Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 478 (MP)

Surendra Singh v. State of M. P.

2008-03-27

ARUN MISHRA, S.S.DWIVEDI

body2008
JUDGMENT : ARUN MISHRA, J. 1. The appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment dated 17-5-1993 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in S.T. No. 63/1992. The accused/appellant Surendra Singh has been convicted for the commission of offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to RI for life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for one year for committing murder of his wife Chandrakali. Accused/appellants Ramaotar Singh and Shanti alias Indrakali are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased Chandrakali. They have been convicted along with Surendra Singh for the commission of offence under section 201/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to RI for four years and fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for six months. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is that on 10-1-1992 Ramaotar and Shanti committed murder of the deceased Chandrakali by inserting “Mogari” (wooden log which is commonly used for washing clothes) in her vagina and later-on death was caused by asphyxia, after concealing wooden log pretended that deceased by hanging herself committed suicide. Ramkishore, brother of the accused Ramaotar, lodged the report on 11-1-1992 at police station Sayra Distt. Rewa. In the report, it was mentioned that accused Shanti had informed the complainant that Chandrakali has committed suicide. Her dead body which was hanging was brought down by accused Surendra and Ramaotar Singh. Accused Shanti had also informed that Chandrakali was lying dead. When she heard noise of cattles, she went to the place where cattles used to be tied and found that Chandrakali, wife of accused Surendra Singh, has committed suicide. The dead body of Chandrakali was lying in the “Saar” i.e. the place reserved for tying the cattles. On the basis of the report lodged by Ramkishore, Marg Intimation No. 2/92 was recorded under section 174, Criminal Procedure Code. Investigation was initiated. Inquest of the dead body was prepared. In the inquest report Ex.P/1 it was mentioned that the place where dead body was found was cleaned by applying layer of cow-dung. Several injuries were visible on the body of the deceased. Blood was coming out from her private parts. There were injuries on her thigh and buttock. One rope as found tied with the wooden structure and the height was 4½ hands from ground level. Several injuries were visible on the body of the deceased. Blood was coming out from her private parts. There were injuries on her thigh and buttock. One rope as found tied with the wooden structure and the height was 4½ hands from ground level. (6 feet 9 inches approximately). Spot map Ex.P/3 was also prepared by R.K. Dwivedi (PW-14). Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Seizure of the blood stained and control soil was also made. Autopsy was performed. Bruise on the right side of thigh 2” x ½” was found. Bruise on the left side of buttock 1½” x ½” was found. Bruise on the right thigh 1” x ½” was also found. Lacerated wound was found on vaginal area. Besides, several injuries were noted by the Dr. S. K. Pathak (PW-7). Jagdish Prasad (PW-8), Patwari has also prepared spot map Ex.P/8. As per the information furnished under section 27 of Evidence Act by Surendra Singh vide Ex.P/9 blood stained Mogri was seized on 13-1-1992. After due investigation, accused persons were charge-sheeted. Articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Report Ex.P/22 has been filed. On mogri, dhoti, petticoat and soil, presence of blood was confirmed. On blouse and control soil, presence of blood was not found. 3. The accused/appellants abjured their guilt and contended that they have been falsely implicated in the case and they are innocent. All the accused took plea that they were not in the house when the suicide was committed by the deceased Chandrakali. 4. Prosecution has examined in all 14 witnesses. In defence, one witness Ramvishram Singh (DW-1) has been examined. The trial Court has convicted the appellant/accused Surendra Singh under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, he has also been convicted along with accused Ramaotar Singh and Shanti alias Indrakali under section 201/34 of Indian Penal Code and punished with the aforesaid sentence. Aggrieved thereby, the appeal has been preferred. 5. Shri S.C. Datt, Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that conviction of accused/appellant Surendra for commission of the offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code and conviction of remaining all the accused/appellants for commission of the offence under section 201 of Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained in view of the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that conviction of accused/appellant Surendra for commission of the offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code and conviction of remaining all the accused/appellants for commission of the offence under section 201 of Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained in view of the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Alternatively, it has been submitted that even if the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant/accused Surendra Singh is affirmed as he is husband of the deceased Chandrakali, there is no evidence on record to justify that two appellants namely Ramaotar and Shanti alias Indrakali caused disappearance of any evidence of commission of offence of murder. Thus, they could not have been legally convicted for commission of offence under section 201 of Indian Penal Code by the Court below. He has further submitted that evidence on record falls short of proving the guilt of the accused/appellants Ramaotar and Shanti, it cannot be said that there is any legal evidence so as to sustain their conviction. He placed reliance on various decisions to be referred later. 