Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 92 (PAT)

Munna Shukla @ Ravi Kand Shukla v. State Of Bihar

2005-01-31

AFTAB ALAM, B.K.JHA

body2005
Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. The appellant Munna Shukla is convicted by the trial court under sections 302 of the Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act for killing his wife by gunshot. The trial Court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life and for six months respectively for committing murder and for the use of a country made gun for the commission of the offence; the sentences are directed to run concurrently. He faced the trial along with six other accused who were his second wife, his three uncles and the wives of the two of the uncles. All the other six accused and the appellant were charged under sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 of the Penal Code; the appellant was additionally charged under sections 302 of the Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. The charge under sections 304-B and 498-A failed and consequently the other accused were acquitted. The appellant alone was convicted and sentenced as stated above. 2. The prosecution case formally commenced on the basis of the fard-e-bayan (Ext. 2) of chowkidar Lochan Dusadh (P.W. 3) recorded by the Officer Incharge of Chainpur P.S. (P.W. 8) at village Dubey Ki Sarraiya on 23.4.1996 at 6 P.M. The chowkidars statement is based on hearsay twice over and he seems to have been made to appear as the first-informant apparently for no other reason than that the village Dubey Ki Sarraiya, where the occurrence took place, was under his beat. He stated that he was returning home after doing his purchases at the Hat when he saw the police jeep going towards the village Dubey Ki Sarraiya. He followed it to see what was the matter. On reaching the village, he came across one Kailash Pandey (P.W.1) who told him that the daughter-in-law of Tufani Shukla was dead. On further enquiry, he said that Munna Shukla had shot her. On hearing this he went to the house of Munna Shukla and found there the daughter-in-law of Tufani Shukla lying dead. The chowkidar continued his statement and said that Munna Shukla, son of Tufani Shukla, resident of village Dubey Ki Sarraiya, P.S. Chainpur, had two wives and he had shot dead his first wife. On hearing this he went to the house of Munna Shukla and found there the daughter-in-law of Tufani Shukla lying dead. The chowkidar continued his statement and said that Munna Shukla, son of Tufani Shukla, resident of village Dubey Ki Sarraiya, P.S. Chainpur, had two wives and he had shot dead his first wife. He further stated that on reaching the village he came to learn from the villagers that Munna Shukla had shot his wife at about 3 in the after-noon as a result of which she died. He went on to say that it was after 5 O clock in the evening when he was returning after doing his purchases at the Hat-Bazar. On reaching Dubey Ki Sarraiya he found that Thana people had also come there and on seeing the Bara Babu (Officer Incharge) he gave his statement (to him). He concluded by saying that due to family dispute Munna Shukla had shot dead his first wife. He put his signature on the fard-e-bayan after it was read over to him and he had himself read it. 3. On the basis of the fard-e-bayan a formal FIR was drawn upon the same day at 10.45.P.M. giving rise to Chainpur P.S. case no. 54 of 1996 under sections 302 of the Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, citing the appellant alone as the accused. 4. In course of investigation the police examined the father, the brother and other family members of the victim and from their statements many things came to light. It transpired that the victim Sangita Devi was married to the appellant Munna Shukla about three years before she was done to death. After marriage, as per custom, she had come back to live with her parents awaiting Gauna, the second marriage. At this stage the almost inevitable demand for a motorcycle in dowry was made from the grooms side. The girls father and her other family members expressed their inability to meet the demand and requested the appellant and his people to perform the second marriage. The boys side was, however, unrelenting in its demand and the gift of motorcycle was made a pre-condition for the second marriage. At this stage another development took place that completely changed the equation. The boys side was, however, unrelenting in its demand and the gift of motorcycle was made a pre-condition for the second marriage. At this stage another development took place that completely changed the equation. One of the acquitted accused Archana Devi who is the daughter of Munna Shuklas Phua lived at his house in connection with her studies. Munna Shukla eloped with her and came back to the village after marrying her at Mumbai. His second marriage to Archana Devi seems to have provided a bargaining chip to the family members of his first wife, Sangita Devi who" tried to take advantage of this development. It seems hints were dropped to initiate a criminal action against him for the offence of bigamy. Ail this led to the holding of a panchayati. In pursuance of the agreement arrived at in the panchayati, a piece of land (10 bighas according to some witnesses and 2.5 acres according to P.W. 4, the brother of the deceased) was transferred in the name of Sangita Devi so as to make a provision for her livelihood. Following the transfer of the land the second marriage took place and Sangita Devi went to live with Munna Shukla. The transfer of land in her favour that was intended to provide her with a measure of security really became the cause of her sufferings and eventually her death. She was insulted and tormented by her husband, his second wife, his uncles and their wives who frequently taunted that normally a bride would come bringing dowry to her husband but she had come to her husband only after taking away a chunk of the family land. She was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfilment of the demand of motor-cycle and also for taking away a piece of the family land in her name. Finally, she was killed by her husband in collusion with the other accused. 