Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 850 (MP)

RAM SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2004-10-28

RAKESH SAKSENA, S.K.KULSHRESTHA

body2004
S. K. KULSHRESTHA. J. ( 1 ) THE appellant who has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned First additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol, by judgment dated 9-11-1990, passed in Sessions Trial No. 52/90, has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the Criminal procedure Code. ( 2 ) THE accused Ram Singh was a neighbour of deceased Darbari and as per the prosecution he had developed illicit intimacy with his wife P. W. 1 Ram Bai. On account of the illicit intrigue which the accused was prosecuting with Ram Bai, Ram bai's husband namely the deceased used to quarrel with Ram Bai with the result Ram bai had deserted him and started living with lamuna Gond. On one occasion, deceased had found Ram Bai, his wife, with accused in her house and had, in order to chastise him, administered some beating which was witnessed by Babulal (P. W. 5), Shobhlal (P. W. 8) and Birja Singh (P. W. 9 ). ( 3 ) ON account of the indisposition of darbari Singh, the deceased, he had taken rs. 350/- in a money bag and proceeded for his treatment along with Lalla Kaol Ram Bai awaited his return for about a fortnight but when she found that he had not come back, ramswaroop (P. W. 2) was deputed to inquire about his whereabouts. Ramswaroop being busy himself, deputed Govind for the purpose who went to Umaria but could not get any information, with the result ramswaroop (P. W. 2) reported the matter at police out post, where the report of missing person was registered at Serial No. 336 of the general diary on 26-12-1989 (Ex. P/26-C ). The Investigation thus, commenced. During investigation, the accused was called and interrogated. On 30-12-1989, at about 11. 00 a. m. , the accused gave information in the presence of Lallulal Soni (P. W. 7) and Ramtahal that the money bag containing Rs. 350/- and the knife with which the offence was committed were lying in his house and that he would get them recovered. He also gave information about the place where the deceased was done to death and from there, torn pieces of clothes belonging to the deceased, his bones, empty liquor bottle, blood stained and plain earth etc, were recovered vide seizure memo Ex. P/7, P/8, P/9, P/10, P/11 and P/12. He also gave information about the place where the deceased was done to death and from there, torn pieces of clothes belonging to the deceased, his bones, empty liquor bottle, blood stained and plain earth etc, were recovered vide seizure memo Ex. P/7, P/8, P/9, P/10, P/11 and P/12. The accused was taken to his house from where a blood stained knife Article 'j' and money bag Article 'g' along with cash of Rs. 160/-were recovered and Panchnama Ex. P/14 was drawn in this behalf. In the investigation, the prosecution came to the conclusion that since the illicit relationship between the wife of the deceased and the accused stood exposed and, the deceased had administered beating to the accused to chastise him and because the deceased also owed money to the accused for the grocery purchased by him from his shop, the accused met him while deceased was proceeding to umariya from where he persuaded him to come back and on their return, they purchased liquor which was consumed and after the deceased became intoxicated, he was done to death by the accused by means of a knife and his money bag along with Rs. 350/-was taken away. On these premises, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellant. ( 4 ) ON charges being framed, the appellant abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. He pleaded that he was innocent and he had not quarrelled with deceased Darbari Singh and that he has been falsely implicated. ( 5 ) THE learned Judge, on trial, convicted the appellant as stated hereinabove. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the evidence against the appellant is purely circumstantial and the circumstances individually and collectively, do not point to the guilt of the accused nor make a complete chain to connect him with the Crime. Learned Government Advocate, per contra, submitted that the accused had a strong motive to commit murder of the deceased as the accused was having an affair with his wife and the recovery of incriminating articles namely the clothes of the deceased from the place where he was murdered within his exclusive knowledge, which is a clinching evidence against the accused. Learned Government Advocate, per contra, submitted that the accused had a strong motive to commit murder of the deceased as the accused was having an affair with his wife and the recovery of incriminating articles namely the clothes of the deceased from the place where he was murdered within his exclusive knowledge, which is a clinching evidence against the accused. He has further referred to the evidence with regard to the recovery of human skull from the place of the incident which further shows that the accused had murdered and left the body of Darbari Singh at the place pointed out by the accused and within his exclusive knowledge. