Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 616 (GAU)

Rajesh Modi v. State of Assam

2016-07-13

AJIT SINGH, SUMAN SHYAM

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ajit Singh, J. Appellant Rajesh Modi has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation for committing the murder of his wife Kali Modi. 2. According to the prosecution case, appellant was married to Kali Modi about 20 years prior to the date of incident. Tankeswar Modi (PW 3), Raju and Maneswar are sons of appellant from Kali Modi. The appellant and Kali Modi also adopted a female child aged 5 years. All of them lived together in a house situated at No.2 Dagaon, District Golaghat. On the night of 30.10.2012, the appellant, Kali Modi and their adopted daughter slept in one room whereas their sons Tankeswar, Raju and Maneswar slept in another room. Suddenly, in the night, Tankeswar heard the cries of Kali Modi. He woke up, but found the door of room, in which appellant, Kali Modi and adopted daughter were sleeping, was bolted from inside. Raju somehow managed to break open the door. The appellant then came out from the room holding a dao (sharp edged weapon) behind his back. Seeing this, Maneswar caught hold of the appellant and asked him why he had killed Kali Modi. As Maneswar went near to Kali Modi, the appellant fled after pushing Tankeswar and throwing the dao in the courtyard. The adopted five years old daughter of appellant kept crying loudly holding the body of Kali Modi. Raju immediately went to the house of Ajit Modi (PW 4), bother of Kali Modi and narrated the incident. Ajit Modi, in turn, lodged the ejahar (Exhibit 3) at Police Station Chungajan. The appellant was later caught hiding in a paddy field by the villagers. When the police arrived, he was taken into custody. The police also seized the dao from the courtyard of appellant’s house. 3. The post mortem examination of the dead body of Kali Modi was carried out on 31.10.2012 by Dr. Pankaj Kumar Bhattacharjee (PW 1). He found as many as six incised wounds on the head of Kali Modi. In the opinion of doctor, the cause of death was hemorrhage and shock due to injuries sustained. The doctor’s evidence leads to a definite conclusion that the death of Kali Modi was homicidal on account of multiple cut injuries on her head. 4. During the trial, the appellant simply denied the prosecution case. In the opinion of doctor, the cause of death was hemorrhage and shock due to injuries sustained. The doctor’s evidence leads to a definite conclusion that the death of Kali Modi was homicidal on account of multiple cut injuries on her head. 4. During the trial, the appellant simply denied the prosecution case. He also did not give any explanation regarding the cause of death of Kali Modi. 5. In Ganeshlal Vs. State of Maharashtra (1992) 3 SCC 106 , the accused was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. In this case, the Supreme Court observed that when the death had occurred in the custody of accused, he is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. 6. The Supreme Court in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681 has again approved the well settled principle that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and that 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 this case the Supreme Court has also held that where a husband 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 and if the husband does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it was a strong circumstance pointing that he alone was responsible for the commission of crime. 7. 7. There is yet another decision of the Supreme Court, State of Rajashthan vs. Kashi Ram AIR 2007 SC 144 wherein it is held that when the accused was last seen with his murdered wife, he must give explanation or plead alibi in support of his innocence or else it would be a strong circumstance against him pointing towards his guilt. 8. In the present case, the injured dead body of Kali Modi was found in a room in which she and appellant had slept together. As seen above, sons of appellant including Tankeswar (PW3) slept in another room but in the same house. Tankeswar has testified that on hearing the cries of the mother Kali Modi, he rushed towards the room in which she and appellant were sleeping, but the door was bolted from inside. According to the evidence of Tankeswar when the door was broken, the appellant came out with a dao and ran away after pushing him. The injured body of Kali Modi was lying in the room and the adopted daughter was crying. Nothing has been brought out in the cross examination of Tankeswar to discredit his evidence. No reason has also been attributed against Tankeswar for his falsely implicating the appellant. It is thus established that the appellant came out from the room when it was opened forcibly and in that room the injured dead body of Kali Modi was found. The appellant has not given any explanation for the cause of death of Kali Modi either after his arrest or during his trial. Mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation regarding the cause of death of Kali Modi under the facts and circumstances of the case does not help him in any manner. On the contrary, it leads to only one conclusion that he alone is responsible for the commission of murder of his wife. Accordingly, following the above referred decisions of the Supreme Court, we have no hesitation in holding that appellant alone was the perpetrator of crime. 9. For these reasons, we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.