5. She was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfilment of the demand of motor-cycle and also for taking away a piece of the family land in her name. Finally, she was killed by her husband in collusion with the other accused. 5. On the basis of investigation the police came to the conclusion that the appellant Munna Shukla and the other accused had made a demand of motor-cycle in dowry and since the father and other family members of Sangita Devi failed to meet the demand, she was subjected to cruelty by Munna Shukla and his other family members (the six other accused finally acquitted by the trial court) for non: fulfilment of their demand and out of frustration and anger over the transfer of the land in her favour. The bitter grudge and resentment against her finally impelled Munna Shukla, helped by the other accused, to commit her murder. 6. The police, accordingly, submitted chargesheet against the appellant and the other six accused under sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 of the Penal Code and they were put on trial for offences punishable under those sections. The trial court, however, framed additional charges against Munna Shukla under sections 302 of the Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. 7. In course of trial ten prosecution witnesses were examined in support of the charges against the accused. Krishnanand Pandey, P.W.2 was a witness of the inquest report. Lochan Dusadh, P.W.3, the village chowkidar was the first-informant. Raj Narain Singh, P.W. 8 was the Officer Incharge of Chainpur RS. and I.O. of the case. Dr. Dan Prasad Singh, P.W. 9 had held post mortem on the body of the deceased Sangita Devi. Kailash Pandey, P.W. 1 and Jamuna Prasad Gond, P.W 10 were the residents of the village Dubey Ki Sarriya. PWs. 4 to 7 were from the victims family; Jagdish Dubey, P.W. 7 was her father, Ram Pravesh Dubey, P.W.4, her brother Jamuna Tiwary, P.W.6, her uncle and Kamlapati Dubey, P.W.5 was her cousin. 8. From the trial proceedings it appears that though Sangita Devi met her end at the house of he husband, the unkindest cut of all was to come to her openly and unashamedly from her own people. P.Ws. 8. From the trial proceedings it appears that though Sangita Devi met her end at the house of he husband, the unkindest cut of all was to come to her openly and unashamedly from her own people. P.Ws. 4 to 7 (that is to say, her own father, brother, uncle and cousin) apart from P.W.1, ( a co-villager of the accused) and P.W.3 (the village Chowkidar and the first-informant of the case) turned hostile. P.Ws. 4 to 7 denied having made any statements before the police. By their depositions in court they provided an impregnable shield to the accused. They told the court that there was no demand for dowry from Munna Shukla or the other accused; there was, therefore, no question of subjecting Sangita Devi to any cruelty for non-fulfilment of the demand and they did not know how and under what circumstances she died. The charge under sections 304-B and 498-A, thus, collapsed miserably and the other six accused who were charged under those sections were acquitted. 9. For her father, brother, uncle and cousin the value of Sangita Devis life was apparently more than a small piece of land. 10. The case was, thus, left only with the appellant Munna Shukla with the charge under section 302 of the Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act against him. In this regard too the defence took a bold and brave stand. It was suggested to the trial court that Sangita Devi had committed suicide; she had shot herself or had self inflicted the injuries on her person by any other means. 11. The inquest report (Ex.4) recorded two wounds on the person of the deceased, one on the right side of the chest with blood oozing out of it and the other a cut-iike wound, below the neck on the back. The story of suicide was apparently thought out in view of the inquest report. 