Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 614 (MP)

Chunnilal v. State of M. P.

2004-08-03

A.K.GOHIL, S.S.JHA

body2004
Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT is aggrieved by his conviction for an offence under Section 302,1. P. C. and sentenced to life imprisonment and for an offence under Section 201, I. P. C. and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment by the Court of D. K. Paliwal, First Additional Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar, in Sessions Trial No. 199/1986 decided on 31. 8. 1995. ( 2. ) IT is alleged that on 1. 8. 1988 at about 11 in the morning appellant throttled the neck of his wife Devika Bai and murdered her and after committing her murder he set the dead body on fire with an intention to hide the crime. It is admitted that deceased was wife of appellant and they were married 3-4 years prior to the date of incident. ( 3. ) ON 1. 8. 1988 Harprasad, Chowkidar of village Berkhedi (P. W. 11) has lodged the information at Police out Post Madhogarh that at about 12 in the afternoon Devika Bai wife of Chunnilal has burnt herself by pouring kerosene oil upon her. police after registering Marg at 01/88 investigated the matter under Section 174, Cr. P. C. In the investigation it was found that since deceased has not cooked food properly, there were not talks and husband incited deceased to commit suicide and deceased committed suicide. After the post-mortem doctor opined that the burnt injuries are after death and he was of the opinion that after she was murdered, her body was burnt. Trial Court framed charges under Section 302 and Section 201, I. P. C, recorded evidence and convicted the appellant. ( 4. ) COUNSEL for the appellant submitted that the judgment is totally perverse and based upon misreading of evidence. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court has convicted appellant on the testimony of P. W. 5. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court has convicted the appellant on the testimony of P. W, 5 Ramswarup and P. W. 6 Meharban Singh. Counsel for the appellant has read over the evidence of these two witnesses and submitted that these witnesses are wholly unreliable and no reliance can be placed upon their testimony. Trial Court has disbelieved other witnesses and the evidence of P. W. 5 and P. W. 6 is not sufficient to convict the appellant. Counsel for the appellant has read over the evidence of these two witnesses and submitted that these witnesses are wholly unreliable and no reliance can be placed upon their testimony. Trial Court has disbelieved other witnesses and the evidence of P. W. 5 and P. W. 6 is not sufficient to convict the appellant. He further submitted that prosecution has failed to prove its case and appellant is entitled for acquittal. ( 5. ) COUNSEL for the respondents supported the judgment and submitted that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. ( 6. ) WE have considered the rival contentions of the parties. P. W. 1 Daulat Singh and P. W. 2 Govind Singh have deposed that after learning about the fire inside the house they found that the doors of the hut were bolted from inside. They climbed the rooftop and after removing tiles they have sent one Pappu inside the room, who opened the door and thereafter they entered the room and found that Devika Bai was lying burnt and was dead. P. W. 8 Dr. A. K. Jain has found that the burn injuries on the body of the deceased are post-mortem. Her neck was throttled and she died by asphyxia. After her death her dead body was burnt. There is no explanation by prosecution regarding burning of dead body of the deceased and escape of appellant from the said hut, which was bolted from inside. ( 7. ) PROSECUTION has not led any evidence to prove that witnesses had seen appellant running away from the spot. Other evidence is of extra-judicial confession. P. W. 4 Rampyaribai has deposed that she has heard that her daughter has been burnt and she died. Thus, this witness has not seen the incident. In para 4 she has deposed that her son Ramswarup has not told her that somebody has told him that the deceased Devika was murdered then burnt. Rampyaribai is the mother of the deceased. P. W. 5 Ramswarup in para 2 of his deposition has deposed that he enquired from the appellant regarding the death of Devika and appellant informed him that he has throttled the neck of deceased and she died and after her death he burnt her. The reason for murdering her was the dispute over money. He has stated that this extra-judicial confession was given before Meharbansingh, Ramsingh and Ashok Kumar. The reason for murdering her was the dispute over money. He has stated that this extra-judicial confession was given before Meharbansingh, Ramsingh and Ashok Kumar. However, when he was confronted with his case diary statement Ex. D/2, he has deposed that appellant has told him that on the dispute about money he throttled her neck and she died and he admitted that this fact is not mentioned in his case diary statement Ex. D/2. He further admitted in para 7 of his deposition that he was not informed by any villager of village Berkhedi that there was a dispute between his sister and appellant, which resulted into throttling of neck of the deceased by the appellant. He admitted that the statement given by him before the police under Section 161 is not mentioned in his case diary statement Ex. D/2. However, when he was further cross-examined on 1,10. 1994 he has admitted that after the incident he had no conversation with appellant Chunnilal. He has not enquired about the incident from Chunnilal. He further admitted that after the death of his sister, he has not gone to village Berkhedi. Then on his own he has deposed that Chunnilal has not informed him that he has throttled the neck of Devika Bai. This witness has taken opposite stand than his earlier statement. Evidence of this witness is not consistent and no reliance can be placed upon such witness. Similarly, P. W. 6 Meharbansingh is also witness of extra-judicial confession. This witness has deposed about extra-judicial confession by appellant in para 2 of his deposition. His case diary statement Ex. D/3 was read over to him and he has admitted that the fact about the dispute over money and throttling of neck of deceased by the appellant is not mentioned and in para 6 of his deposition he has admitted that there was no conversation between Ramswarup and Chunnilal before him. Appellant Chunnilal has not admitted before him that the dispute arose on account of money and Chunnilal has throttled the neck of deceased Devika and on account of this fight Devika has burnt herself. He denied his earlier statement regarding extra-judicial confession. Therefore, this witness is also not reliable and no reliance can be placed upon his testimony. Investigation officer P. P. Singh P. W. 12 has deposed that he has performed the investigation and recorded the statement. He denied his earlier statement regarding extra-judicial confession. Therefore, this witness is also not reliable and no reliance can be placed upon his testimony. Investigation officer P. P. Singh P. W. 12 has deposed that he has performed the investigation and recorded the statement. P. W. 13 Ramsingh Dhakre in para 4 of his deposition has admitted that Ramswarup has not told him that he has burnt Devika after her death. He also admitted in para 9 of his deposition that none of the villagers had informed him that appellant had murdered his wife and burnt her. On his own he deposed that he got the information but he has not disclosed the source of information. ( 8. ) CONSIDERING the overall evidence before the Court, we find that it is not safe to maintain the conviction of the appellant. Witnesses to extra-judicial confession are wholly unreliable. ( 9. ) IN the result conviction of appellant for an offence under Sections 302 and Section 201, I. P. C. is set aside and he is acquitted of charge. Appellant is in jail. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. ( 10. ) APPEAL succeeds and is allowed.