Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 729 (HP)

Muneem v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2014-06-05

P.S.RANA, SANJAY KAROL

body2014
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. 1. Appellant-convict Muneem, hereinafter referred to as the accused, has assailed the judgment dated 7.4.2011, passed by Sessions Judge, Chamba Division, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No. 38 of 2010, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Muneem, whereby he stands convicted for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. It is the case of prosecution that accused was married to Champa Devi (deceased) and through the wedlock had four children (two sons and two daughters). He was a habitual drunkard and quite often would beat his wife. In the year 2008, such like matter was also reported to the police. On 11.4.2010, under the influence of liquor, after severely beating his wife (deceased) with a Danda, he threw her body on the path. Thereafter, he ran away from the spot towards the jungle. Saina Ram (PW-1), brother of the deceased, learnt about the incident and informed Pradhan Tek Chand (PW-3), who alongwith other villagers searched the spot. Police was informed and ASI Santosh Kumar (PW-19) reached the spot, who recorded statement (Ex. PW-1/A) of Saina Ram (PW-1), under the provisions of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of which FIR No. 93, dated 11.4.2010 (Ex. PW-14/A), under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station Sadar, Chamba. Ruka was sent to the Police Station through Constable Latif Mohammed (PW-8). On the spot, inquest report (Ex. PW-1/B and 1/C) was prepared. Dead body was sent for postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. M.M. Marol (PW-7), who issued postmortem report (Ex. PW-7/D). With the help of Kishori Lal (PW-16), a local resident, police searched and recovered the accused from the jungle. Same day, he was also got medically examined through PW-7, who issued MLC (Ex. PW- 7/B). Accused was found to be in a state of intoxication. He was arrested. On 15.4.2010, accused, in the presence of Uttam Singh (PW-9) and Raj Kumar (not examined), made a disclosure statement (Ex. PW-9/A), pursuant to which he got recovered weapon of offence, i.e. Danda (Ex. P-2). His blood stained clothes were also recovered by the police. PW- 7/B). Accused was found to be in a state of intoxication. He was arrested. On 15.4.2010, accused, in the presence of Uttam Singh (PW-9) and Raj Kumar (not examined), made a disclosure statement (Ex. PW-9/A), pursuant to which he got recovered weapon of offence, i.e. Danda (Ex. P-2). His blood stained clothes were also recovered by the police. Blood and urine samples of the accused and other incriminating articles were sent for chemical analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory and report (Ex. PW-19/E) obtained by the police. With the completion of investigation, police filed challan in the Court for trial. 3. Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as nineteen witnesses and statement of the accused under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he took the following defence: "All the witnesses are interested and my brother in law never wanted to settle my wife with me and deposed falsely." "The deceased had fallen in a drunken state from the Danga and at that time I was not at home. When I came to know about her injuries, I had gone to manage for money for her treatment." In defence, accused examined two witnesses. 5. Based on the testimonies of witnesses and other material placed on record, trial Court convicted the accused for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties on both sides, we are of the considered view that trial Court has correctly and completely appreciated the testimony of prosecution witnesses. We do not find any infirmity or reason sufficient enough to interfere with the judgment rendered by the trial Court. 7. Factum of death of the deceased (Champa Devi), in our considered view, cannot be disputed. In any event, it stands established through the postmortem report (Ex. PW-7/D), so proved on record by Dr. M.M. Marol (PW-7). Identity of the deceased is not in dispute. As per opinion of the doctor, deceased died due to asphyxia and head injury leading to CVS failure. In any event, it stands established through the postmortem report (Ex. PW-7/D), so proved on record by Dr. M.M. Marol (PW-7). Identity of the deceased is not in dispute. As per opinion of the doctor, deceased died due to asphyxia and head injury leading to CVS failure. On the body of the deceased, doctor found abrasion marks. On the neck, there was a horizontal lacerated wound, apart from injuries on the head. There was bleeding, both from the nose and the mouth. Though doctor admits that injuries on the body of the deceased could have been sustained as a result of fall from height, but nonetheless it also stands proved on record that such injuries could have been caused with a blunt object. 8. In the instant case, we do not find the defence of the accused to have been probablized at all. Autopsy report, as also report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex. PW-19/E) does not establish the fact that at the time of death, deceased was under the influence of intoxication. On the contrary, it stands established on record through the testimony of very same doctor and medical report (Ex. PW-7/B) that it was the accused who was under the influence of alcohol. Be that as it may, Rukko (DW-1) and Smt. Dei (DW-2) also do not probablize the defence of the accused. All that DW-1 states is that in the year 2010, accused had come to borrow money from him. His testimony with regard to date, day, place and time of having handed over money is absolutely vague and conspicuously silent. 