Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 813 (ALL)

AJMAL KHAN v. STATE O

2003-04-10

K.N.OJHA, M.C.JAIN

body2003
M. C. JAIN, J. Appellant Ajmal Khan has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 31. 10. 1980 passed by Sri O. P. Jain, 4he then IInd Additienal Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Sessions Trial No. 243 of 1978. He has been convicted under section 302 IPC for the murder of his own wife and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. His brother Shamim Khan was also tried with him, but he was acquited having been given benefit of doubt. 2. Broad spectrum of the case may be set forth for appreciation of the discussion that has to follow hereinafter. The deceased Shahana Khanam was the wife of appellant and the daughter of Ayaz Mohammad PW 7, resident of Barhapur, District Bijnor. She was married with the appellant about 2 years before the incident. The appellant with his three brothers lived in a building at Shahanpur, P. S. Nazibabad, District Bijnor. One of his brothers had migrated to Arab. The appellant lived on the first floor of the house and his brothers were living on the ground floor of the same building. After about six months of the marriage, he started ill treating his wife asking her to bring dowry from her parents. He was carrying on the work of the winding of electric motors and his brother Shamim Khan (acquitted) was also working with him at his shop. About five or six months before the incident, the appellant had brought some burnt electric motors from Delhi for about Rs. 28-30 thousand. However, he suffered loss in that transaction because some motors could not be sold. His brother who had migrated to Arab had sent some money to meet the expenses of his mothers HAJ whose passport had been obtained. That money was, however, spent by the appellant in purchasing the electric motors. His mother was in great need bf money to proceed for HAJ. About 1-1/2 months before the incident, the victim was given a beating by the appellant and was asked to bring money from her father. She had declined to go to her father for brining money. Thereupon she was beaten up by the appellant. Coming to know of it, her father had brought her to his house. About 15 days thereafter,, the appellant brought back his wife and apologized for his misconduct assuring his in-laws that it would not be repeated in future. She had declined to go to her father for brining money. Thereupon she was beaten up by the appellant. Coming to know of it, her father had brought her to his house. About 15 days thereafter,, the appellant brought back his wife and apologized for his misconduct assuring his in-laws that it would not be repeated in future. He also wrote a letter to his mother-in-law. 3. On 22. 7. 1978 at about 4. 30 P. M. Shahana Khanam was beaten up by the appellant, tied, sprinkled with Kerosene and was set ablaze. She shouted for help. Nazakat Hussain PW 1, Abdul Manan PW 2 and Nasir Hussain PW 3 and many other neighbours were attracted to the house of the appellant by the shouts of the victim. The main door of the house was closed and could not be opened despite efforts being made by these persons. They heard the shouts of a lady (victim) who was groaning and crying for help. No inmate of the house gave any reply to their calls. They also noticed the smoke coming out from a room situated at the first floor of the house inhabited by the appellant with his wife. The door of that room was closed. Naseem, elder brother of the appellant, was pushing the door from outside and shouting that the door be opened failing which he would open fire. He was also shouting as to what cruelty was being perpetrated. The said persons also heard the daughter of acquitted accused Shamim Khan, saying that the uncle had burnt the aunt. Since the main door of the building was not opened, the said persons had to return to their houses. Subsequently, they came to know that the wife of the appellant had been done to death by burning. 4. Akeel Ahmad PW 6 is a cousin brother of Shahana Khanam and carries on his business at Najibabad at a distance of 1-1/2 miles from Sahanpur. One Abdul Lahab had informed him that Shahana Khanam was beaten up and then set ablaze by the appellant. Akeel Ahmad PW 6 has rushed to Barhapur in a car and intimated the incident to her Mausa Ayaz Mohammad PW 7 had his wife. Thereupon Ayaz Mohammad PW 7, his wife and some persons rushed to Sahanpur in the same car reaching the house of the appellant at about 1. Akeel Ahmad PW 6 has rushed to Barhapur in a car and intimated the incident to her Mausa Ayaz Mohammad PW 7 had his wife. Thereupon Ayaz Mohammad PW 7, his wife and some persons rushed to Sahanpur in the same car reaching the house of the appellant at about 1. 