6. Shri T.K. Modh, Dy. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that it is a brutal case of murder and all the efforts were made to conceal the evidence of offence by the accused persons. The evidence of commission of offence was not only tampered with but a false report was lodged at the instance of information furnished by accused Shanti alias Indrakali, on the basis of which, Ramkishore, brother of accused Ramaotar, lodged false report that suicide was committed by Chandrakali. Weapon of offence was concealed. Spot was tampered with, fresh layer of cow dung was applied. It is apparent that all the three accused persons were in the house when offence was committed. Thus, the conviction recorded by the trial Court is proper. No case for interference in the appeal is made out. 7. When we consider the First Information Report lodged by Ramkishore (PW-1), brother of accused Ramaotar, on the basis of the information furnished to him by accused Shanti alias Indrakalil; though, it is clearly a case of murder in brutal manner. She knowingly to conceal the offence intimated Ramkishore that Chandrakali, who is her daughter-in-law, has committed suicide and dead body which was hanging was brought down by Ramaotar and Surendra Singh. She knowingly to conceal the offence intimated Ramkishore that Chandrakali, who is her daughter-in-law, has committed suicide and dead body which was hanging was brought down by Ramaotar and Surendra Singh. Ramkishore had lodged the First Information Report, he has admitted to have lodged the report and also proved his signature on it. Ramkishore was clearly furnished totally wrong information by Shanti Devi and he had lodged clearly a false report. Thus, it is apparent that conduct of the appellants/accused was to draw curtain on the offence which was committed in brutal manner in the close vicinity of the house where it was not possible for an outsider to witness the incident. 8. Chandrakali was done away with in brutal manner. It is apparent from the autopsy report Ex.P/7 performed by Dr. S.K. Pathak (PW-7). He found vagina of the deceased torn at 6 O'clock position and size of tear was 1½” x ½” and anus and vagina were united. There was contusion in black colour on the right thigh of 2” x ½.” There was contusion on the left buttock of 1½” x ½.” There was another contusion in front of right thigh of 1” x ½.” There was horizontally placed ligature mark on the ‘neck’ below thyroid cartilage which was dark brown colour which was Parchmented feeling. It was 12” in size which was not regular mark and its width was ½.” Viscera was preserved. Death was due to asphyxia caused by strangulation. All the injuries were ante-mortem which were caused within 48 hours from performance of autopsy. Doctor was clearly opined that in case, person hangs himself and rope is cut, injuries would not be caused in the method and manner in which they were found on the person of the deceased. He has also stated that if a person is tied and thereafter rope is cut then injuries would be post-mortem not ante-mortem. Even if, rope is cut after three minutes, kind of injuries found on deceased would not found on the body. Private parts would not bleed. Doctor denied the suggestions that injuries were caused on body when her body was brought down to the ground. The nature of injuries caused to deceased clearly indicates that deceased was battered and wooden log was inserted in her private parts mercilessly. Private parts would not bleed. Doctor denied the suggestions that injuries were caused on body when her body was brought down to the ground. The nature of injuries caused to deceased clearly indicates that deceased was battered and wooden log was inserted in her private parts mercilessly. There were other injury caused on thigh and buttock which shows brutal manner in which battering to the deceased, she was strangulated also. Injuries were ante-mortem. It is not possible that deceased could have hanged herself at the place where body was found lying. The height was of roof level at that place was 6 feet and 9 inch. The rope which was found hanging was 2½ hands after the portion tied in the neck was cut meaning thereby the remaining height was 3 feet and 9 inch. Rope tied with neck was cut as per the version of the accused Surendra to bring down the dead body. Thus, the body was hanging as per the version of the accused about 4 feet from the top in the space of 3'9.” Thus, it would not have been possible for the deceased to hang herself within the ambit of 3'9” distance from the ground level. Even otherwise it is clear that the case of hanging was set-up by the accused persons and a false story of suicide was set-up by them to protect themselves. Accused could not have removed evidence of battering done with the deceased by inserting a wooden log in the private parts of the deceased and it is apparent that death was caused in the close vicinity of the house by means of strangulation resulting into asphyxia which was the cause of the