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 6 ) WE find that the evidence is circumstantial which can be broadly classified : (i) Recovery of the pieces of bones and skull. From the alleged spot of the incident; (ii) Illicit relation of the accused with the wife of the deceased; and (iii) Recovery of money bag containing rs. 160/- at the instance of the accused from his possession. ( 7 ) IN regard to the first circumstance, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that pieces of bones recovered were not of any human skeleton as stated by the head of the Department of Anatomy Medical College, Rewa, in his report Ex. P/31 on a query made by the police. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said pieces of bones were that of the deceased and, therefore, the same cannot be taken as an incriminating circumstance. The other part is with regard to the recovery of a human skull. Learned counsel submits that in Ex. P/31, the Head of the department of Anatomy has clearly stated that the skull was of a person aged 25 to 30 years, while the deceased was admittedly 50 years old. Therefore, the said skull also does not connect, the deceased Darbari Singh and, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that Darbari Singh died and that the pieces of bones and the skull recovered from the spot were that of Darbari Singh. Therefore, the said skull also does not connect, the deceased Darbari Singh and, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that Darbari Singh died and that the pieces of bones and the skull recovered from the spot were that of Darbari Singh. ( 8 ) WITH regard to the recovery of pieces of clothes from the spot said to be belonging to the deceased, learned counsel has submitted that in a case where a person is murdered, there is no reason that the clothes would be found scattered. The clothes have been found at a place where animal bones and a human skull of a younger age group has been found and it cannot, therefore, be said that these bones are of the person who is said to have died as per the prosecution. The skull has been recovered on the information of Ramtahal after ten days from another place from where pieces of clothes have not been seized. It doe s not stand to reason that a person committing murder, would remove the clothes and scattered them in an open place elsewhere. In any case, the circumstance is not of any conclusive nature so as to establish the guilt of the accused. ( 9 ) THE other circumstance relied upon by the prosecution to attribute motive to the accused is the illicit relation of the accused with the wife of the deceased. Though some attempt has been made with regard to establishing the said circumstance in the evidence of P. W. 2 Ramswaroop, P. W. 8 shobhlal and P. W. 9 Birju Singh and they have said that the deceased, at one point of time, chastised his wife by beating her, since affair had continued for sufficiently long period about which it was said that deceased had complained to many persons, it does not appear that it furnished any motive to the accused to commit murder of the deceased as there was no development of the nature and kind which would impel the accused to take such a drastic action. Since the other circumstance only create suspicion and do not point to the guilt of the accused Unmistakably, this circumstance by itself is not sufficient to uphold the conviction. ( 10 ) THE last circumstance on which reliance has been placed by the prosecution is recovery of the money bag containing Rs. 160/ -. Since the other circumstance only create suspicion and do not point to the guilt of the accused Unmistakably, this circumstance by itself is not sufficient to uphold the conviction. ( 10 ) THE last circumstance on which reliance has been placed by the prosecution is recovery of the money bag containing Rs. 160/ -. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the depositions to show that the evidence with regard to the said money bag is at variance. Learned counsel has submitted that P. W. 1 Ram Bai has stated in her deposition that Article 'g' is not the money bag belonging to her husband in which he has taken the money on that date. Immediately she had changed the statement and stated that it was in this bag only that her husband had taken money on the fateful day. Similar is the statement of P. W. 2 ramaswaroop. This shows that there is a conscious attempt on being prompted by the prosecution to identify the bag which was not identified in the beginning. This apart, the bag has been seized after one month and seven days of the date of the incident from which alone inference of complicity in the murder of Darbari Singh cannot be drawn. ( 11 ) IN the circumstances, we find that prosecution has not brought on record cogent and sufficient evidence to enable this court to come to the conclusion that Darbari singh has died and that he has met a homicidal death as the pieces of bones relied upon by the prosecution are not of human skeleton but belong to the animal carcass. The skull recovered thereafter also has not been connected with the deceased and, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove corpus delicti which was necessary in the case of circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution individually and collectively do not point to the guilt of the appellant as they are not incompatible with the hypothesis of his innocence. Under these circumstances, we do not find it a case fit for upholding the conviction of the appellant. ( 12 ) THIS appeal is, therefore, allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is set aside. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. Appeal allowed. .