Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1244 (MP)

Ittu @ Thatiya S/o Bhura v. State of M. P.

2010-12-16

M.A.SIDDIQUI, RAKESH SAKSENA

body2010
JUDGMENT M.A. Siddiqui, J. 1. The appeal has been preferred by the Appellant feeling aggrieved against the judgment dated 27.09.2001, delivered by the then Addl. Sessions Judge, Lakhnadone, District-Seoni in Sessions Trial No. 39/01 convicting the accused-Appellant under Section 302 of IPC for committing murder of his wife, sentencing him to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- ,in default of payment of fine amount, Appellant to undergo further R.I for three years. 2. Undisputedly, Munnibai was wife of accused-Appellant who used to reside with him. Devakibai (PW.1) is the daughter of accused-Appellant, Tulsabai (PW.2) is elder sister of deceased Munnibai, Phulmatibai (PW.3) is mother-in-law of accused, Somnath (PW.5) is brother-in-law of the accused-Appellant. 3. In nut shell, the prosecution story is that on 28th January, 2001 at about 11.45 AM Sitaram (PW.4), Kotwar reached Police Station-Lakhnadone and lodged a report that he is Kotwar of Village- Madba, at 6.30 AM in the morning from Village- Bijori, one Atru Mehra came to his house and gave information that his elder brother Ittu @ Thatiya at 4 AM in the morning murdered his wife by means of axe, so he along with Atru went to Village- Bijori and saw that in the house of accused Thatiya , his wife was lying dead, her neck was cut and blood was there. After seeing this, he came to report the matter. On this report, S.K. Bharti (PW.10), Sub-Inspector (Police) and Incharge of Police Station-Lakhnadone registered crime against Appellant vide Ex.P/1. He also registered Marg No. 3/01 vide Ex.P/2. Police visited the spot and found that an axe was lying there and too much blood was there, body of Munnibai was lying on the floor and her neck was cut. Then police gave notice vide Ex.P/4 and made inquest report Ex.P/5. Spot map Ex.P/3 was prepared. A blood stained axe, pieces of bangles, plain soil and blood stained soil were seized vide memo Ex.P/6. Accused was arrested and his clothes which were blood stained were seized before the witnesses vide seizure memo Ex.P/7. Dead body of Munnibai was sent for postmortem. 4. Dr. Jagdish Prasad (PW.6) conducted the postmortem and found that Munnibai's head was chopped off from the neck. He found that injuries were antemortem and could be caused by sharp cutting heavy object, the duration of death was between 6 to 36 hours. He gave postmortem report (P.8). Dr. Dead body of Munnibai was sent for postmortem. 4. Dr. Jagdish Prasad (PW.6) conducted the postmortem and found that Munnibai's head was chopped off from the neck. He found that injuries were antemortem and could be caused by sharp cutting heavy object, the duration of death was between 6 to 36 hours. He gave postmortem report (P.8). Dr. Jagdish Prasad stated that with request letter dated 9.2.2001 an axe was sent to him from the police station. After examining the said axe, he gave opinion that from that axe incised injuries to deceased Munnibai could be caused. 5. Police, after usual investigation, filed charge sheet before the Court of ACJM, Lakhnadone where a Criminal Case No. 146/2001 was registered under Section 302 IPC against accused and on 19.3.2001 criminal case was committed to the Court of Sessions and on 7.5.2001 the then Addl. Sessions Judge, Lakhnadone put the charge under Section IPC against the accused. 6. Accused-Appellant abjured the guilt. His defence was that he was not in his house at the time of incident and when he came back in the morning, he found that his wife was murdered. Tulsabai was annoyed with him so due to enmity he has been falsely implicated in the offence. 7. Learned trial Court, relying on the versions of Devakibai (PW.1) an eye witness, Tulsabai (PW.2), Phulmatibai (PW.3), Sitaram (PW.4), Somnath (PW.5) as corroborative witness, S.K. Bharti (PW.10) investigating officer, and Dr. Jagdish Prasad (PW.6) who conducted the postmortem, convicted and sentenced the accused-Appellant as aforesaid Aggrieved thereby this appeal has been preferred. 8. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the original record of the trial Court. 9. The prosecution produced ten witnesses including Devakibai (PW.1) an eye witness, who is the daughter of deceased and the accused. She has categorically stated before the trial Court that she was with the accused and her mother. She was awake when the incident took place. She stated that she saw that his father (accused) got up from the floor, he wore Dhoti and shirt, and took an axe which was lying in the corner. At that time, brother of the witness Lochan was lying with her mother. She was awake when the incident took place. She stated that she saw that his father (accused) got up from the floor, he wore Dhoti and shirt, and took an axe which was lying in the corner. At that time, brother of the witness Lochan was lying with her mother. After pulling the axe, accused pulled her mother by hands and asked her to sit, on that her mother told that she has to go for urine, but accused dealt a blow of axe on the forehead of her mother due to which her mother fell down from the face side, and then accused dealt 5-6 blows of axe, by which her neck was cut and ribs were fractured. When accused was beating her, this witness ran away to call her elder mother (Tulsabai). The witness narrated the incident to Tulsabai, on this Tulsabai took maternal uncle Somnath, etc. and came running on the spot and found that accused had fled away from the spot and mother of the witness was lying, her head was chopped off and her neck was cut, an axe was lying there and blood was there. 