Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 201 (MP)

Maya @ Kusum v. State of M. P.

2008-02-05

AJIT SINGH, RAKESH SAKSENA

body2008
JUDGMENT Saksena, J. -- 1. Appellant Smt. Maya @ Kusum has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the impugned judgment dated 28.8.1998 passed in Sessions Trial No. 223 of 1997 by the Sessions Judge, Satna. 2. According to the prosecution case, appellant was married to one Baijnath, a neighbour of Sudama Prasad (PW 5). In the year 1994 appellant developed illicit relations with Sudama Prasad, due to which Baijnath turned her out of his house. Sudama, who was already married to Keshkali (deceased) brought and kept appellant in his house as second wife. This caused frequent skirmishes between the two women. In the night of 19.7.1997 Sudama and his father Dhuriya (PW 3) were asleep in the outside veranda of their house, whereas, Keshkali and appellant were asleep inside the house on separate cots. At about 12:30 O'clock Sudama heard an outcry of appellant that she had killed Keshkali. Dhuriya pushed open the door and alongwith Sudama went inside the room. There he saw Keshkali lying dead on her cot. She had three cut injuries on her neck and lot of blood was lying on the floor. Nobody else was inside the room except the appellant and deceased. It is alleged that appellant often used to threaten Keshkali that she would cut her into pieces. Report of the incident (Ex. P-7) was lodged by Sudama Prasad on the same day at 2:30 a.m. at Police Station Rampur Baghelan. Police registered the case under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against appellant. 3. In the course of investigation spot map (Ex P-10) was drawn and an axe and blood stained clothes were seized from the appellant. As per report of Serologist (Ex P-15), the clothes of the appellant and axe were found to be stained with human blood. Dead body of Keshkali was sent for post mortem examination to Community Health Centre, Rampur Baghelan, where Dr. Dhirendra Singh (PW 1) carried out post mortem examination. As per post mortem examination report (Ex. P-2), he found an eleptical incised wound of 13 x 4 cm with clear regular margins directed forward and medially on the outer surface of right jaw extending from angle of jaw onwards. Dhirendra Singh (PW 1) carried out post mortem examination. As per post mortem examination report (Ex. P-2), he found an eleptical incised wound of 13 x 4 cm with clear regular margins directed forward and medially on the outer surface of right jaw extending from angle of jaw onwards. Wound had cut skin, muscles and bony part of right mandible and widened below the jaw on the upper part of anterior lateral surface of neck deeply to 4 cm. There was another incised wound 10x 4 x 4 cms on the middle of right lateral surface of the neck, close and behind the first injury. Its margins were regular. It had cut the skin, muscles and right carotid and juglar blood vessels. Uterus of deceased was carrying 32 weeks gestation (pregnancy). After requisite investigation charge sheet was filed and the case was committed for trial. 4. There being no direct evidence, the case of prosecution rested on circumstantial evidence. Prosecution, in order to substantiate its case examined Dr. Dhirendra Singh (PW 1), Kau'shal Prasad (PW 2), Dhuriya (PW 3), Muniya (PW 4), Sudama Prasad (PW 5) and S.K. Shukla, Sub-Inspector (PW 6). Relying mainly on the evidence of witnesses Dhuriya, Muniya and Sudama about appellant's being last seen together with the deceased and medical evidence of Dr. Dhirendra Singh (PW 1), trial Court convicted and sentenced her on the charge of murder. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the evidence of the witnesses, who are husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of deceased, is not reliable. They are interested witnesses. In fact, deceased was murdered by her husband Sudama and in order to save him, all the aforesaid witnesses have falsely implicated the appellant. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the evidence of Dhuriya, Muniya and Sudama is natural and consistent. It was appellant alone, who was with the deceased in the room in the night soon before her death. Her clothes were found stained with human blood. The evidence of Sudama (PW 5) is corroborated by promptly lodged first information report and the evidence of Dr. Dhirendra Singh (PW I). He submits that trial Court has rightly held the appellant guilty. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. Her clothes were found stained with human blood. The evidence of Sudama (PW 5) is corroborated by promptly lodged first information report and the evidence of Dr. Dhirendra Singh (PW I). He submits that trial Court has rightly held the appellant guilty. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. From the evidence of Kaushal Prasad (PW 2), Dhuriya (PW 3), Muniya (PW 4), Sudama Prasad (PW 5) and Dr. Dhirendra Singh (PW I), who performed the post mortem examination of the dead body of deceased, it has been amply established that the deceased died a homicidal death. From the evidence of Dr. Dhirendra Singh, who had found two incised injuries on the neck of deceased, it is established that the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It has also been established that at the time of her death, deceased was carrying pregnancy of 32 weeks. 8. There is no direct evidence in the case. Case depends upon circumstantial evidence. Sudama Prasad (PW 5) has testified that he was married to Keshkali in the year 1988. He had developed illicit relations with appellant in the year 1994, therefore, her first husband Baijnath had turned her out, whereupon he kept the appellant as his mistress. Since both the women were residing with him in the same house, the relations between them were not cordial. In the night of incident he and his father had slept outside the house, his mother slept in a room located in the courtyard and his wife and appellant had slept in another room on separate cots. Around 12 0' clock in the night he heard appellant shouting that she had killed Keshkali. He and his father opened the door and went inside and in the torch light saw Keshkali lying dead having injuries on her neck. At that time, appellant was in the room and she had an axe in her hand. He then went to police station and lodged the report. In cross-examination he categorically denied that at the time of occurrence he had slept in the room with Keshkali. Evidence of Sudama Prasad (PW 5) finds total corroboration from the evidence of Dhuriya (PW 3) and Muniya (PW 4), who respectively, are father and mother of Sudama. He then went to police station and lodged the report. In cross-examination he categorically denied that at the time of occurrence he had slept in the room with Keshkali. Evidence of Sudama Prasad (PW 5) finds total corroboration from the evidence of Dhuriya (PW 3) and Muniya (PW 4), who respectively, are father and mother of Sudama. From the evidence of Sudama Prasad (PW 5), Dhuriya (PW 3) and Muniya (PW 4), it has clearly been established that the appellant was seen together with the deceased soon before her death. 9. So far as recovery and seizure of article 'A' axe at the instance of appellant is concerned, trial Court itself did not hold it as proved beyond doubt. However, it has been established by the Forensic Science Laboratory report (Ex. P-14) and Serologist report (Ex.P-15) that the Sari (article 'B') and blouse (article 'C') seized from the body of appellant were stained with human blood. 10. By the evidence of Dhuriya (PW 3), Muniya (PW 4) and Sudama (PW 5) it has been established that at the time of occurrence only appellant was with the deceased in a closed room. It has also been established that in the night, appellant had shouted that she had killed Keshkali. Though deceased and the appellant were sleeping on separate cots but human blood was found on the clothes of appellant. From the evidence of Dr. Dhirendra Singh (PW 1) it is proved that two incised injuries were found on the neck of deceased and she had died due to those injuries. Aforesaid circumstances have been established by the prosecution by cogent and convincing evidence and they clearly and unerringly point out that it was appellant alone and no one else who had caused the death of deceased. The explanation given by the appellant, that the deceased was murdered by her husband Sudama, in the light of convincing prosecution evidence, does not appear trustworthy. The fact that at the time of homicidal death deceased was carrying pregnancy of 32 weeks, rules out any probability that Sudama might have killed her. 11. On appraisal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and on perusal of the impugned judgment we are satisfied that the trial Court has weighed, scanned and considered the evidence with due care and caution, in the proper perspective and has rightly recorded the finding of guilt of the appellant. 11. On appraisal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and on perusal of the impugned judgment we are satisfied that the trial Court has weighed, scanned and considered the evidence with due care and caution, in the proper perspective and has rightly recorded the finding of guilt of the appellant. Even on re-appreciation of the evidence we find no error in the impugned judgment requiring any interference therein. 12. Accordingly, impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is affirmed and appeal is dismissed.