death. Death was clearly homicidal in nature. As per First Information Report itself, the presence of all the three accused persons in the house at the time of commission of offence stands established beyond periphery of doubt. Report was lodged the near relative of the accused at 9 p.m. in the night so as to cover up the case on being informed by Shanti to Ramkishore that Chandrakali committed suicide and dead body which was hanging was brought down by Ramaotar and Surendra Singh. Apart from that, we find from other evidence also that accused persons were present in the house when Chandrakali died. Apart from that, we find from other evidence also that accused persons were present in the house when Chandrakali died. Ramvishram Singh (DW1) is the witness examined by the defence, he has stated that Surendra raised hue and cry, accused Surendra had cut the rope by which the deceased was hanging. When he reached, he found the dead body lying on the ground, at the place meant for tying the cattles. Ramaotar and Shanti reached at that point of time, but he is not reliable in that regard as Shanti and Ramaotar were present very much as per the first information report and Ramaotar was instrumental as per First Information Report in bringing down the dead body on the ground along with Surendra Singh. It is trite law that when offence has taken place “in the close walls of the house it is upon the appellant/accused to explain their conduct.” If they give false explanation that creates additional link to the chain of circumstance. Either the accused offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue. The same is the circumstance against the accused. Simple denial is not to favour the accused to explain their conduct when the offence has taken place in the close vicinity of the house. Here, deceased was wife of accused Surendra Singh and daughter-in-law of two other accused persons. We have considered various decisions of Apex Court in this regard in Cr. Appeal No. 86/1999 decided on 11-9-2007 thus:- The Apex Court in State of U.P. vs. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, (1992) 3 SCC 300 , has laid down in the backdrop of the fact that death of wife took place in the house, circumstances required explanation from the husband. In the instant case, husband was in the company of wife, thus, it was necessary for him to explain the circumstances how homicidal death took place, it was not the case of death by drowning. In Sheri Kishan vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1994 SC 1597 , the Apex Court has laid down in the backdrop of the fact that accused was present in the house on the fateful night, medical evidence assumes importance in the case to ascertain cause of death. Medical evidence indicated that death was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation around the neck. Medical evidence indicated that death was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation around the neck. It was not the case of accused that he brought down the dead body and placed it on the cot, the Apex Court held, which corroborated the prosecution version that the death was due to strangulation and accused was responsible for that. In Sheikh Abdul Hamid and Another vs. State of M.P. AIR 1998 SC 942 , it was considered whether there was possibility of an outsider to have committed the offence, there was no such possibility found as such accused was convicted. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra, JT 2006 (9) SC 50, the Apex Court has considered that when an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house, in the instant case husband and wife were in the company, it is held that in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence is insisted upon by the Courts. The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. It has been further observed that where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation. In Collector of Customs, Madras and Others vs. D. Bhoormull, 1974 (3) SCR 833 , it was laid down that the law does not require the prosecution to prove the impossible. All that it requires is the establishment of such a degree of probability that the prudent man may, on its basis, believe in the existence of the fact in issue. Thus, legal proof is not necessarily perfect proof; often it is nothing more than a prudent man's estimate as to the probabilities of the case. In State of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammad Omar and Others, (2000) 8 SCC 382 , the Apex Court has observed that the pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilized doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The doctrine of presumption is not alien to the above rule, nor would it impair the temper of the rule. On the other hand, if the traditional rule relating to burden of proof of the prosecution is allowed to be wrapped in pedantic coverage, the offenders in serious offences would be the major beneficiaries and the society would be the casualty. When the prosecution succeeded in establishing the particular circumstances, the Court has to presume the existence of certain facts which it thinks likely to have happened. In State of Tamil Nadu vs. Rajendran, (1999) 8 SCC 679 , State of U.P. vs. Dr. When the prosecution succeeded in establishing the particular circumstances, the Court has to presume the existence of certain facts which it thinks likely to have happened. In State of Tamil Nadu vs. Rajendran, (1999) 8 SCC 679 , State of U.P. vs. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, AIR 1992 SC 2045 , State of Maharashtra vs. Suresh, (2000) 1 SCC 471 , Ganesh Lal vs. State of Rajashtan, (2002) 1 SCC 731 and Gulab Chand vs. State of M.P. (1995) 3 SCC 574 , the Apex Court has observed that in a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eye-witness account is available, the principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. In Nika Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1973 (1) SCR 428 , the Apex Court has observed that a wife was murdered with a sharp edged weapon, when the accused alone was with his wife in the house and the relations of the accused with her were strained would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt. In Ganeshlal vs. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 3 SCC 106 , the Apex Court observed that when the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife inside his house, when the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation were held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant was a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. 9. Obviously, it was a case of homicidal death. What explanation was offered by Shanti immediately was that she got lodged a false report and sent Ramkishore, near relative, to the police station mentioning that deceased has committed suicide by hanging herself. She tried to cover up the case as per the version in FIR and as informed to private persons as per her case. What explanation was offered by Shanti immediately was that she got lodged a false report and sent Ramkishore, near relative, to the police station mentioning that deceased has committed suicide by hanging herself. She tried to cover up the case as per the version in FIR and as informed to private persons as per her case. Ramaotar was also present and brought down the dead body, the presence of Ramaotar stands established. The place was cleaned by applying fresh layer of cow dung. It was done obviously in order to remove the evidence of murder which was committed in brutal manner in the house of the accused persons. Admittedly, they were residing together. The deceased was also residing with them. In the instant case, effort was made by the accused persons to pretend that it was a case of commission of suicide and pretended that dead body was hanging with rope at a place where it was not possible to hang. Where the dead body was kept, the place was cleaned, is apparent from the inquest report (Ex.P/1) and fresh layer of cow dung was applied as mentioned in the inquest (Ex.P/1) prepared on 11-1-1992, next day of the incident. Height of roof, rope found have also been mentioned in detail in the inquest which clearly speaks that full effort was made by the accused person to pretend that it was a case of commission of suicide by hanging; whereas it was not a case of commission of suicide by hanging. Deceased was battered up and was done away with in brutal manner by strangulating her by tying a rope in her neck. There were several other injuries. Apparently, death was not by way of hanging as the place was not having so much height along with the size of the rope found that a person could hang at the place where the body and a rope was found. Mogri inserted in private part was also removed from the spot and was concealed. It is apparent that accused Surenda was also in the house at the time when offence was committed. Trial Court has rightly found that all the accused persons were in the house when offence was committed. Accused Surendra has failed to explain his conduct. The evidence on record indicates that there used to be altercation between the deceased and accused Surendra Singh. Trial Court has rightly found that all the accused persons were in the house when offence was committed. Accused Surendra has failed to explain his conduct. The evidence on record indicates that there used to be altercation between the deceased and accused Surendra Singh. As stated by Shriniwas (PW-2), father of the deceased, that Surendra Singh used to harass the deceased. Sokhilal, other family member has also stated that Chandrakali has committed suicide. Thus, accused were making false pretension and tried to cover up the offence. Though, the witness was declared hostile but the aforesaid part of the deposition indicates the conduct of the accused. 10. Girja Prasad (PW-5) has also proved the map prepared by him Ex.P/3. Seizure of blood stained and control soil has been proved by Motilal (PW-10). Jagdish Prasad Patwari (PW-8) has proved the map prayed by him. R.K. Dwivedi (PW-14) has proved the investigation done by him. In the circumstances, the conviction of the appellant/accused Surendra under section 302 of Indian Penal Code calls for no interference. 