Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 37 (UTT)

NARENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2014-02-14

B.S.VERMA, SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon. Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. (Oral) Both the convicts have preferred this jail appeal against the judgment and order dated 4.2.2011 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Almora in Sessions Trial No.33 of 2009, State Vs. Narendra Singh & another. The said trial was adjudicated by the court below, who found both of them guilty for the offence under section 302/120-B as well as u/s 316 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They have appropriately been sentenced by the learned Judge. The said trial pertains to Patwari Circle Sahron, District Almora. 2. The theme of prosecution story, emerging out from the first information report dated 1.6.2009, is that deceased Smt. Prema Devi, a young lady in her early twenties, was the wife of Narendra Singh (A-1). Co-accused Khasti Devi (A-2) was the cousin sister of father of A-1. In that way, they were inter-related to each other residing in close vicinity of the same village. A-1 developed illicit affiliations and inclinations towards A-2. In the morning of 29th May, 2009, Prema Devi was found dead in her house which was at the ground floor. On the first floor, Rajendra Singh (PW3), father-in-law of deceased, along with his younger son Ravindra Singh (PW4), used to reside, while in the ground floor, deceased Prema Devi resided along with her husband A-1. She was in the very advance stage of her family way and almost one month later to the incident, her delivery was due. 3. In the morning of that day (29.05.2009), some foul smell was noticed by PW4 emanating from the room located in the ground floor of the house where the deceased resided with her husband. So he (PW4) informed his father regarding such smell. The father (PW3) went to fetch PW2 Harish Singh (the husband of village Pradhan) and the room, where the occurrence took place, was opened in his presence. On entering the room Prema Devi was found dead; her dead body was lying on a cot and A-1 was found absconded from the spot. PW4 Ravindra Singh went in search of his brother A-1 who was found in the house of A-2. A-1 directed his brother (PW4) not to disclose the things to anyone further. Between the legs of deceased Prema Devi, a newly born baby (age assessed in the post-mortem only eight months) was found dead. PW4 Ravindra Singh went in search of his brother A-1 who was found in the house of A-2. A-1 directed his brother (PW4) not to disclose the things to anyone further. Between the legs of deceased Prema Devi, a newly born baby (age assessed in the post-mortem only eight months) was found dead. The navel cord had come out from the body of Prema Devi in such a way that it was tying the throat of the baby. 4. The Gram Pradhan (PW2) informed the father of Prema Devi telephonically who rushed to the spot and the F.I.R. thus, could be lodged. 5. Inquest (Ex.Ka-5) was prepared on 30.5.2009 at 11 AM at the spot. The death had occurred in the suspicious circumstances. It was estimated to have taken place 3-4 days before. There was no noticeable external injury on the body of either of the deceased, so the post-mortem was recommended by the members of inquest report. Autopsy was conducted on 31.5.2009 before noon hours in Government Hospital, Ranikhet. Autopsy report of fetus is Ex.Ka-3. The body had been swollen, weight of foetus was 3.5 kilogram, length 17 inches, rigor mortis was absent, foul smell and maggots were present. In the opinion of doctor, death had taken place 3-5 days before the post-mortem was conducted. So, it matches with the date and time of occurrence i.e. in the late evening of 27.5.2009. Cause of death was asphyxia. 6. Autopsy report of Smt. Prema Devi is Ex.Ka-4. Her body was also swollen, foul smell was there, rigor mortis was absent and maggots were present all over the body. Death had occurred between 3-5 days before the post-mortem done. Cause of death could not be ascertained, so her viscera was preserved by the doctor. No external injury was noticed by the autopsy conducting doctor on both the dead bodies. 7. Viscera was sent for chemical examination and the report of the Forensic Laboratory dated 2.12.2010 (Ex.Ka-20) shows that Methyl Carbonate (Baygon) insecticide was present in the stomach, intestine, liver, kidney and spleen, and it was the poison. So, obviously, the death of Prema Devi had occurred on account of this poison, as found in different parts of her body. 8. Viscera was sent for chemical examination and the report of the Forensic Laboratory dated 2.12.2010 (Ex.Ka-20) shows that Methyl Carbonate (Baygon) insecticide was present in the stomach, intestine, liver, kidney and spleen, and it was the poison. So, obviously, the death of Prema Devi had occurred on account of this poison, as found in different parts of her body. 8. The investigation culminated into submission of chargesheet against both the accused persons Khasti Devi and Narendra Singh for the offences under section 302/120-B IPC as well as u/s 316 of the Indian Penal Code. Charge was, accordingly, levelled against them, to which they abjured their guilt and claimed trial. 9. Prosecution has examined six witnesses in this case, namely, PW1 Balam Singh, PW2 Harish Chandra Singh, PW3 Rajendra Singh, PW4 Ravindra Singh, PW5 Dr. P.S. Kholiya and PW6 Anand Singh Bhandari. 