30 A. M. in the night. They shouted and knocked the door of appellant. After sometime the door was opened and the said persons gained entry inside the house to find that Shahana Khanam was lying unconscious with burn injuries. The appellant and the ladies of his family were present. Ayaz Mohammad (father of Shahana Khanam) requested them that she be taken to hospital for medical treatment but his request was not heeded to. Ayaz Mohammad PW 7 then went to police station, Najibabad and reached there at about 2 A. M. in the night. He narrated the incident to the police constable and sought help. The constable asked him to give a report. He started writing a report in Urdu. The constable told him that he would not receive a report written in Urdu and required him to bring a report written in Hindi. Then one Mohammad All told the complainant that he could get the report written in Hindi. Ayaz Mohammad was taken to the octroi-post situated at the railway station. A report in Hindi was got written by Mohammad Taheer PW 9, a Munshi at the octroi barrier. The said report was delivered at the police station by Ayaz Mohammad who requested the police constable to provide him one or two police men so that he could take his daughter to the hospital. The constable asked him to contact S. I. Mohd. Waseem Siddiqui CW 1 and pointed out his residence. The complainant knocked the door of Mohd. Waseem Siddiqui. When the door was opened, he narrated the incident to him. The Sub-Inspector asked the complainant to return to Sahanpur assuring that he. would be reaching shortly. 5. Ayaz Mohammad returned to Sahanpur in the same car at about 3. 30 A. M. in the night. Akeel Ahmad was present in the Sahan of the house. Ayaz Mohammad along with Akeel Ahmad proceeded to the room on the first floor and found that Shahana Khanam had gained consciousness. would be reaching shortly. 5. Ayaz Mohammad returned to Sahanpur in the same car at about 3. 30 A. M. in the night. Akeel Ahmad was present in the Sahan of the house. Ayaz Mohammad along with Akeel Ahmad proceeded to the room on the first floor and found that Shahana Khanam had gained consciousness. She asked her father to take her at once and also told him that she was beaten up by her husband (appellant) and his brother Shamim Khan. She also told that she had been tied up and kerosene oil was sprinkled over her and she was set ablaze by them. She again became unconscious. The Sub-Inspector did not reach Sahanpur. Compelled by the circumstances, Ayaz Mohammad contacted Yaseen, who was the Chairman of Town Area Committee of Sahanpur. He wanted him to prevail upon the appellant and his family members so that Shahana Khanam could be sent for medical treatment. Yaseen and many other persons came to the house of appellant and counselled him and his family members. With the help of Yaseen and others, Shahana Khanam was taken to the District Hospital in a car but as soon as she reached hospital, she died. 6. The appellant and his family members had not accompanied Ayaz Mohammad to the hospital. None of them came to the hospital even thereafter. After inquest, the dead body of Shahana Khanam was sent for post-mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Prabodh Kumar PW 4 on 23. 7. 1978 at 4. 30 P. M. whereafter the dead body was delivered to Ayaz Mohammad who carried it up to Barhapur and buried it on 24. 7. 1978. No police official came to him by 26. 7. 1978. Then he gave a report of the incident at the police station on 26. 7. 1978 at 3. 30 P. M. on the basis of which a case was registered and investigation ensued. 7. It may also be related here that the post-mortem revealed that the deceased was aged about 22 years and her death had occurred about 12 hours before the autopsy. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on her person. 1. Third degree burns on both upper extremities, anterior and posterior aspect of chest (including breast area 13 cm. diameter on right side 11 cm. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on her person. 1. Third degree burns on both upper extremities, anterior and posterior aspect of chest (including breast area 13 cm. diameter on right side 11 cm. in diameter on left side), the whole of abdomen and both regions and lower extremity upto knee joint. Face was escaped. 2. Contusion 3 cm. x 2 cm. on left knee joint. 3. Contusion 40 cm. x 2. 5 cm. on back of chest (transverse ). 4. Contusion 4 cm. x 3 cm. on back of chest, right side. 5. Contusion 5 cm. x 4 cm. on right buttock. 6. Contusion 4 cm. x 2 cm. on posterior aspect of left forearm. 7. Contusion 3. 5 cm. x 2. 5 cm. on posterior aspect of right forearm. 8. Incised wound 3 cm. x 1 cm. x 1 cm. deep on abdomen. 9. Contusion 2 cm. x 1 cm. on tip of right index finger. 10. Contusion 2 cm. x 1. 5 cm. on tip of right middle finger and ring finger. 8. The Doctor conducting autopsy opined that the aforesaid injuries could have been caused on 22. 7. 1978 at about 4-5 P. M. He also opined that contusions found on the dead body could be caused due to tying rope. He also stated that third degree burns were grievous in nature and injury No. 1 was dangerous for life. 9. On conclusion of the investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant and his brother Shamim Khan. 10. The appellant pleaded not guilty and, according to him, he was falsely implicated on account of misunderstanding. The appellant also stated under section 313 Cr. P. C. that his nephew Shahnawaz was sent to Barhapur for giving intimation of the incident. It was also the defence case that the victim had burnt herself and a suicide note allegedly written by the victim was also relied upon which had been found in the room. 11. The prosecution, in all, examined ten witnesses. The evidence of K. P. Singh PW 5, O. P. Sharma PW 8, Mohd. Tahir PW 9 and Munfail Ali PW 10 was of formal nature. The appellant also examined Dr. Ayaz Ali DW 1, Mohd. Vaseem Siddiqui CW 1 and Allabuksha CW 2 were examined as Court witnesses. 12. 11. The prosecution, in all, examined ten witnesses. The evidence of K. P. Singh PW 5, O. P. Sharma PW 8, Mohd. Tahir PW 9 and Munfail Ali PW 10 was of formal nature. The appellant also examined Dr. Ayaz Ali DW 1, Mohd. Vaseem Siddiqui CW 1 and Allabuksha CW 2 were examined as Court witnesses. 