11. It is apparent that accused Ramaotar as well as Shanti alias Indrakali and Surendra were instrumental in tampering with the spot and as per the version mentioned in the First Information Report they offered wrong explanation by trying to conceal offence committed false report was lodged by Ramkishore a near relative of the accused at the instance of accused Shanti. Obviously, she was a party to removal of the evidence and thereafter, a stage was prepared by all the accused to make it a case of suicide committed in the house. Accused Shanti raised false hue and cry and sent Ramkishore, brother-in-law, to lodge the false report. She caused obviously disappearance of evidence as the place where dead body was lying fresh layer of cow dung was applied and thereafter false alarm was raised so that other private people may think that suicide was committed. Blood was coming out from the private part of the deceased where wooden log was inserted in brutal manner. The evidence on spot was obviously removed effort and sole object was to screen the offenders and the offence. In case, it was the case of commission of suicide by hanging, no effort should have been made to even touch the body much less bringing down the dead body. The evidence on spot was obviously removed effort and sole object was to screen the offenders and the offence. In case, it was the case of commission of suicide by hanging, no effort should have been made to even touch the body much less bringing down the dead body. Attempt was made to cause disappearance of the evidence but for battering which was done on the private parts offence could not be concealed. In State of Kerala vs. Markose, AIR 1962 Kerala 133 it has been observed that “sections 201 and 203, Indian Penal Code, contemplate giving information respecting an offence which accused person knows or believes to be false. For the offence under section 201, Indian Penal Code, the false information should also be furnished with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. Unlike section 182 of the Penal Code which deals with giving false information to any public servant, sections 201 and 203 do not refer to whom false information should be given; it would take in private persons as well as public servants, including the police. If any person gives the first information statement to the police even though not voluntarily which is recorded under section 154, Criminal Procedure Code and, if it ultimately turns out to be false it would amount to giving false information and the offender would be punishable under section 201, Indian Penal Code provided the requisite intention is proved. Reliance was placed in the Apex Court's decision in the case of Smt. Kalawati and Another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1953 SC 131 , it has been observed that: “21. But, there can scarcely be any doubt that she must have witnessed the murder of her husband lying next to her on a charpai. Shibbi who was at a distance of 18 feet was roused by the sound of a sword attack. Kalawati must have woke up also at least during the course of the assault if not at its commencement, several injuries having been inflicted in succession. When Shibbi woke up, Kalawati's bed was empty, and she was found in a room nearby and not at the place of occurrence. She trotted out an elaborate story of dacoity, which cannot be accepted as true. When Shibbi woke up, Kalawati's bed was empty, and she was found in a room nearby and not at the place of occurrence. She trotted out an elaborate story of dacoity, which cannot be accepted as true. Even if in terror she ran away from her bed and stood at a distance, she is almost sure to have known who was the offender, unless he had his face muffled. The first version she gave to the police head constable when she appeared on the scene immediately after the occurrence, is, we think, false, and we are of opinion that she knew or believed it to be false. The border line between abetment of the offence and giving false information to screen the offender is rather than in her case, but it is prudent to err on the safe side, and hold her guilty only of an offence under section 201, Penal Code, as the learned Sessions Judge did. 22. It was urged for her by Mr. Mathur that as she was acquitted of this offence by the Judicial Commissioner, and as there has been no appeal by the government against the acquittal, she cannot now be convicted of the same by this Court. This argument proceeds on a fallacy. Section 201 is not restricted to the case of a person who screens the actual offender, it can be applied even to a person guilty of the main offence, though, as a matter of practice a Court will not convict a person both of the main offence and under section 201. The Judicial Commissioner acquitted Kalawati of the offence under section 201 for which she was convicted by the Sessions Judge, only because he taught that the main offence itself, namely, murder, was brought home to her. But if we think for the reasons given above that it would not be safe to convict her of the main offence the acquittal is no legal impediment to her conviction under section 201. It was held by the Privy Council in Begy vs. Emperor, 52 Ind. App. 191 (PC) that in a charge of murder under section 302 a conviction under section 201 without a further charge being made was warranted by the provisions of section 237, Criminal Procedure Code. It was held by the Privy Council in Begy vs. Emperor, 52 Ind. App. 191 (PC) that in a charge of murder under section 302 a conviction under section 201 without a further charge being made was warranted by the provisions of section 237, Criminal Procedure Code. If Kalawati had been acquitted of an offence under section 201 independently of the charge of murder against her, it would have been a different matter. but as her acquittal is so intimately related to the charge of the main offence, and as it took place only for the reason that she was held guilty of murder, there is no bar to the restoration of the conviction under section 201.” In the present case also, the accused persons were fully aware of the incident. They committed the murder of Chandrakali in the house and then effort was made to save themselves from the offence. 