10. Thereafter the statements of both the accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. Narendra Singh (A-1) has accepted that deceased Prema Devi was his wife and he wedded with her in the year 2008. He has also accepted that he used to reside in the ground floor of the house and the first floor was occupied by his father (PW3) along with his younger brother (PW4). He has stated that witnesses had deposed against him on account of enmity but has not disclosed the basis of such so-called enmity. We fail to understand as to how his own father and real younger brother had inimical terms with him for no reason. Thus, we are unable to accept the ground of animosity, as stated by A-1. That apart, A-1 has expressed his unawareness regarding the death, post-mortem of his wife and newly born baby. He has neither denied his presence in the house along with his wife nor has explained his presence elsewhere, if any, on the fateful day of occurrence. As envisaged under section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proving the fact about the death of his wife as well as newly born baby was upon him, which he has failed to discharge. Besides, appellant Khasti Devi has not explained her presence elsewhere than at the place of occurrence on the fateful day, as has been deposed by PW4. So, she has also failed to discharge the burden imposed upon her, as adumberated under section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. 11. Besides, appellant Khasti Devi has not explained her presence elsewhere than at the place of occurrence on the fateful day, as has been deposed by PW4. So, she has also failed to discharge the burden imposed upon her, as adumberated under section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. 11. Otherwise also, PW4 Ravindra Singh, real brother of A-1, has specifically proved in his chief-examination that on 27th May, 2009, there was a marriage of daughter of Chandan Singh in the village. Although, he went to attend that marriage but he returned home in the evening of the same day, and saw his brother Narendra Singh (A-1), Prema Devi (deceased) and Khasti Devi (A-2), in the ground floor of his house at about 8-8:30 P.M. Thereafter, he went to his uncle’s house to asleep because his brother A-1 was habitual to come in the house inebriated. So being scared, he did not remain on the first floor of the house that night. Second day i.e. on 28.5.2009, he passed the time in the marriage itself and returned only in the morning of 29th May, 2009, where he noticed the foul smell emanating from the ground floor of the house. So, he informed his father, who, in turn, informed the Gram Pradhan Harish Singh. The door of house of occurrence was opened in presence of all and they found Prema Devi in such a state. A-1 was not present and found absconding. PW4 went in search of A-1 and found his presence in the house of A-2. There, A-1 commanded PW4 not to disclose the things any further. In cross-examination, PW4 has also deposed that in the evening of 27.5.2009, he heard the quarrelling voice coming out from the ground floor. So being scared, he left to his uncle’s house for asleep. 12. The evidence of PW4 has been corroborated by PW3 Rajendra Singh, father of A-1. He has deposed that A-1 used to reside with his wife Prema Devi (deceased) in the ground floor of the house and on 27.5.2009, he saw the couple in the house itself. He went to attend the marriage of Charan Singh’s daughter in the village in the evening of 27.5.2009 and remained there till the morning of 29.5.2009. His younger son PW4 had come from Delhi and he was also with him (PW3). He went to attend the marriage of Charan Singh’s daughter in the village in the evening of 27.5.2009 and remained there till the morning of 29.5.2009. His younger son PW4 had come from Delhi and he was also with him (PW3). Since the evening of 27.5.2009 till the morning of 29.5.2009, the house was under the care and supervision of A-1. He has deposed that PW4 informed him in the morning of 29.5.2009 that foul smell was emanating from the ground floor of the house. The Gram Pradhan was, accordingly, informed and the room was opened in presence of all where this scene was found inside the room. Revenue Authority i.e. Naib Tehsildar was rang up who turned up on the spot next day and found the dead body of Prema Devi and her newly born baby, as afore-mentioned. He has further deposed that as regards the illicit intimacy and affairs between A-1 and A-2, a meeting was organized in the village on 25.5.2009 in his presence where it was settled that both the appellants will live separately thenceforth. Although, he has accepted that on account of often quarrel of A-1 with his wife (deceased), he did not have good relations with his son A-1 but at the same time, he has categorically stated that A-1 was present in the house in the late evening of the fateful day. 13. PW1 Balam Singh is the reporter and father of deceased Prema Devi. He has not seen any occurrence but he reached at the spot after receiving the telephonic information from the Village Pradhan and then, lodged the report. 14. PW2 Harish Chandra Singh is the husband of Gram Pradhan (for all practical purposes in the rural life, husband of lady Gram Pradhan works as if he himself is a Gram Pradhan). He has ratified and corroborated all the facts, as have been deposed by PW3 and PW4. 15. PW5 is the medical officer who conducted the autopsy. He has proved the post-mortem reports of both the deceased, as have been afore-stated. 16. PW6 Anand Singh Bhandari was the Naib Tehsildar and Investigating Officer, who after collecting all the evidence, submitted chargesheet against both the accused persons. In no way, his evidence has been shaken to doubt the credibility in submission of chargesheet and launching the prosecution against the accused persons. 17. 16. PW6 Anand Singh Bhandari was the Naib Tehsildar and Investigating Officer, who after collecting all the evidence, submitted chargesheet against both the accused persons. In no way, his evidence has been shaken to doubt the credibility in submission of chargesheet and launching the prosecution against the accused persons. 17. In view of above, we find no merit in this appeal preferred by both the convicts. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal by affirming the judgment and order, under challenge. The convicts/appellants, who are in jail, will serve out the sentence as awarded by the trial court. 18. Let both the appellants/accused persons be informed about the fate of their appeal through the Superintendent of the concerned Jail. 19. A copy of this judgment, along with LCR, be sent back to the court concerned for compliance.