12. We have heard Sri D. N. Wall, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri A. K. Verma, learned A. G. A. from the side of State. The record of the case is before us which we have carefully perused. We wish to deal with hereinbelow the important aspects of the matter having regard to the arguments advanced before us and the evidence including attending circumstances. 13. The important question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether it is a case of murder or of suicide. According to the prosecution, it is a case of murder, the victim having been assaulted and burnt to death whereas as per the accused appellant, she committed suicide. 14. It has first been argued by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant that the prosecution had no set case and it is for this reason that during the course of arguments, a twist has been given by introducing the theory of demand of money and dowry by the accused-appellant from the parents of the deceased, harassing and building pressure on her to achieve this goal. This argument does not impress us at all. It is pertinent to observe that the incident occurred on 22. 7. 1978 when section 304-B of the dowry death was not even there on the statute book. Section 304-B was incorporated in I. P. C. with effect from 19. 11. 1986 through section 10 of Act No. 43 of 1986. The case itself was decided by the Trial Court on 31. 10. 1980. Therefore, it would be wrong to impute to the prosecution or the complainant that the theory of demand of money or dowry was introduced during the course of evidence to give a twist to the case. At the time of deposing before the Court on 11. 9. The case itself was decided by the Trial Court on 31. 10. 1980. Therefore, it would be wrong to impute to the prosecution or the complainant that the theory of demand of money or dowry was introduced during the course of evidence to give a twist to the case. At the time of deposing before the Court on 11. 9. 1979 Ayaz Mohammad PW 7, father of the deceased, could not anticipate the introduction of section 304-B in I. P. C. In any case, the decision has to be taken as per the law existing at the time of the commission of this crime. Obviously, nothing can be imputed to Ayaz Mohammad PW 7 (father of the victim) that he tried to distrot the real picture. 15. The second argument of the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant is that the report had been lodged with delay. The record shows that the complainant Ayaz Mohammad PW 7 had lodged two reports at the police station (Ext. Ka-8) and Ext. Ka-9 ). According to him, the report (Ext. Ka-8) had been delivered by him at the police station, Najibabad in the night between 22/23. 7. 1978. This report states that his daughter had been ill-treated by the accused-appellant and that she had received burn injury and was unconscious. A request was made through the said report that assistance be provided for securing medical help to her. This report however, was registered at the police station on 23. 7. 1978 at 12. 10 P. M. Allahbux CW 2 was constable clerk on duty at police station, Najibabad in the night between 22-23. 7. 1978. He admitted that the complainant had come to the police station that night. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui S. I. CW 1 has expressed his ignorance whether any report was delivered by the complainant at the police station in the night. Allahbux CW 2 has insisted that no report was submitted by the complainant in the night. He tried to stick to the record that the said report was delivered by the complainant to him on 23. 7. 1978 at 12. 10 P. M. On careful consideration of the evidence on the point, the statement of the complainant inspires full confidence that this report had been handed over by him at the police station in the night itself. Mohd. 7. 1978 at 12. 10 P. M. On careful consideration of the evidence on the point, the statement of the complainant inspires full confidence that this report had been handed over by him at the police station in the night itself. Mohd. Tahir PW 9 is the scribe of the said report who stated that it had been written by him in the night between 22-23. 7. 1978. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui S. I. CW 1 had met him (complainant) at the police station at about 2 or 3 oclock in between 22-23. 7. 1978. The complainant Ayaz Mohammad PW 7 had told him that his daughter had been burnt and he had sought his help for her medical treatment. Since the complainant had been to the police station in the nght, his statement should be accepted that he made this report also in the night itself. The circumstances also support this view. The contents of the report indicate that at the time of making the said report Shahana Khanam was alive. It is a fact that she expired on 23. 7. 1978 at 8. 30 A. M. In case the report was made on 23. 7. 1978 at 12. 10 P. M. when she had already expired, there could be no occasion for the complainant to seek help for procuring medical assistance for her. The inquest was conducted at Bijnor at 10. 15 A. M. on 23. 7. 1978. The complainant had witnessed the inquest report, meaning thereby that he was present at Bijnor at that time. Keeping this in view, the statement of Allahbux CW 2 cannot at all be believed that the complainant delivered the said report to him on 23. 7. 1978 at 12. 