Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 976 (MP)

Laxman Singh v. State of M. P.

2010-09-23

G.S.SOLANKI, RAKESH SAKSENA

body2010
JUDGMENT G.S. Solanki, J. 1. Second Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh has passed the impugned judgment dated 30.11.2004 in S.T. No. 272 of 2002 by which Appellant/accused has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment. Being aggrieved, Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Prosecution case in short is that on 2.5.2002 at about 6 O'clock in the morning Lachhi Bai (mother of the Appellant/accused) informed Inder Singh that her daughter-in-law Uma Bai (wife of Appellant) hanged herself in the cattle house. Inder Singh, his father Gulab Singh and Appellant took her off the string thinking that she was alive. Inder Singh lodged Marg intimation Ex.P/ 17 at Police Station, Raneh, during Marg inquiry, Sub Inspector S.P. Shukla (PW16) prepared the spot map Ex.P/10 and inquest Panchnama Ex.P/4. Dead body of Uma Bai was sent for post-mortem examination. 3. Dr. S.K. Jain (PW14) performed the autopsy on the body of Uma Bai. He found contusion of 6 cm. x 6 cm. over left lateral part of lower chest and upper abdomen. He also found a foet us of about 24 weeks of a female child in her uterus and opined death by shock due to extensive hemorrhage due to the rupture of spleen and prepared post-mortem report Ex.P/14. During Marg inquiry, it was found that Uma Bai was married with Appellant three years before dainik bhaskar the incident. After some time of marriage, Appellant, his mother, father and other relatives tortured Urna Bai and subjected her to cruelty, in relation to demand of dowry of Rs. 20,000/-. Due to aforesaid cruelty, she committed suicide. Therefore, the offence under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 201 and 334 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the Appellant, his mother, father and other relatives. 4. After usual investigation, accused were charge-sheeted. The Appellant and co-accused abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication. 5. On appraisal of the evidence on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the co-accused but convicted the Appellant/accused as mentioned hereinabove. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the trial Court had committed error in not appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective. Despite the fact that the witnesses examined by the prosecution turned hostile, trial Court wrongly recorded conviction against the Appellant/accused, therefore, conviction recorded by trial Court is liable to be set aside. 7. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the trial Court had committed error in not appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective. Despite the fact that the witnesses examined by the prosecution turned hostile, trial Court wrongly recorded conviction against the Appellant/accused, therefore, conviction recorded by trial Court is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the State justified and supported the impugned judgment: He contended that though prosecution witnesses turned hostile yet there is sufficient circumstantial evidence against the Appellant/ accused, to establish alleged offence against him. 8. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment, the evidence and the other material on record. 9. Prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses. It is true that Manohar Singh (PW1) (brother of deceased), Challu Singh (PW2) (father of deceased), Parwati Bai (PW3) (mother of deceased) and Gopal Singh (PW9) (another brother of deceased), all turned hostile in regard to the facts of cruelty and demand of dowry. 10. Prosecution mainly rests on four circumstances: (i) deceased Uma Bai was married to dainik bhaskar Appellant/accused; (ii) she died in the dwelling house of Appellant/accused; (iii) she died unnatural death; and (iv) Appellant remained unable to offer satisfactory explanation as to how deceased received injuries. 11. Manohar Singh (PW1), Challu Singh (PW2), Parwati Bai (PW3) and Gopal Singh (PW9) categorically deposed that Uma Bai was married to Appellant. Though they did not support the case of prosecution regarding the facts of cruelty and demand of dowry, but the dainik bhaskarey are consistent regarding the fact of marriage, In these circumstances, their testimonies can be believed to that extent only. It is not disputed that Uma Bai died in her matrimonial house. 12. S.P. Shukla, Investigating Officer, who prepared the spot map Ex.P/10 and inquest panchnama Ex.P/4, categorically deposed that Uma Bai was found dead in the dwelling house of the Appellant/accused. This fact was further supported by Marg report Ex.P/17, which was recorded by Inder Singh. 13. Circumstances No. (iii) and (iv): Dr. S.K. Jain (PW14) performed the autopsy on the body of Uma Bai and found contusion of 6 cm. x6 cm. over left lateral part of lower chest and upper abdomen. Injury was caused by hard and blunt object and was ante-mortem in nature. 13. Circumstances No. (iii) and (iv): Dr. S.K. Jain (PW14) performed the autopsy on the body of Uma Bai and found contusion of 6 cm. x6 cm. over left lateral part of lower chest and upper abdomen. Injury was caused by hard and blunt object and was ante-mortem in nature. He further deposed that on internal examination he found that spleen was ruptured and peritoneal cavity was filled with blood. He further opined that deceased carried an embryo of about 24 weeks. In his opinion, Uma Bai died by shock due to extensive hemorrhage due to rupture of spleen. There is nothing in cross-examination of Dr. S.K. Jain to disbelieve his testimony. He is an independent witness. It is established by his evidence that deceased Uma Bai was pregnant at the time of incident. She died a homicidal death due to rapture of spleen. Though this witness admitted that injury found on the person of deceased Uma Bai could be caused by forceful collusion with hard and blunt object but such a situation was not brought on record by defence. On the contrary, explanation putforth by defence that Uma Bai committed suicide by hanging herself, is belied by medical evidence on record. 14. In Trimukh Moroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra JT 2006 (9) SC 50, Hon'ble Apex dainik bhaskar Court observed that unnatural death of wife in the dwelling house where the husband normally resided and did not offer satisfactory explanation as to how the deceased/wife received the injuries or offered an explanation which is found to be false, is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime. 15. The facts of the case in hand are also similar to the facts of Trimukh Moroti Kirkan's case (supra). In this case also deceased Uma Bai died unnatural death by rupture of spleen and Appellant/accused did not offer satisfactory explanation as to how the deceased received such injury. In this case primarily it was reported to police vide Marg intimation Ex.P/16 that Uma Bai had committed suicide by hanging herself. It reveals from Ex.P/16 that Appellant/accused, informed Inder Singh, author of Ex.P/17 that at about 5 O'clock in the morning deceased Uma Devi went to answer the natural call. In this case primarily it was reported to police vide Marg intimation Ex.P/16 that Uma Bai had committed suicide by hanging herself. It reveals from Ex.P/16 that Appellant/accused, informed Inder Singh, author of Ex.P/17 that at about 5 O'clock in the morning deceased Uma Devi went to answer the natural call. In these circumstances, it is established that Appellant/accused Laxman Singh was at home and being a husband he was duty bound to explain the circumstances in which deceased Uma Bai got ante-mortem injury on her body which resulted in rupture of her spleen, which was the cause of her death. 16. In above mentioned circumstances, it is established that Appellant/accused was last resided together with wife in his dwelling house and he was unable to offer satisfactory explanation as to how deceased (Uma Bai) received the fatal injury on her body. It is further established from record that explanation offered by Appellant/accused that deceased Uma Bai committed suicide by hanging herself was found to be false, because it was belied by the medical evidence. 17. Dr. S.K. Jain (PW14) categorically stated that he did not find any ligature mark on the neck of the deceased. In these circumstances, it becomes an addition link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. 18. All these circumstances, cumulatively establish that Appellant/accused only is responsible for commission of homicidal death of Uma Bai. 19. In view of above mentioned circumstances, we are of the opinion that trial Court has not committed any error in recording the conviction of Appellant/ accused and we affirm it. 20. In the result, we find no force in this appeal, same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.