9. Accused wants us to believe, through the testimony of DW-2, that deceased informed her of sustaining injuries by falling in a drunken state. We do not find such version and her testimony to be inspiring in confidence at all. Not only police but also villagers of the area had reached the spot. They saw the dead body of deceased, yet this witness did not disclose such fact to anyone. Significantly, this witness admits that accused used to beat his wife. The witness admits to have been residing separately from the accused and his wife for the last 20-22 years. Under these circumstances, it was absolutely incumbent upon her to have sufficiently explained her presence on the spot at the time of occurrence of incident. She is not a neighbour. Significantly, this witness admits that accused used to beat his wife. The witness admits to have been residing separately from the accused and his wife for the last 20-22 years. Under these circumstances, it was absolutely incumbent upon her to have sufficiently explained her presence on the spot at the time of occurrence of incident. She is not a neighbour. She states that daughter of the accused had informed her about the incident. Now, this is hearsay evidence. But, she is conspicuously silent as to which of the daughters disclosed the same, as we do not find it to have been narrated to her by Monika (PW-4), one of the daughters of the accused. 10. Hence, it cannot be said that defence of the accused stands probablized at all. 11. Being first Court of appeal, we need to and are duty bound to examine and scrutinise the material so placed on record by the prosecution for ascertaining the fact as to whether findings returned by trial Court are just, fair, legal and borne out from the record. They ought and should not be illegal, perverse or erroneous. 12. We find testimony of Monika (PW-4), who is a spot witness, to be absolutely inspiring in confidence. Her statement is unambiguously clear and succinct. In Court, she states that on 11.4.2010, while she was playing in her house, her mother called her. She went inside and saw the accused give beatings to her mother, who suffered injuries on her head, from which blood was oozing. Soon her mother fell down and died. Surprisingly, it was suggested to this witness that her mother had died on account of injuries inflicted by the accused, though she also states that some of the injuries were sustained by her on account of fall. She admits that her mother used to consume alcohol, but does not state that at the time of occurrence of incident she was under any such influence. She reiterates that her father had severely beaten up her mother. Her testimony is un-shattered, inspiring in confidence and trustworthy. 13. We find testimony of this witness to have been materially corroborated by Saina Ram (PW-1) and Tiblu Ram (PW-2), who first learnt about the incident. That accused was in the habit of consuming liquor and would often beat his wife also stands established and proved through the un-rebutted testimony of these witnesses. 13. We find testimony of this witness to have been materially corroborated by Saina Ram (PW-1) and Tiblu Ram (PW-2), who first learnt about the incident. That accused was in the habit of consuming liquor and would often beat his wife also stands established and proved through the un-rebutted testimony of these witnesses. Even on an earlier occasion, he had given beatings to his wife and the matter was reported to the police. 14. We further find that Pradhan Tek Chand (PW-3), who reached the spot immediately, informed the police, and in his presence, investigation was conducted on the spot. 15. Also, immediately after occurrence of the incident, accused, who had run away from the spot, was apprehended in the forest stands established by the prosecution through the testimony of Mohinder Singh (PW-5) and Kishori Lal (PW-16). PW-5 categorically denies that accused had left the spot for arranging money for administering medical treatment to the deceased. 16. We find ocular version to have been materially corroborated by recovery of other incriminating material on record. On the basis of disclosure statement (Ex. PW-9/A), made by the accused in the presence of Uttam Singh (PW- 9), police recovered Danda (Ex. P-1), vide Memo (Ex. PW-1/D). Danda (Ex.P-1) was sealed and sent for analysis and blood stains were found thereon. Clothes of the accused, which were also seized by the police, were sent for chemical analysis and blood was also found thereon. Such evidence remains unblemished. 17. We find that the accused, under the influence of alcohol, severely beat up his wife, causing injuries on her vital part, which profusely bled, resulting into her death to have been conclusively proved by the prosecution by leading clear, cogent and reliable piece of legal evidence. 18. In the instant case, it cannot be said that accused had no intent of murdering the deceased. No doubt, relationship between the two was that of husband and wife, but however, sacrosanctity of this relationship, accused failed to maintain and preserve. He repeatedly subjected his wife (deceased) to assault. As such, it cannot be said that he had no intent of murdering his wife. Injuries sustained by the deceased are multiple, severe, serious and fatal. 19. No doubt, relationship between the two was that of husband and wife, but however, sacrosanctity of this relationship, accused failed to maintain and preserve. He repeatedly subjected his wife (deceased) to assault. As such, it cannot be said that he had no intent of murdering his wife. Injuries sustained by the deceased are multiple, severe, serious and fatal. 19. In our considered view, prosecution has been able to establish guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence, not only ocular but also corroborative in the shape of recovery of weapon of offence. 20. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence placed on record by the parties. There is no illegality, irregularity, perversity in correct and/or in complete appreciation of the material so placed on record by the parties. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any. Appeal dismissed.