10p. M. 16. Two falsehoods fight between themselves. Allahbux CW 2 stated in his cross-examination that the report was brought to him by someone other than the complainant. However, in the extract of the general diary, he had mentioned that the report was brought by the complainant Ayaz Mohammad. Moreover, Naseem Siddiqui S. I. CW 1 stated that the complainant had sought his help because he had no arrangement for the conveyance. He also stated that the complainant had told him that by that time he had not been at the -house of-his daughter. Moreover, Naseem Siddiqui S. I. CW 1 stated that the complainant had sought his help because he had no arrangement for the conveyance. He also stated that the complainant had told him that by that time he had not been at the -house of-his daughter. To the contrary, Allahbux CW 2 deposed that the complainant had told him that the members of the family of in laws of his daughter were not permitting her to be taken for medical treatment. He had told this fact to Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui S. I. CW 1. Mohd Naseem Siddiqui S. I. CW 1 further admitted that from Barhapur to Najibabad one has to come via Nagina and that in the night no regular conveyance is available between Barhapur and Nagina. Thus, it was obvious that the complainant had come from Barhapur in a car as stated by him. The accused-appellant also admitted in his statement of section 313 Cr. P. C. that he had reached at his house at about 1. 30 A. M. in a car, meaning thereby that he had been to the house of the accused-appellant before going to the police station and he was having a vehicle with him. We have no doubt that Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui S. I. CW 1 and Allahbux CW 2 have with held the truth to mask their casual, callous and irresponsible conduct as police personnel. The report having been lodged by the complainant at the police station in the night of 22/23. 7. 1978, there was no delay at all on his part to set the machinery of law in motion with regard to this serious offence. Truth of the matter seems to be that despite report Ext. Ka-8 having been delivered by the complainant in the night between 22/23. 7. 1978, these two police conducted themselves most irresponsibly. They joined hands to make a false show as if the report was made on 23. 7. 1978 at 12. 10p. M. 17. The second report (Ext. Ka-9) was lodged by the complainant on 26. 7. 1978 under compelling circumstances because the police did not take any meaningful action on his first report. He was not contacted by the police at all. In this second report, he made allegations against the accused as before. 7. 1978 at 12. 10p. M. 17. The second report (Ext. Ka-9) was lodged by the complainant on 26. 7. 1978 under compelling circumstances because the police did not take any meaningful action on his first report. He was not contacted by the police at all. In this second report, he made allegations against the accused as before. Akeel Ahmad PW 6 and Ayaz Mohd PW 7 were the witnesses of the inquest report who opined that she had been done to death by pouring kerosene on her and setting her ablaze. Similar opinion finds mention in the report of 23. 7. 1978 (Ext. Ka-5) forwarded by the police to the Chief Medical Officer for post-mortem examination. Therefore, the contention that the allegations against the accused had been made as a result of afterthought, deliberations and consultations, cannot be sustained at all. The threadbare scrutiny reveals that there was no delay in lodging the report of the case, 18. Indeed, there is no eye-witness account of the actual incident. But sterling and solid circumstances are lined up to prove the guilt of the accused appellant. To say in other words, the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution is of clinching and conclusive nature. Nazakat Hussain PW 1, Abdul Mannan PW 2 and Nasir Hussain PW 3 were immediate neighbours of the accused appellant at the house of whom the incident occurred. They rushed up to the house of the accused appellant on hearing shrieks and shouts. They found that the main door of the accused appellant was closed. For sometime, they shouted at the door to be opened but there was no response. These three witnesses had heard loud shrieks of a lady who was groaning and crying for help. They had also heard Naseem, elder brother of the accused appellant, shouting kiwar KHOLO SALON YE KYA JULUM KAR RAHE HO, GOLI MAAr DUNGA. " It was also heard by them that the daughter of the co-accused Shamim Khan was shouting that the uncle had burnt the aunt. It was there in their testimony that a number of people had gathered in front of the house of the accused appellant but even then the main door was not opened, Nazakat Hussain PW 1 also marked some smoke coming out from the ventilators of the room situated on the first floor of the house. It was there in their testimony that a number of people had gathered in front of the house of the accused appellant but even then the main door was not opened, Nazakat Hussain PW 1 also marked some smoke coming out from the ventilators of the room situated on the first floor of the house. When the door of the house was not opened, the witnesses went away. Later on, they learnt that the victim (wife of the accused appellant) had been burnt to death. Learned Counsel for the accused appellant has made blistering attack on the testimony of these witnesses. It has been pointed out that despite being neighbours they did not lodge any report at the police station. It