his evidence does not deserve to be accepted, more so, because he had not seen the dead body and simply gave his opinion by perusing the postmortem report and he has admitted that the doctor who has seen the dead body is in better position to give correct opinion than the doctor who has opined on the basis of the postmortem report. I am, therefore of the view that the evidence of DW 1 does not help the defence in disbelieving the postmortem report (Ext. 1) as also .the evidence of PW 7. Consequently, I come to the conclusion that the deceased was done to death by pressing her neck as a result of which there was respiratory failure resulting in her death. 21. 1) as also .the evidence of PW 7. Consequently, I come to the conclusion that the deceased was done to death by pressing her neck as a result of which there was respiratory failure resulting in her death. 21. PW 8 Tarni Singh is the I.O. of this case who inspected the place of occurrence which is the mud built house of Ram Sakhi Devi and he found the wall at a distance of 150 to 200 yards from her house. Giving description of well. PW 8 has stated that the well was having a "Pucca" fencing all around and the dead body of Anju Devi was lying at a distance of 10 steps from the well on a cot. He has further given details of the houses situated near the P.O. but did not record the statement of those house owners as they were absent and recorded the statements of few of them. He further stated that he found the iron rod fixed on the wall of the well which was used for getting down into the well. He further stated that body of the deceased was swollen and he found one chain of silver, one pair of "Payal" and one nose-pin tied with the end portion of the "Sari" of the deceased which he noted in the inquest report. It appears from the evidence of the I.O. that he recorded the FIR (Ext. 2) promptly and started investigation immediately after lodging of the FIR and in course of investigation he prepared the inquest report (Ext. 3) and sent the dead body for postmortem examination on the same day and arrested the accused Ram Sakhi Devi and Upendra Rawat from their house. So far the ornaments tied with the end portion of the "Sari" of the deceased is concerned an attempt has been made to show that it is a case of suicide which appears to be unbelievable in view of the medical evidence as discussed above. In the circumstances of the case it is possible that the ornaments were tied up in the one end portion of the "Sari" of the deceased by some one to give it a colour of suicide. In the circumstances of the case it is possible that the ornaments were tied up in the one end portion of the "Sari" of the deceased by some one to give it a colour of suicide. The attention of the I.O. was drawn towards statements made by PWs 2, 3, 4 and 6 and the I.O. has stated that PW 3 stated before him that "Sasural" people used to demand tape recorder and cash for which they used to assault Anju Devi and used to threaten that unless the demands were fulfilled, she will not be allowed to live peacefully and he had named the husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law. No material contradiction has been elicited by drawing the attention of the aforesaid witnesses so as to disbelieve the evidence of PWs 2, 3, 4, and 6. 22. The defence has examined DW 2 to DW 7 to support the plea of alibi taken on behalf of appellant Upendra Rawat. The trial Court has fully discussed the evidence of DWs and come to the conclusion that the plea of alibi has been taken by the appellant Upendra Rawat at much belated stage of the investigation and he disbelieved the evidence of DWs in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. All the DWs belonged to the same village where the accused-persons live and it appears that they have deposed to help the accused to take the plea of alibi at a belated stage of investigation. The appellant Upendra Rawat was arrested by the I.O. from the house on 8.7.1988 but no such plea of alibi was disclosed by him before the I.O. so that the matter could be verified by him in thorough detail. It will, therefore, appear that the plea of alibi taken by appellant Upendra Rawat is his subsequent brain work for saving himself from the case. 23. It will, therefore, appear that the plea of alibi taken by appellant Upendra Rawat is his subsequent brain work for saving himself from the case. 23. On careful consideration of the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, I find that the prosecution has been able to prove that the appellants used to make demand of tape recorder and cash from before which was not fulfilled by PW 6 (informant) due to his poor economic condition on account of which they used to assault the deceased and when the deceased visited her fathers place at the time of marriage of her brother, she made complain to her father and uncle regarding assault and ill treatment meted out to her for non-fulfillment of the demand of tape recorder and cash. It is also proved that the informant along with witnesses went to the house of his son-in-law on 27.6.1988 to make request to the appellants for not assaulting his daughter but the appellants were adamant and rigid to their demands and they also gave threatening that the girl (deceased) would not be allowed to live unless their demands are fulfilled and when the informant requested the appellants to send his daughter on Vidai, they did not send her on Vidai and after sometime the deceased was done to death and was thrown into the well. It has also been proved that a false information was sent to the informant through appellant No. 1 that the deceased had fled away from the house but when the informant and other witnesses went to verify the matter, they found the dead body of the deceased and the evidence of the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination would go to show that ante mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased which proves that the deceased was done to death and after that her dead body was thrown into the well. It further transpires from the materials available on record that all the appellants were in league with each other in commission of the offence and they committed the murder of the Anju Devi in furtherance of their common intention. 24. On careful consideration of the materials available on record as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the prosecution has proved the respective charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. 24. On careful consideration of the materials available on record as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the prosecution has proved the respective charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the order of conviction and sentenced recorded by the trial Court are upheld. 25. In the result, therefore, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed. The bail bonds of appellants Mukund Deo @ Mukund Deo Rawat and Ram Sakhi Devi are hereby cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the trial Court to serve out the sentences. The appellant Upendra Rawat is in jail custody shall serve out the remaining part of the sentence.