12. To give further credence to the story of suicide, one of the prosecution witnesses (P.W.1) was even made to say (vide para 3) that the room in which the dead body of Sangita was lying was bolted from inside. The door of the room was broken open by means of a hammer by Munna Gond and Ram Bali Nonia (none of them examined before the court) in presence of a large number of villagers, 13. The door of the room was broken open by means of a hammer by Munna Gond and Ram Bali Nonia (none of them examined before the court) in presence of a large number of villagers, 13. While proceeding to examine the circumstance of Sangitas death and the story of suicide advanced on behalf of the defence, I am reminded of the meaningful, though trite, remark that witnesses may lie but objective circumstances do not. In this regard, I would first refer to the post mortem report (Ext. 8) and the deposition of Dr. Dan Prasad Singh, P.W.9 who held post mortem on her body. The doctor found the following two injuries on the person of Sangita Devi. "External injury: (i) Lacerated wound 2-1/2" 2"x chest deep over in front of chest in between the breast. This is wound of exist. (ii) Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/2 x chest deep, tatooing and unburned gun powder present over back in between both scapular region. This is wound of entry. Internal examination on dissection skull bones are intact and in position, brain substances pale and in position. Both chambers of the heart are empty, both lungs are pale and empty, liver, spleen, both kidneys, gall-bladder, pancreas, and suprarenal gland are in position and in-tact, stomach contained digested food material. Intestine contained liquid faecal matter and gasses, uterus empty no foetus in it." 14. The doctor further gave his opinion that two injuries were ante mortem and were caused by fire-arm. The injuries were fatal in nature. The death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of the injuries leading to cardio-respiratory failure. The doctor further stated before the court that the two injuries found on the person of the deceased were homicidal and those could not be suicidal. 15. The medical evidence thus gives a complete lie to the defence suggestion that the injuries on the person of the deceased were self-inflicted and she had committed suicide. The medical evidence further makes it clear that the marks of violence on the door of the room in which the body of Sangita was lying (also noted by the I.O., as we shall see presently) was not caused in the process of breaking open the door to bring out the dead body but was caused by her assailant against whom she had shut herself inside the room. 16. 16. Coming now to the objection findings at the place of occurrence, the I.O. (P.W.8) stated before the trial court that on 23.4.1996 while posted as Officer Incharge, Chainpur P.S. he received the information that a murder was committed in village Dubey Ki Sarraiya by gun-shot. He entered the information as Sanha no. 478, dated 23.4.1996 and proceeded for the village. On reaching the village, he recorded the fard-e-bayan of chowkidar Lochan Dusadh, which on being proved by him, was marked as Ext. 3, He himself took up the investigation of the case and prepared the inquest report, which on being proved by him was marked as Ext. 4. He then described the place of occurrence which was the pucca house of the accused in village Dubey Ki Sarraiya. The house faced towards north and there was an iron gate on its front door. On entering the Angan of the house, on its eastern side there were two small mud-buiit rooms with thatched roof, facing towards west; these two rooms were used as Kitchen. On the northern side of the Angan, there were two rooms with roof and on their west there was a stairs. On the western side of the Angan there were four rooms facing towards east. Among the four rooms two being at the northern and the southern ends had no doors to them but the two rooms in the middle were with doors. The second room from the north, being the third from the south, was the one in which the body of the deceased was lying on a cot. It was the room of the deceased Sangita Devi. The room adjoining it (i.e., the other room with doors) was of Archana Devi. In the room of the deceased, under the cot, in the middle, bfood had fallen in large amount that was tried to be removed and scratched away with some sharp instruments. The under-side of the cot was stained with blood, spurting from below. The right panel of the door of the room was found broken and removed and there were marks on the door of being shoved in by a heavy weapon from outside. The blood found on the floor of the room was collected and seized by the I.O. for which he prepared a seizure list, which on being proved by him was marked as Ext, 5. 17. The blood found on the floor of the room was collected and seized by the I.O. for which he prepared a seizure list, which on being proved by him was marked as Ext, 5. 17. On the basis of the medical evidence and the findings noted by the I.O. at the P.O. it is not difficult to reconstruct the visualise the manner in which the occurrence took place. Frightened at seeing her assailant armed with a gun and sensing threat to her life, Sangita Devi tried to take shelter in her room and bolted from inside. Terrorised further by the assault on the door, she tried to hide herself by crawling under the cot. She was in that position, facing the wall when the assailant broke open the door and fired the gun at her from point blank range. The bullet, thus, caused a charred and tatooed wound of entry on the back and the wound of exit on her chest between the breasts. Thus the stark truth is that Sangita Devi, a young girl of twenty was killed like a trapped animal and any member of gained-over prosecution witnesses can not alter this position. 18. But the question is who pulled the trigger, firing the lethal shot at Sangita. The answer is to be found in certain circumstances, established beyond doubt on the basis of the materials on record. 