is common knowledge that an unconcerned person is shy to involve himself in a matter concerning crime for fear of incurring trouble for himself in future. The three witnesses named above were helpless spectators of what they observed. They cannot be blamed if they or any of them did not lodge the FIR at the police station, We, however, find from the testimony of Nazakat Hussain PW 1 that though he had not gone to the police station, but he had passed on the information to the Chairman of the Town Area within half an hour. 19. The factum surfacing from the testimony of these three witnesses that they also heard the daughter of co-accused Shamim Khan shouting that the uncle had burnt the aunt is very important. It has emphatically been stated by Abdul Mannan PW 2 and Nasir Hussain PW 3 that that was the voice of the daughter of the co-accused Shamim Khan. In fact, this evidence is covered under section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act as res gestae. Section 6 of the said Act relates to relevancy of the facts forming part of the same transaction. It provides that the facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places. 20. The relevancy is based on logic, res gestae means the things done, including the words spoken in the course of a transaction but such facts must form the part of the same transaction. 20. The relevancy is based on logic, res gestae means the things done, including the words spoken in the course of a transaction but such facts must form the part of the same transaction. A transaction is a group of facts connected together to be referred to by a single legal name, as a crime, a contract, a wrong or any other subject of enquiry which may be in issue. Illustration (a) in section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act is apt to be quoted. It reads as under: " Illustration (a) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the by slanders at the beating, or So shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact. " 21. In the case at hand, the shout of the daughter of the co-accused Shamim Khan that the uncle had burnt the aunt becomes a relevant fact. It would come to be covered under by stander as clearly follows from illustration (a) of section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act reproduced above. Her identity also came to be established by her voice that she was the daughter of co-accused Shamim Khan as spoken by Nazakat Hussain PW 2 and Nasir Husain PW 3. They being the neighbours of the accused-appellant and the girl in question being residing in the same house, there could be no possibility of their committing mistake about the identity of the voice of the girl (daughter of the co-accused Shamim Khan ). 22. Learned Counsel for the accused appellant contended that what was imputed to have been shouted by the said girl cannot be deemed to be res gestae because as per the Investigating Officer O. P. Sharma PW 8, he recorded the statement of Nazakat Hussain PW 1, Abdul Mannan PW 2 and Nasir Hussain PW 3 under section 161 Cr. P. C. as late as on 10. 8. 1978 in which the said shouting of the girl was spoken by them. We are of the view that admissibility of res gestae evidence would not depend on as to after how much time the statement of the witness was recorded by the Investigating Officer. The guiding and determinant factor would be whether or not such shout was made by the person to whom it is imputed. We are of the view that admissibility of res gestae evidence would not depend on as to after how much time the statement of the witness was recorded by the Investigating Officer. The guiding and determinant factor would be whether or not such shout was made by the person to whom it is imputed. In he present case, we see no reason to disbelieve Nazakat Hussain PW 1, Abdul Mannan PW 2 and Nasir Hussain PW 3 that at the fateful time, they had heard such a shout of the daughter of the co-accused Shamim Khan from inside the house, her recognition having been made by the voice. This being so, the factum of their statements having been recorded by the Investigating Officer under section 161 Cr. P. C. on 10. 8. 1978 would not render the same inadmissible. 23. We also wish to point out that otherwise also the prosecution case would not receive a set back by late recording of the statements of these witnesses by the Investigating Officer under section 161 Cr. P. C. when they withstood the cross examination firmly and nothing emerged to discredit their version. The Supreme Court has held in the case of State of U. P. v. Sikandar All and others, 1998 (36) ACC 777. that late examining of the witnesses by the Investigating Officer should not be used to drop his evidence when vivid details of occurrence are given by them while deposing before the Court. In an earlier case of Ranbir and others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 140. the Apex Court ruled that the question of delay in examining a witness during investigation is material only if it is indicative and suggestive of some unfair practice by the investigating agency for the purpose of introducing a got up witness to falsely support the prosecution case. Yet in another case of Ganesh Bhavan Patel and another v. State of Maharashtra, 1979 (16) ACC 11. the Supreme Court observed that the delay in questioning a witness by itself cannot amount to any serious infirmity in the prosecution case. But it may assume such a character, if there was concomitant circumstances to suggest that investigator was deliberately marking time a view a decide about the shape to be given to the case and the eye-witness to be introduced. 