Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 622 (MP)

Vijay Kumar @ Raju Soni v. State of M. P.

2011-05-19

RAKESH SAKSENA, T.K.KAUSHAL

body2011
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Saksena, J. 1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 6.9.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora, District Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.904/1993 convicting the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1000/- for committing murder of his wife Lalli Bai. 2. According to prosecution, Lalli Bai, the deceased was married to appellant about 7-8 years before the occurrence, which took place in the night of 21.8.1993. Her parents had given dowry in the marriage according to their capacity, however, her mother- in-law Sumitra Bai (dead), father-in-law Nanhuram and appellant used to harass her. Appellant did not like Lalli Bai. Apart from that, all the accused persons used to demand motorcycle, TV and radio from her. She used to inform her parents and brother about the maltreatment meted out to her by her husband and in-laws. Her husband used to manhandle her on being provoked by her mother-in-law Sumitra. A few months before the death of deceased her father-in-law took her to her parents' house and left her there saying that she was not liked by his son therefore he will not keep her. After about a month deceased's father Pyarelal and Adharelal (PW-8) carried deceased to her in-laws' house. With great difficulty they permitted deceased to live in the house. 3. Deceased's elder sister Puniya Bai was married in the neighbouring village Bichhiya to Arjun Soni (PW-5). On 22.8.1993 at about 9:30 AM Rajendra Prasad informed Arjun Soni that his sister-in-law had died. Arjun Prasad (PW-5) with his wife Puniya Bai (PW-4) went to village Gudri to the house of appellant. They found deceased lying dead on a mattress in the room. They saw injuries on her face and neck. They also found a tyre lever of cycle lying pressed in the arm-pit of deceased. Arjun Prasad (PW-5) informed about the incident to Kotwar Rammilan (PW-6) who went to police station, Slimnabad and informed about the incident whereupon a marg No.38/93 under section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered. 4. S.D.O.P. Surendra Singh Baghel (PW-11) went at the spot, conducted inquest proceedings and recorded inquest memorandum Ex.P/5. On inspection of the body, he found injuries on the face and neck of deceased. Honey and lime was applied on the marks of injuries. 4. S.D.O.P. Surendra Singh Baghel (PW-11) went at the spot, conducted inquest proceedings and recorded inquest memorandum Ex.P/5. On inspection of the body, he found injuries on the face and neck of deceased. Honey and lime was applied on the marks of injuries. He seized a cycle tyre lever from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.P/6 and sent the dead body of deceased for postmortem examination to Government Hospital, Sihora where Dr. Smt. Maya Tiwari (PW-2) and Dr. N.A. Ansari (PW-13) conducted postmortem examination. Vide their report Ex.P/1, they found that deceased had died of asphyxia due to strangulation. After marg enquiry, Station Officer of police J.K.Tiwari (PW-12) registered first information report Ex.P/13 under sections 302/34 and 201 I.P.C. After investigation, charge sheet was filed and the case was committed for trial. 5. All the three accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication. According to them, family members of deceased had concocted a false case because Lalli Bai had died. Accused Sumitra Bai, the mother-in-law of deceased, died during the pendency of the trial. 6. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, held the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him of the charge under section 302 I.P.C., however, finding the evidence insufficient against co-accused Nanhuram, father-in-law, acquitted him. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction, appellant has preferred this appeal. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. As far as the homicidal nature of death of deceased, Arjun Prasad (PW-5) and Puniya Bai (PW-4), sister of deceased, deposed that on getting information about the death of Lalli Bai, they went to the house of appellant. They found Lalli Bai lying dead. Arjun Prasad, Puniya Bai and Ramanuj (PW-10) saw the dead body in the house of appellant in village Gudri. Village Kotwar Rammilan (PW-6) went to police station Slimnabad and tendered information about the death of Lalli Bai. SDOP Surendra Singh Baghel (PW-11) recorded marg and enquired about the death of deceased. He conducted inquest proceedings and recorded memorandum Ex.P/5. Dead body of Lalli Bai was sent for postmortem examination to Government Hospital, Sihora where Dr. Smt. Maya Tiwari (PW-2) and Dr. N.A. Ansari (PW-13) conducted autopsy. Puniya Bai (PW-4), Arjun Prasad (PW-5) and Radheshyam (PW-1) found marks of injuries on the face and neck of deceased. He conducted inquest proceedings and recorded memorandum Ex.P/5. Dead body of Lalli Bai was sent for postmortem examination to Government Hospital, Sihora where Dr. Smt. Maya Tiwari (PW-2) and Dr. N.A. Ansari (PW-13) conducted autopsy. Puniya Bai (PW-4), Arjun Prasad (PW-5) and Radheshyam (PW-1) found marks of injuries on the face and neck of deceased. According to them, honey and lime was applied on the neck. SDOP Surendra Singh Baghel also observed marks of injuries on the neck and face of deceased. 9. Dr. N.A. Ansari (PW-13) on postmortem examination found following injuries on the body of deceased:- (i) Numerous marks of linear abrasion on right side of face, size 3/4 cm x 1 cm. Face was swollen and congested. (ii) Similar three linear abrasion marks on the left side of face. (iii) Seven abrasion marks on the right side of neck, size 1/2 " x 1/4 ". On internal examination, Dr. Ansari found thyroid bone dislocated. Blood was deposited under the thyroid bone. There was blood under the skin and neck muscles. Trachea was congested. Muscles of neck were also deeply congested. There was diffused red swelling in front of the neck size 3" x 4". It could have been caused by compression by thumb and fingers. In his opinion, the death was caused within 24-48 hours before the postmortem examination. The cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. The abrasions found on the face were possible by nails of the fingers. Injury to neck was possible by some hard and blunt object like tyre lever sent to him for examination. Postmortem report is Ex.P/1. It was thus clearly evident that deceased Lalli Bai died of strangulation and that her death was homicidal in nature. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that the trial Court gravely erred in placing implicit reliance on the evidence of Radheshyam (PW-1), Puniya Bai (PW-4), Arjun Prasad (PW-5), Adharelal (PW-8) and Ramanuj (PW-10) and in holding that appellant had any motive to cause death of deceased. According to him, it was not established beyond doubt that it was appellant who caused death of deceased. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction of the appellant. 11. We have gone through the entire evidence on record. 12. According to him, it was not established beyond doubt that it was appellant who caused death of deceased. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction of the appellant. 11. We have gone through the entire evidence on record. 12. It is true that there is no direct evidence in the case, but the prosecution has adduced circumstantial evidence to establish that appellant committed murder of deceased. It has not been disputed that deceased was the wife of appellant and she lived in the dwelling house of her husband. Her dead body was also found in the house of appellant. It has been established by the medical and other evidence on record that deceased had died a homicidal death due to strangulation. Absolutely no explanation has been furnished by the appellant as to under what circumstances deceased died. It has also not been indicated by the appellant or the evidence on record that any outside person caused the death of deceased. Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record, concluded that it was not established by the prosecution evidence that accused Nanhuram, father of appellant, caused the death of deceased. 13. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Versus State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681 , Apex Court 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 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 a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eyewitness account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eyewitness account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said 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 a case relating to murder of wife by accused, Apex Court held that: " Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling house where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime." 14. In the instant case, it has not been disputed that appellant was the husband of deceased Lalli Bai. According to Radheshyam (PW-1), brother of deceased, whenever deceased used to come to his house she told that her mother-in-law and husband used to demand money, radio and TV and manhandle her. Though this statement of Radheshyam (PW-1) was sought to be confronted with his police statement Ex.D/2, but on perusal of Ex.D/2, it does not appear to be an omission. 15. Adharelal (PW-8) deposed that deceased told to him that appellant and his mother used to harass and manhandle her. Ramanuj (PW-10), cousin of deceased, deposed that Lalli Bai told to him that appellant demanded Rs.10,000/- and TV. This witness was though declared hostile, but he remained firm on his statement that appellant used to demand Rs.10,000/- and a TV. No doubt the fact about the demand was not specifically mentioned in the police statement Ex.P/11 of Ramanuj (PW-10), but it was clearly mentioned by the witness that deceased told to him that appellant, her father-in-law and mother-in-law used to pressurize her for bringing TV and a cycle. Arjun Prasad (PW-5), brother-in- law of deceased, stated that deceased used to tell him about her manhandling by her in-laws. Arjun Prasad (PW-5), brother-in- law of deceased, stated that deceased used to tell him about her manhandling by her in-laws. He deposed that appellant told to him that deceased was not of his choice and that he would not keep her. 16. Adharelal (PW-8), who had acted as a mediator in the marriage of appellant with deceased, deposed that appellant and his mother used to beat her and subject her to cruelty. Some time before the death of deceased, appellant's father had left deceased at the house of her parents and nobody came thereafter to fetch her. Then he and Pyarelal, the father of deceased, took deceased to appellant's house where the accused persons expressed their unwillingness to keep her at their house. However, on their insistence, they let deceased live with them but after 2-4 months he came to know about the death of deceased. 17. After a close appreciation of the aforesaid evidence, it seems to us that appellant did not like deceased. Relations between him and deceased were not cordial. He manhandled her and often subjected her to cruelty. Even after death of deceased, he did not inform police or the relatives of deceased. On postmortem examination by doctors, it was found that deceased died a homicidal death due to strangulation. Appellant did not offer any explanation about such a death of his wife/deceased. He did not say that deceased did not live with him in his house. 18. After appraisal of the facts situation of the instant case in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan (supra), we are of the definite opinion that the trial Court committed no error in holding that it was appellant only who intentionally caused the death of his wife Lalli Bai by throttling and convicting him under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 19. Thus, we find no merit in this appeal. We uphold the conviction of the appellant and life sentence with fine of Rs.1000/- awarded to him under section 302 of IPC. 20. Appeal fails and is dismissed.