19. P.W. 1 Kailash Pandey, a covillager of the appellant, before he disowned his statement made to the police and was consequently declared hostile by the prosecution, stated before the trial court about the two marriages of the appellant. He stated that the first marriage of Munna Shukla took place 3 to 4 years ago at village Hasanpura. His phuas daughter lived in his house. He took her to Mumbai and married her there. On his marrying for the second time, a panchayati was held concerning his first wife and in that panchayati ten bighas of land was transferred in favour of the first wife. Thereafter, the first wife started living in her Sasural. He further said that the first wife of Munna Shukia died from gun-shot. In course of his cross-examination (vide para 5), P.W. 1 stated that the brothers of Tufani Shukla (the father of the appellant) lived in separate houses in the village. They did not live in the house in which Munna Shukla lived. He further said that the first wife of Munna Shukia died from gun-shot. In course of his cross-examination (vide para 5), P.W. 1 stated that the brothers of Tufani Shukla (the father of the appellant) lived in separate houses in the village. They did not live in the house in which Munna Shukla lived. On the date of occurrence, Tufani Shukla had gone away to attend some marriage in his family on the maternal side. He further said that he did not remember whether or not Munna Shukla was present in the village on the date of occurrence. 20. P.W. 2 Krishnanand Pandey, who was a witness of the inquest report stated that Munna Shuklas wife Sangita Devi was killed about an year and three months ago. In that connection, Darogaji had gone (to the village), Darogaji had seen Sangitas body that was lying in the house of Munna Shukla. Panchnama of Sangita Devis body was prepared by Darogaji and he had read it over to him and finding it correct he had put his signature on it. In course of cross-examination, he stated (vide para 3) that the room in which the body of Sangita Devi was lying was bolted from inside and the door was broken open with a hammer by Munna Gond and Ram Bali Nonia. This statement of the witness was evidently false and incorrect as seen above in the light of the medical evidence and the evidence of the I.O. He further stated (vide paragraph 5) that there were three brothers of Tufani Shukla (the father of the appellant). All the brothers were separate from each other for the past about ten years and they lived in separate houses. On the date of occurrence Tufani Shukla was not present in the village and he did not know as to where he had gone. 21. P.W.3, the village chowkidar and the first-informant of the case also stated about two marriages of Munna Shukla. He further said (vide para 1) that on going inside the house of Munna Shukla, he found there his wife lying dead and her chest was blood stained. No one told him anything but Bara Babu was saying that she died due to gun-shot. He further said (vide para 1) that on going inside the house of Munna Shukla, he found there his wife lying dead and her chest was blood stained. No one told him anything but Bara Babu was saying that she died due to gun-shot. No one told him as to how she received the gun-shot injury and he did not make any statement before the Bara Babu (at this stage he was declared hostile). In cross-examination (vide paragraph 3), he stated that Munna Shukla was also present there and he too had lifted the body at the time fo taking it out of the room. In paragraph 5 of his deposition, he stated that all the brothers of Tufani Shukla lived in separate houses. 22. P.W. 4 Ram Pravesh Dubey, the brother of the deceased, also stated about the two marriages of Munna Shukla. He also said that after Gauna his sister had gone to her Sasural and lived there. 23. The statement of the I.O. (P.W.8) has been partly referred to above. The l.O. in his deposition told the court about the statements made before him by each of the prosecution witnesses from which they had resiled during trial. He further stated that he arrived in the village at 5.30 in the evening. He had received the information at 5.15 and the distance between the police station and the P.O. village was about 7-8 Kms. He also sald that Lochan Dusadh (P.W.3) had arrived at the place of occurrence before him and he took his fard-e-bayan because no one else was willing to say anything about the occurrence and it appeared that the inmates of the house of the deceased were themselves involved in the murder. He also said that the room of Archana Devi was next to the room in which the dead body was found. In paragraph 4 of his deposition, he stated that in course of investigation he came to know that the father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the deceased did not live in the village where the occurrence had taken place. 