24. But it may assume such a character, if there was concomitant circumstances to suggest that investigator was deliberately marking time a view a decide about the shape to be given to the case and the eye-witness to be introduced. 24. In the case at hand, apathy of the prosecuting agency from the very beginning is apparent. Earlier to O. P. Sharma PW 8, the case was being investigated by Mohd. Wasim Siddiqui. S,i. CW 1. His insensitivity and carelessness is apparent from the manner he conducted himself when he was contacted by the complainant in the night of 22/23. 7. 1978 seeking help for medical aid to his daughter who was fighting between life and death. He coined a mumber of lies as exposed in discussion made hereinabove. Instead of taking any effective steps to discharge his duty as a police officer, he simply contacted the Chairman of Town Area by telephone to arrange for the dispatch of the complainants daughter for medical treatment. He was so callous that he did nothing, though Shahana Khanam had expired on 23. 7. 1978 at 8. 30 A. M. The complainant was not contacted by him at all to direct the investigation on proper lines and it was under compelling circumstances that the latter had to file a second report on 26. 7. 1978. It is not a case where the investigating agency was marking time to create artificial evidence. Rather, the truth of the matter is that it was conducting in a way which could be helpful to the perpetrators of the crime Judged in proper perspective. Late examination of Nazakat Hussain PW 1, Abdul Mannan PW 2 and Nasir Hussain PW 3 by the Investigating Officer has no adverse impact on the prosecution case. We also wish to put here that O. P. Sharma PW 8 was not cross-examined as to the reason for the late examining of these witnesses under section 161 Cr. P. C. These three witnesses had no grudge against the accused appellant. There is no basis to presume that they falsely deposed against their neighbour. 25. Learned Counsel for the accused appellant then argued that it was not proved as. to who passed on information to Akeel Ahmad PW 6 who, in his turn, allegedly rushed to the complainant Ayaz Mohammad PW 7. There is no basis to presume that they falsely deposed against their neighbour. 25. Learned Counsel for the accused appellant then argued that it was not proved as. to who passed on information to Akeel Ahmad PW 6 who, in his turn, allegedly rushed to the complainant Ayaz Mohammad PW 7. The argument cannot be sustained, because it has categorically been stated by Akeel Ahmad PW 6 that he had been informed by Abdul Lahab Sheikh of Sahanpur at Najibabad wherefrom he had immediately rushed to Ayaz Mohammad PW 7 at Barhapur in a car to give intimation. The parents of Shahana Khanam then immediately rushed to Sahanpur in that very car reaching at the house of the accused appellant at 1. 30 A. M. in the night. It may also be pointed out here that in the statement under section 313 Cr. P. C. the accused appellant stated that he had sent information to the parents of his wife through his nephew Shahnawaz. Shahnawaz was not produced in support of this contention. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of Akeel Ahmad PW 6 that he had been informed at Najibabad by Abdul Lahab Sheikh of Sahanpur. Judged from another angle also, it is not of much importance as to on whose information Akeel Ahmad PW 6 and Ayaz Mohammad PW 7 (father of the deceased) had ultimately been able to reach the door of the accused appellant at about 1. 30 A. M. in the night. The reason is that in answer to question No. 8 under section 313 Cr. P. C. , the accused appellant himself admitted that Ayaz Mohammad PW 7, his wife, Akeel Ahmad and one or two other persons had reached at his door at 1. 30 A. M. 26. Learned Counsel for the accused appellant next urged that it is not established that he was present at his house in between the fateful night. This argument is again against own admission of the accused appellant under section 313 Cr. P. C. in answer to question No. 8 where it was admitted by him that he with his other family members, was present at his house at about 1. 30 A. M. when Akeel Ahmad PW 6, Ayaz Mohammad PW 7, mother of the deceased and one or two other persons had reached his house. P. C. in answer to question No. 8 where it was admitted by him that he with his other family members, was present at his house at about 1. 30 A. M. when Akeel Ahmad PW 6, Ayaz Mohammad PW 7, mother of the deceased and one or two other persons had reached his house. Moreover, the testimonial assertions of Akeel Ahmad PW 6 and Ayaz Mohammad PW 7 that he was found present at his house that night has not at all been challenged in their cross-examination. Therefore, it cannot be held that the accused appellant was not present at his house that night. 27. Keeping in view the medical evidence contained in post-mortem report of the deceased proved by Dr. Prabodh Kumar PW 4, it cannot be disputed that Shahana Khanam had sustained burn injuries of third degree which were grievous in nature and dangerous to life. The medical evidence further fortifies that the said injuries could have been caused on 22. 7. 1978 at about 4. 5 P. M. as alleged by the prosecution and the death could have occurred in the morning of 23. 7. 