Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 733 (MP)

Punja v. State of M. P.

2006-05-18

S.K.KULSHRESTHA, S.S.DWIVEDI

body2006
Judgment ( 1. ) BY this appeal, the appellant assails the judgment dated 13-12-2005 by which he stands convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced thereunder to imprisonment for life and R. I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- (in default of payment of fine further RI for six months) awarded thereunder. ( 2. ) THE deceased Babudibai was the wife of the appellant. According to the prosecution, her dead body was seen afloat a well and a report with regard to unnatural death was lodged on 4-3-2005 at 11 oclock by Kanhaiyalal at Police Station Ravti vide Annexure P-5, on the basis whereof a merg under Section 174 of the Cr. PC was registered. The dead body was recovered from the spot in the presence of the witnesses vide Panchanama Ex. P-3 and was identified to be the body of Babudibai. Inquest was held by P. W. 19 D. B. S. Tomar and report Ex. P-2 was prepared. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination where it was seen by P. W. 20 Dr. N. M. Unda, who gave the report Ex. P-19 to the effect that she had met death which was homicidal on account of the injuries having been caused to her by means of a hard and blunt object. Accordingly, FIR Ex. P-12 was recorded and the accused was arrested vide Ex. P-ll. ( 3. ) THE viscera of the deceased was obtained and sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory alongwith the femur of the deceased as also the stone, which had been tied to the body of the deceased. After completion of the investigation, the accused was prosecuted. ( 4. ) ON charges being framed, against the appellant, he denied having committed any offence and claimed to be tried. He pleaded that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated. The learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, on trial, however found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him as stated hereinabove. It is against this conviction and sentence that the present appeal has been filed. ( 5. ) IT is not disputed by the parties that the evidence against the appellant is circumstantial and rests mainly on account of his inaction to report that his wife was missing; to search for her and his general reputation of being quarrelsome. It is against this conviction and sentence that the present appeal has been filed. ( 5. ) IT is not disputed by the parties that the evidence against the appellant is circumstantial and rests mainly on account of his inaction to report that his wife was missing; to search for her and his general reputation of being quarrelsome. The prosecution has examined as many as 20 witnesses. Out of these witness P. W. 1 Setibai @ Chhotibai mother of the deceased and P. W. 3 Devji father of the deceased stated that though initially behaviour of the accused was normal, they had four children out of which one had expired, later the accused had started suspecting her fidelity and he used to quarrel with her. P. W. 1 Setibai stated that the accused used to beat the deceased. P. W. 6 Virsingh brother of the deceased, has deposed that the accused was suspecting her character. P. W. 8 Ranu, P. W. 9 Bheru, P. W. 10 Babulal, P. W. 11 Nagji and P. W. 12 Manji, all neighbours, have stated that the accused used to quarrel with his wife. ( 6. ) THE other evidence tendered is in the nature of the testimony of P. W. 13 Dharma, who has stated that when the accused was brought by the police, he had confessed to having killed his wife. Apparently, the statement was not admissible and rightly omitted from consideration by the Trial Court. ( 7. ) APART from the evidence aforesaid, P. W. 3 Devji has been examined in respect of the inquest Ex. P-2, P. W. 4 Ramesh has been examined in respect of the Panchanama Ex. P-3 of the body made at the time the body was taken out of the well and although P. W. 4 Ramesh claims to be the brother of the deceased, it was stated to be the body of an unknown woman. P. W. 14 Satyeshkumar Sharma has referred to Exs. P-7, P-8, P-9 and P-10, viscera collected while P. W. 12 Manji has deposed to the arrest vide Ex. P- 1. P. W. 17 P. K. Sharma, Town Inspector, P. W. 18 Harishankar and P. W. 19 DBS Tomar, have taken steps in investigation about which there is no dispute, so also about the testimony of P. W. 20 Dr. N. M. Unda to the effect that Babudibais death was homicidal. P- 1. P. W. 17 P. K. Sharma, Town Inspector, P. W. 18 Harishankar and P. W. 19 DBS Tomar, have taken steps in investigation about which there is no dispute, so also about the testimony of P. W. 20 Dr. N. M. Unda to the effect that Babudibais death was homicidal. ( 8. ) FROM the testimony referred to above, the only circumstance that one can deduce is that the accused was of quarrelsome nature and he used to suspect the fidelity of his wife. The other circumstances, though not on record, taken into account by the Trial Court and can be safely so assumed, are that there was total apathy on the part of the accused to make a report about his missing wife and himself to take steps to search for her. From the circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has concluded that it was the accused, who had caused the death of his wife and had thrown her in the well. ( 9. ) WHILE it is true that the strange conduct of the accused in not searching his wife despite her absence for inordinately long period and not making any report to the police that she was missing, can give rise to a very strong suspicion but such circumstances, neither individually nor cumulatively are of any conclusive nature to infer that it is the accused and the accused alone, who has caused the homicidal death of his wife and thrown the body in the well. In order that the circumstantial evidence can be used against an accused, the prosecution must establish that the circumstances indicate to the guilt of the accused and are inconsistent with any hypothesis of his innocence. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that on account of mere omission of a person to make a report on account of his missing wife and especially when it is clear that the relations were strained or his lack of enthusiasm in making a search for her are not circumstances inconsistent with his innocence. In so far as the death of his wife is concerned, there are circumstances of the quarrelsome nature of the accused. No inference of guilt can be drawn as notwithstanding that he was cantankerous, he may not have killed his wife. In so far as the death of his wife is concerned, there are circumstances of the quarrelsome nature of the accused. No inference of guilt can be drawn as notwithstanding that he was cantankerous, he may not have killed his wife. There is no contemporaneous evidence such as recovery of any weapon or other piece of evidence connecting the accused with the commission of the offence. In so far as causing of death of his wife or attempting to screen the evidence thereof is concerned, we do not find the circumstances clinching enough to hold the accused guilty of the charges for which he has been punished. Under these circumstances, we find that it is a case where the appellant deserves benefit of doubt. ( 10. ) ACCORDINGLY, this appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and the sentence passed against him is set aside. He is acquitted of the charges against him and set at liberty. He be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other offence.