10. Tulsabai (PW.2) supported the version of Devakibai (PW.1). She has stated that she is the elder sister of Munnibai, Devakibai informed her that accused had killed her mother, so she went on the spot and saw that neck of the Munnibai was cut, an axe having blood stained was there. So many persons gathered there who asked from the accused and accused admitted the guilt. Phulmatibai (PW.3), mother-in-law of accused also supported the version of prosecution. She stated that her daughter Munnibai was murdered by the accused with the help of an axe. She also saw the body of her daughter Munnibai whose head was chopped off and was separated from the body. Sitaram (PW.4), Kotwar, stated that Atru, brother of accused informed him that accused had murdered his wife early in the morning, so he went to lodge the report at Police Station, Lakhnadone and the report was lodged vide Ex.P/1. Somnath (PW.5), brother-in-law of the accused, also supported the version of Devakibai (PW.1) that she informed about the incident to him and Tulsabai and he also saw the body of deceased. Darogalal (PW.7), Patwari stated that he prepared the spot map Ex.P/10. 11. Dr. Somnath (PW.5), brother-in-law of the accused, also supported the version of Devakibai (PW.1) that she informed about the incident to him and Tulsabai and he also saw the body of deceased. Darogalal (PW.7), Patwari stated that he prepared the spot map Ex.P/10. 11. Dr. S.K. Bharti (PW.10), Sub-Inspector of Police Station, Lakhnadone stated that on 28.1.2001 Sitaram Dahriya, Village Kotwar came at 11.45 AM and lodged the named report against the accused vide Ex.P/1, then he investigated the matter and made the inquest of body and sent it for postmortem. 12. Dr. Jagdish Prasad (PW.6), who performed the postmortem on 29.01.2001 found following injuries on the person of Munnibai: (i) Incised wound on left occipital region 3 Inch x 4 Inch scalp deep; (ii) Incised wound at mandible angle of right face 3 Inch x 2 Inch bone deep, maxilla also cut, pinna of right ear was also cut; (iii) Cut end of Head is at the level of C2 vertebra behind the mandibular margin on both sides and below thyroid cartilage. All muscles, vessels, nerves, trachea, oesophagus also cut at the same level. It was opined by Dr. Jagdish Prasad (PW.6) that injuries were antemortem in nature and could be caused by sharp cutting heavy object. In the opinion of Dr. Jagdish Prasad (PW.6) the cause of death was cut throat injury leading to instantaneous death. The time of death was in between 6 to 36 hours. 13. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Appellant has been falsely implicated in the case by all the witnesses who are near relatives of the deceased. Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State has submitted that the witnesses are not only related to deceased, but are also related to accused-Appellant. Devakibai (PW.1) is the daughter of accused Appellant who has witnessed the whole incident. As the incident has taken place in the house so natural witnesses will be the inhabitants. 14. Learned Counsel for Appellant has submitted that Tulsabai (PW.2) has cooked up a case and has taught Devakibai (PW.1). From the evidence on record, we find that Tulsabai has no grudge or any enmity to falsely implicate accused-Appellant. The prosecution witnesses are natural and trust worthy and their evidence is cogent and does not suffer from any infirmity. 15. 14. Learned Counsel for Appellant has submitted that Tulsabai (PW.2) has cooked up a case and has taught Devakibai (PW.1). From the evidence on record, we find that Tulsabai has no grudge or any enmity to falsely implicate accused-Appellant. The prosecution witnesses are natural and trust worthy and their evidence is cogent and does not suffer from any infirmity. 15. Learned Counsel for Appellant has submitted that there is no one to look after the children of deceased so lenient view may be taken. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State has submitted that accused has brutally murdered his wife, her head was chopped off, no further lenient view can be taken because the imprisonment for life is the minimum sentence for murder. 16. In the circumstances of the case, no further lenient view is possible. Trial Court has rightly punished the Appellant. No interference is called for in this appeal. The appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.