1978. Not only burn injuries, but she had also sustained eight injuries in the form of contusions on different parts of her body and one incised wound too on abdomen. Admittedly, the deceased was living with her husband (accused appellant) at his house when she suffered such third degree burns and other injuries of blunt and sharp edged weapon. The presence of contusions and incised wound in the form of ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased supplies strength to the prosecution case that she was assaulted before she was set ablaze. Dr. Prabodh Kumar PW 4 emphatically stated that the incised wound was caused by a sharp edged weapon and that only an injury having clean cut is, described as incised wound. 28. It would now be appropriate to deal with the theory of suicide put forth by the defence. We should point out that the contusions sustained by her were on her left knee, back, buttock, forearms and fingers. The injuries in the form of contusions and incised wound on the dead body of the deceased completely and clearly negative defence case of suicide committed by her. There are other circumstances which completely blast the imaginary theory of suicide put forth by the defence side. Even Mohd. The injuries in the form of contusions and incised wound on the dead body of the deceased completely and clearly negative defence case of suicide committed by her. There are other circumstances which completely blast the imaginary theory of suicide put forth by the defence side. Even Mohd. Waseem Siddiqui CW 1 could not screen the reality who conducted the investigation at the initial stage with great apathy. It has come down in his testimony that no tin of kerosene or petrol was found by him in the room in which Shahana Khanam had sustained injuries. He also did not find any matchbox or any used or unused match stick in that room. The conduct of the accused appellant also leads to the conclusion that it was a case of murder and not of suicide. As discussed hereinabove, the accused appellant did not open the door of main gate of the house despite the fact that a number of people had collected in front thereof and had made a demand to open the door. He did not lodge any report of the incident with the police as to how it occurred, it has been admitted by him in his statement under section 313 Cr. P. C. that Akeel Ahmad PW 6, Ayaz Mohammad PW 7 (father of the deceased) and his mother in-law had arrived at about 1. 30 A. M. in the night. By that time, no medical help had been procured for Shahana Khanam, though the incident had taken place at about 4-4. 30 P. M. The victim was fighting and struggling between life and death but still the accused appellant did not care to procure any medical help for her. The statements of Akeel Ahmad PW 6 and Ayaz Mohammad PW 7 are that their request to take the victim to the hospital for medical help was turned down by the accused appellant and other members of his family, so much so that the complainant had to rush to the police station for help in the night itself which fact is borne out from the testimony of Mohd. Waseem Siddiqui CW 1 as also of Constable Allahbux CW 2 Allahbux CW 2 admitted that the complainant had informed him at about 3 Oclock in the night that his daughter had been burnt and the members of the family of her in-laws were not allowing tier to be taken to the hospital and, therefore, he had sought police help. This witness had even told these facts to Sub Inspector Mohd. Waseem Siddiqui CW 1 who stated that he had made a telephonic call to Mohd Yasin, Chairman of Town Area Committee to arrange necessary assistance for the complainant. The complainant had returned to the house of the accused appellant at about 4 A. M. By that time, no medical assistance had been provided by the accused appellant to Shahana Khanam. This conduct of the accused appellant in not taking any step to provide medical assistance for her which she urgently needed is inconsistent with his innocence. As a matter of fact, entire conduct of the accused appellant militates against the defence that she committed suicide. Even if it is taken for a moment for the sake of arguments (though we do not believe it to be that) that she had made attempt to commit suicide, it was reasonable to expect that her husband and other members of the family would immediately rush her to the hospital for medical help. 29. The incident having taken place at the house of the accused appellant where his victim wife was residing with him, it was in his knowledge as to in what manner she sustained burn and other injuries. Under such circumstances, it was for him to offer explanation for the same. True, no accused of a crime is bound to offer any explanation of his conduct or of circumstances of suspicion which attach to him, but nevertheless if he refuses to do so, despite there being a strong case made out against him, it would be reasonable and justifiable to conclude that he refrains from doing so knowingly that the evidence so suppressed or not adduced by him would operate adversely to his interest. In the instant case, it was within his power to offer explanation, but he did not do so. 30. A few words should be stated with regard to the so called suicide note (Ext. In the instant case, it was within his power to offer explanation, but he did not do so. 30. A few words should be stated with regard to the so called suicide note (Ext. 2) on which great reliance is placed from the side of the accused appellant that it had been written by her. On thoughtful consideration