Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1045 (MP)

Chhitriya @ Sitaram S/O Kishan v. State of M. P.

2017-09-27

P.K.JAISWAL, PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Prakash Shrivastava, J. The appellant has been convicted for offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing murder of his wife Radha Bai and sentenced to Imprisonment for Life with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and default imprisonment of 6 months R.I., by the judgment dated 26-10-2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Barwani in Sessions Trial No. 23/2005. 2. The prosecution case is that on 14-5-2005 appellant had asked his wife Radha Bai about her father Bhaiji saying that he has to take Rs. 5 from him, on which Radha Bai had replied that Bhaiji had gone to the market, thereafter the appellant had gone inside the house and author of the FIR Ravi (PW-1) who lives in neighbourhood had heard Radha Bai shouting “run-run; he will kill me”, on which Ravi after closing the door of his house had seen from the hole of the door that the appellant was running having blood on his Pant. Thereafter Ravi and her mother Guddi Bai (PW-2) had gone inside the house of the appellant and found Radha Bai lying in a pool of blood. She had died and one Darata was lying by her side. Ravi had informed PW-3 Kishan, his grand-father, that appellant had killed Radha Bai and at the instance of Ravi, FIR (Ex.P/1) was lodged at 6.15 P.M. at Police Station Nagalwadi, District Badwani. After registering the offence, investigation took place, post-mortem of the deceased was done by PW-11 Dr. M. S Sisodiya and the post-mortem report Ex.P/11 was prepared. On completion of the investigation Challan was filed and the appellant had abjured the guilt, hence trial took place in which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction is based upon the statement of child witness PW-1 Ravi who he is not an eyewitness and he has given the exaggerated version that he had seen the incident. He further submits that conviction can not be based on the admission of the appellant under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. As against this, learned counsel for the State submits that the conviction is based upon circumstantial evidence and the circumstances establish that the offence was committed by the appellant, hence he has rightly been convicted. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. As against this, learned counsel for the State submits that the conviction is based upon circumstantial evidence and the circumstances establish that the offence was committed by the appellant, hence he has rightly been convicted. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute before this Court that the death was homicidal in nature. 6. The statement of Dr. M.S. Sisodiya read along with the post-mortem report Ex.P/11 reveal that the deceased had received as many as 5 cut injuries which were above the nipple on the left side, on the wrist of the left hand, on the fourth rib above the lungs and on the left side which was deep till heart and the injuries were caused by hard and sharp object. The doctor had further opined that the left and right lungs had cut injuries, heart was cut and above that there was a cut wound with cavity depth and in the post-mortem report it was found that the death was caused due to sudden and excessive haemorrhage and failure of heart. 7. Deceased Radha Bai was wife of the appellant and the murder had taken place inside the house of the appellant. The conviction of the appellant is based upon circumstantial evidence. Though PW-1 Ravi has stated that he had seen the appellant giving blow to Radha Bai by means of Darata, but this part of the statement of witness Ravi has been found to be exaggeration and not believed by the trial Court. 8. PW-1 Ravi has deposed that he had seen the appellant running away from the spot from the hole of the door of his house and he had also seen that the clothes of the appellant were blood stained. He has also deposed that thereafter he had rushed to the market, where he met his grand-father Kishan and informed him about the entire incident At the instance of PW-1 Ravi FIR (Ex.P/1) was lodged immediately after the incident, wherein he had given the same version about seeing the appellant running with the blood stained clothes. 9. PW-3 Kishan is father of the. appellant and grandfather of PW-1 Ravi as Ravi is the nephew of the appellant. He has corroborated the statement of Ravi by deposing that Ravi had come to the marked and informed him that appellant had killed Radha Bai. 9. PW-3 Kishan is father of the. appellant and grandfather of PW-1 Ravi as Ravi is the nephew of the appellant. He has corroborated the statement of Ravi by deposing that Ravi had come to the marked and informed him that appellant had killed Radha Bai. He has also stated that Ravi had not informed him about the weapon with which the murder was done and has also stated that he has two houses and in one house appellant lives and in other house Supadia, his son and father of Ravi, lives. 10. PW-2 Guddi Bai is the mother of Ravi. She has also deposed that her house is near the house of the appellant and on hearing the voices she had come out from her house and heard people saying that appellant had killed his wife. The version of PW-1 Ravi and PW-2 Guddi Bai cannot be discarded on the ground that relationship between appellant and his brother Supadia were strained, for the reason that if PW-2 Guddi Bai wanted to falsely implicate the appellant; she could have straightway said that she was an eyewitness of the incident but in Para-8 of her deposition she has clearly stated that she had not seen appellant causing murder of Radha Bai. 11. The above statements are further corroborated by the statement of PW-4 Supadia, who has deposed that after the incident Ravi had informed him that appellant had killed Radha Bai. PW-7 Ramesh who is the brother of Radha Bai had also deposed that PW-3 Kishan had telephonically informed him that Chhitriya had murdered his wife. 12. Thus from the above statements it is clear that appellant was seen running from the spot wearing blood stained clothes and this fact was immediately informed by eyewitness PW-1 Ravi to PW-3 Kishan and PW-4 Supadia. PW-3 Kishan is father of the appellant who has supported the prosecution case. 13. The above position is further corroborated by the fact that blood stained Pant of the appellant was seized from him vide Ex.P/8 and the witness of the seizure memo PW-8 Anil has proved the seizure. The investigating officer PW-12 Sunil Yadav has also stated that the blood stained Pant was seized from the appellant vide seizure memo Ex.P/8 which contain his signature. 14. The investigating officer PW-12 Sunil Yadav has also stated that the blood stained Pant was seized from the appellant vide seizure memo Ex.P/8 which contain his signature. 14. The statement of the appellant under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code were recorded, in which he had admitted that his clothes were blood stained and had not denied the statement of PW-1 Ravi about seeing him running with blood stained clothes. He had also admitted the statement of PW-2 Guddi Bai that after the incident people were saying that appellant had killed his wife Radha Bai. 15. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana vs. Inder Singh reported in 2002(2) MPWN Note No. 45 but that was a case where the conviction was based upon the testimony of the sole eyewitness, whereas in the present case the conviction is based upon the circumstantial evidence. Though the statement of accused under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not a substantive piece of evidence but it can be used for appreciating evidence led by the prosecution to accept or reject it. (See : AIR 2002 SC 3582 , Mohan Sinqh vs. Prem Singh and another). It is also settled that the burden is cast on prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt but once this burden is met, the statements under section 313 assume significance to the extent that the accused may cast some incredulity on the prosecution witness. (See : 2015 Cri.L J. 2377, Nagraj vs. State). 16. In the present case the circumstances which have been noted above clearly establish that it is the appellant only who is responsible for commission of the alleged offence. The chain of events is complete i.e. the incident took place inside the house of the appellant, the Appellant was seen running wearing blood stained clothes immediately after the incident and blood stained clothes were seized from him and seizure has been proved, the father of the appellant himself has supported prosecution case and admission has been made by the appellant in his statement under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. 17. 17. Having regard to the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that no error has been committed by the trial Court in convicting the appellant for committing offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him for life imprisonment with fine and default imprisonment. Hence the judgment of the trial Court is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.