24. P.W. 10, Jamuna Pd. Gond is another co-villager of the appellant. He is mostly a hear-say witness but he is the only one who remained true till the end. 24. P.W. 10, Jamuna Pd. Gond is another co-villager of the appellant. He is mostly a hear-say witness but he is the only one who remained true till the end. He also admitted without hesitation that long before the occurrence in question, a quarrel had taken place between his family and the family of Munna Shukla, and a case arising from it was going on. He stated that in that quarrel, that took place in 1995, gun-shots were fired by the people of Munna Shukla and there was enmity between the family of Munna Shukla and his own family. About the occurrence in question, he stated that on the date of occurrence he was in the village when at about 3.15 p.m. he heard a gun-shot. On hearing the shot he went to the house of Munna Shukla and there he came to learn from the villagers that Munna Shukla had shot his wife; he had shot his first wife. He said that he saw the dead body that had a bullet wound below the neck on the back and another wound on the chest between the two arms. He further stated that Munna Shukla had married the daughter of his Phua and tormented and tortured his first wife Sangita Devi and it was for that reason that the occurrence took place. He further said that when he went inside the house of Munna Shukla, he (Munna Shukla) was not there. He also said that he had seen the dead body of Munna Shuklas wife inside the house lying on a cot. The body was in a room that opened towards east. He denied that he deposed falsely due to enmity with the family of Munna Shukla. 25. In the light of the medical evidence and the evidences of the I.O. and the other prosecution witnesses though practically all of them appear to be miserably compromised, the following facts and circumstances are established beyond the shadow of doubt: (I) Sangita Devi was married to the appellant Munna Shukla about three years before she was killed on 23.4.1996. After, marriage while she lived with her parents before Gauna, Munna Shukla married: Archana Devi, the daughter of his Phua, after taking her to Mumbai. His second marriage led to a Panchayati in which some land was transferred in favour of his first wife (Sangita). After, marriage while she lived with her parents before Gauna, Munna Shukla married: Archana Devi, the daughter of his Phua, after taking her to Mumbai. His second marriage led to a Panchayati in which some land was transferred in favour of his first wife (Sangita). After the transfer of land she came to her husband and lived in his house till her end. This gives the appellant a strong motive for committing the murder. For, the death of Sangita Devi would stop her from coming between the appellant and Archana Devi, the wife of his own choice and her death would also get back the land that he had been forced to transfer in her favour. (II) On 23.4.1996, she was mercilessly killed in the room in which she used to live in the house of Munna Shukla. Her dead body was found with gun-shot injuries inside the room in the house of Munna Shukla. (III) Tufani Shukla, the father of the appellant Munna Shukla, did not live in the village Dubey Ki Sarraiya, where the occurrence took place. He and his wife, according to the I.O., lived in a different village. At any rate, according to PWs. 1 and 2, Tufani Shukla was not present in the village on the date of occurrence. (IV) The three brothers of Tufani Shukla (the other three accused acquitted by the trial court) were separate from him and each of them lived in separate houses in the villege. in other words, the house in which Sangita Devi was killed was occupied only by the appellant Munna Shukla, Archana Devi and the deceased Sangita Devi. (V) The assailant in order to kill Sangita Devi had to forcibly break open the door which she had bolted from inside. The marks of violence on the door indicated the use of some heavy instrument. This practically rules out Archana Devi being the actual assailant. (VI) Gun shot was heard at about 3.15 in the evening on 23.4.1996 making it clear that she was killed at that time. (VII) Munna Shukla was present in the house shortly after Sangita Devi was killed. According to P.W.3, the first-informant, was among those who lifted the body to bring it out of the room. (VIII) Neither Munna Shukla nor any one of his family members went to the police to report the murder of his wife. (VII) Munna Shukla was present in the house shortly after Sangita Devi was killed. According to P.W.3, the first-informant, was among those who lifted the body to bring it out of the room. (VIII) Neither Munna Shukla nor any one of his family members went to the police to report the murder of his wife. (IX) Not only did he not go to the police, he disappeared on the arrival of the Officer Incharge at his house at 5.30 in the evening. (X) He was later arrested by the police and produced in court on 18.6.96 when he was remanded to judicial custody. His failure to report the murder to the police, his action in absconding on the arrival of the police at his house and later the attempt to represent the murder as suicide completely destroys any presumption of his innocence. (XI) No dacoity was committed in the house of Munna Shukla or in the village on that date and no one else had any motive to kill Sangita Devi. 26. The facts and circumstances enumerated above are fully established by the evidence on record. The circumstances taken together completely exclude any possibility of the innocence of the appellant. The circumstances lead only to one conclusion and it is that the appellant alone is the killer of his wife Sangita Devi. 27. On a careful consideration of all the materials on record, I, thus, come to the conclusion that the trial court rightly convicted the appellant under sections 302 of the Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act and awarded proper sentences to him. The judgment and order passed by the trial court do not warrant any interference in appeal. 28. This appeal has no merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed. B.K.Jha, J. 29 I agree.