we agree with the learned Trial Judge that no reliance could be placed on the said suicide note. Learned Trial Judge has given weighty and convincing reasons for not accepting it as a suicide note. It did not bear any date. Nor the signatures of writer thereof were there. There was no positive evidence that it was written by her. The contents of the said letter do not go to show that the said writer of the said letter was going to commit suicide. There is nothing to suggest that it had been written by the deceased before the incident in question. Ayaz Mohammad PW 7, father of the deceased, clearly stated that it had not been written by his daughter. The first Investigating officer. Mohd Waseem Siddiqui CW 1 stated that while making search of the room in question, no letter was found by him, meaning thereby the deceased did not leave the said letter. The accused-appellant did not lead any evidence to show as to how and when he or his family member (s) came into possession of the same. Subsequent Investigating Officer O. P. Sharma PW 8 stated that the said letter was delivered to him by the brother of the accused-appellant on 27. 7. 1978. There is no explanation on record as to why the said letter could not be delivered to the Investigating Officer earlier. Rather its delivery to the Investigating Officer after five days of the occurrence supports the belief that it had been subsequently fabricated. 31. Certain latters written by the deceased had also been delivered to the Investigating Officer by her brother and for comparison with the alleged suicide note the same were forwarded to the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory. Dr. Aizaz Ali DW 1, handwriting Expert, has come to say that the admitted letters of the deceased and the disputed suicide note had been written by one and the same person, but he could not support his opinion by convincing reasons while deposing in Court. Dr. Aizaz Ali DW 1, handwriting Expert, has come to say that the admitted letters of the deceased and the disputed suicide note had been written by one and the same person, but he could not support his opinion by convincing reasons while deposing in Court. The report was not based on scientific reasons. He admitted that he had not mentioned detailed reasons in his report about the movement employed, muscular habit and skill which are the general characteristics. He also did not give any data about the relative size and proportion of letters. He did not examine the relative spacing of the letters. No mention was made of the line quality, pen position, pen pressure and shading. He did not make any mention of slants and alignments. He admitted that there are significant features in a writing. In his cross-examination, he had to admit certain dissimilarities in the formation of certain letters in the disputed and admitted writing. All the factors taken together, the report was bound to be rejected as has rightly been done by the learned Trial Judge. We have not the slightest doubt that the alleged suicide note was a fictitious and fabricated document forged by the accused appellant in a desperate attempt to build up an imaginary defence. 32. Learned Counsel for the accused-appellant wanted to support the theory of suicide on another premise that when the Investigating officer visited the room in question, he found that one side of the clip of the tower bolt on the inner side of the door was broken. On this basis, it has been urged that the accused appellant with other members of his family had tried to get opened the door and as such it was a case of suicide and not murder. It should be pointed out that the room had been inspected by the Investigating Officer in the afternoon of 23. 7. 1978 whereas the victim had been taken by her father Ayaz Mohammad PW 7 for medical treatment early in the morning. There being sufficient gap before the Investigating Officer visited the spot, such false evidence of one side of the clip tower bolt broken on the inner side could be enacted by the accused-appellant or his family members who were all out and desperate to negate the serious repercussion of the crime committed. 33. There being sufficient gap before the Investigating Officer visited the spot, such false evidence of one side of the clip tower bolt broken on the inner side could be enacted by the accused-appellant or his family members who were all out and desperate to negate the serious repercussion of the crime committed. 33. On all the facts, evidence and circumstances analytically scrutinised, the guilt of the accused appellant was brought home. The so-called dying declaration of the deceased has been ignored by the learned Trial Judge for cogent reasons. The involvement of the co-accused Shamim Khan in the crime was doubtful and he has rightly been afforded the benefit of doubt. So far as the accused appellant (husband of the deceased) is concerned, his involvement is proved to the hilt beyond any ray of doubt. 34. In the result, we do not locate any merit in this appeal and it is liable to be dismissed. 35. We dismiss this appeal and sustain the order of conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment passed against him. He is on bail. He shall be arrested and sent to Jail to serve out the sentence of life imprisonment passed against him. 36. The office shall, send the copy of this judgment along with the record to the Lower Court to ensure compliance under intimation to this Court within two months. Appeal Dismissed. .