12. In Brij Kishore and Others vs. State of U.P. 1989 Cri. L.J. 616, the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court has observed that in the factual matrix the murder of the wife was committed by the husband with assistance of third person father in law; though did not participate in crime having knowledge of murder, he being living in same house. He with knowledge and belief of murder directed to lodge report of suicide by his daughter-in-law with intention to screen offender. Father-in-law was held guilty of offence under section 201, Indian Penal Code. 13. In the facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the submission of Shri S.C. Datt, Sr. counsel that no offence under section 201, Indian Penal Code is made out by making false statement by accused persons. He has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mulak Raj and Others vs. State of Haryana, 1996 Cr. L.R. (SC) 72, wherein it has been considered that body of deceased was lying in burnt condition in kitchen. Tongue was protruding out and bleeding from the nose. Door of the kitchen was bolted from inside. Trial Court acquitted on the ground of suicide. High Court held it was a case of homicidal death. Burns on body were post-mortem in nature. No suicide note found at the spot. No cries heard by the neighbours. Tongue was protruding out and bleeding from the nose. Door of the kitchen was bolted from inside. Trial Court acquitted on the ground of suicide. High Court held it was a case of homicidal death. Burns on body were post-mortem in nature. No suicide note found at the spot. No cries heard by the neighbours. The Apex Court held that it was a case of “homicidal death.” At the same time, the Apex Court has observed that case of homicidal dowry death, clinching circumstance to connect the accused with the crime must be established. Each case rests upon the facts and circumstances proved in the case. In the instant case, circumstances are sufficient. Presence of accused at the time of commission of offence stands established and their explanation was obviously false and incorrect. They tampered with the spot, effort was made to screen the offence. No case is made out to show any leniency in the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants under section 201, Indian Penal Code. 14. Resultantly, the appeal being devoid of substance, the same is hereby dismissed. We affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant/accused Surendra Singh under section 302 of Indian Penal Code along with the sentence imposed upon the appellants/accused Surendra, Ramaotar and Shanti alias Indrakali under section 201 of Indian Penal Code by the trial Court. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. At this stage, learned counsel Shri Siddharth Datt, appearing for the appellants/ accused submitted that bail application was moved only for appellants No. 2 and 3 namely Ramaotar and Shanti as such appellant No. 1 is not on bail. We verified the facts from the record that bail application (I.A. No. 3302/93) was moved for suspension of sentence only for two appellants. The order was passed for grant of bail by this Court on 27-5-1993 considering the aforesaid application which was filed on behalf of the two appellants/accused Ramaotar and Shanti and they were ordered to be released on bail. Appellant Surendra was not ordered to be released on bail. However, it appears from the order sheets that he has taken undue advantage of the order passed by this Court on 27-5-1993 and has furnished the bail papers and thereafter, he appeared on date fixed for appearance of appellants No. 2 and 3. Appellant Surendra was not ordered to be released on bail. However, it appears from the order sheets that he has taken undue advantage of the order passed by this Court on 27-5-1993 and has furnished the bail papers and thereafter, he appeared on date fixed for appearance of appellants No. 2 and 3. All the appellants appeared in this Court on 11-10-1993 and next date fixed for their appearance was 20-4-1994. Thereafter, application (I.A. No. 7966/93) was filed by the counsel for exemption from personal appearance on behalf of all the 3 accused/appellants by naming them in application which was allowed by this Court on 8-12-1993 and presence was directed before the CJM, Rewa on 20-4-1994 and on such subsequent dates as may be given. It is apparent that serious kind of fraud was played by Surendra Singh by getting himself released under the guise of the order dated 27-5-1993. The order was passed in I.A. No. 3302/93 which was moved on behalf of the appellants Ramaotar and Shanti alias Indrakali. They prayed for their release on bail for the offence under section 201/34 of Indian Penal Code as sentence was of four years. Thus, Surendra Singh has played serious kind of fraud in order to secure his release under the guise of order dated 27-5-1993. 15. Let separate proceeding be registered against appellant No. 1 Surendra Singh for misrepresentation and securing his release on bail. Whereas, he was not ordered to be released on bail, this amounts to criminal contempt. The arrest of Surendra Singh is directed forth-with and S.P. Rewa is directed to produce him in this Court on 21-4-2008. His illegally furnished bail bond is cancelled. Non-bailable warrant of arrest against appellant No. 1 Surendra Singh be issued. Let CJM, Rewa also send detailed report and file in which bail was submitted by Surendra Singh and how he was released without any order for his release. Let separate proceedings be drawn and be listed on 21-4-2008. 16. The appeal is dismissed.