JUDGMENT
I.A. Ansari, J.
1. By the judgment and order, dated 24.8.1999, passed in Sessions Case No. 4/98, by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj, the accused-appellant stands convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2,000 and, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month,
2. The case against the accused-appellant, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be stated as follows:
Deceased Ayarunnessa was the wife of the accused-appellant, Md. Alauddin and they used to live together. Soon after his marriage with Ayarunnessa, the accused started having, quite often, quarrels with his wife and started assaulting he too. The parents and other relatives of the said deceased used to prevail upon the accused and bring about a compromise between the husband and the wife. On 11.9.1997, in the morning, Ayarunnessa made a complaint to their neighbour, Abdus Salam (P.W. 2), that her husband had taken away her nose ring against her will. P.W. 2 consoled her by saying that he would settle the matter after coming back home from Karimganj. On that very day, i.e., 11.9.1997, in the evening, the accused, accompanied by his neighbour, Moinul Haque (P.W. 1), returned to their village from Barapunji Bazar. While the accused went to his house, Moinul went to his own house. But after about 10 minutes, P.W. 1 heard hue and cry raised from the house of the accused and, on arriving there, he found Ayarunnessa lying on the floor in a dying condition. A few minutes thereafter, Ayarunnessa died. On being instructed by Abdul Latif (father of the accused), P.W. 1 went on the following day, in the morning, to the house of deceased Ayarunnessa’s father Abdul Mannan (P.W. 4) and informed him about Ayarunnessa’s death. Ayarunnessa’s parents and relatives came to the house of the accused and while they found Ayarunnessa’s dead body lying inside the house, the accused was not found there. Ayarunnessa’s father, Abdul Mannan (P.W. 4), then lodged a written Ejahar at Nilambazar Police Out Post. Based on this Ejahar, U.D. Case No. 53/97 was, initially, registered and, during the course of a investigation, police visited the place of occurrence, drew a sketch map of the place of occurrence and held inquest over the said dead body. As the post mortem examination conducted over the dead body revealed that Ayarunnessa had died due to shock and haemorrhage, resulting from splenic rupture and fracture of limbs, a formal report was , submitted, in this regard, to the Officer-in-Charge, Karimganj Police Station, by the in-Charge of Nilambazar Police Out Post on 6.11.1997. Karimganj, whereupon Karimganj P.S. Case No. 510/97 under Section 302 IPC was registered against the accused and, in course of time, police laid charge sheet against the accused under Section 302 IPC.
3. To the charge framed under Section 302 IPC, the accused pleaded not guilty. In support of their case, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in his examination aforementioned, the accused denied to have committed the offence alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that Ayarunnessa was an epileptic patient and she died of epilepsy. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence. On finding the accused guilty of the charge framed against him, the learned trial court convicted him accordingly, and passed the sentence as mentioned above. Aggrieved by his conviction and imposition of sentence, the accused, initially, preferred an appeal from jail which came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No. 157(J)/02 and subsequently, another appeal was filed by the accused which came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No. 248/99.
4. We have heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned Counsel for the accused-appellant, and Mr. K. Munir, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.
5. While considering the present appeal, what may be noted, at the very outset, is that the fact that the accused and the deceased lived together as husband and wife is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the said deceased died at her matrimonial home in the presence of the accused.
6. From the evidence of P.W. 1, it transpires that on the day of occurrence, at about 11.10 PM, on hearing hue and cry raised from the house of the accused, when he went to the house of the accused, he found Ayarunnessa lying on the floor in a dying condition and a few moments thereafter, Ayarunnessa died. Bearing in mind as to how Ayarunnessa died, when we turn to the evidence of P.W. 7 (Dr. Lipi Deb), we notice that according to her evidence, she had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Ayarunnessa on 13.9.1997 and found as follows:
An average Muslim lady whose rigormortis absent. Eyes half opened, lips half opened and swollen with blood discharge and coming out from mouth and nostrils. Postmortem lividity present in upper limbs, face extended upto upper abdomen upto umbilical level. Body as a whole swollen, abdomen distendie and body is partially putrified with multiple blebs and absence of skin from different places of the trunk and limbs., Left wrist joint deformed and on disSection there is both bone fracture on the left fore arm.
Cranium and Spinal Canal
Scalp, skull and vertebrae – healthy, Membrane- pale, brin and spinal cord- pale.
Walls, ribs and cartilages – walls partially putrified, ribs and cartilage -healthy, pleurae-pale, larynx and trachae – pale, right lung and left lung – pale, pericardium – pale, heard – empty, vessels – contained blood.
Abdomen
Walls – partially putrified with post mortem blebs present in different places, peritonium – paice, massive amount of blood present inside paretonial cavity, mouth, pharynx and oesophagus – pale, bloody discharged present in mouth angle, stomach and its contents – pale, small intestine and its contents – contained mucoid secretion, large intestine and its contents – contained faecal matter, liver – pale, spleen -rapture present about 2″ x 1″ x 1″ with haemotoma around the wound, kidneys – pale, bladder – empty, organs of generation – stool present in anal opening, uerus- normal and non-pregnant.
Muscles, bones and joints
Deformity of left wrist jointly with both bones of left forearm.
7. What may also be noted is that P.W. 7 has proved Exhibit-1 as the post mortem report of the present case and this report reveals rupture of spleen with haemotoma around the wound, deformity of the left wrist and fracture of the left fore-arm. In the opinion of P.W. 7, the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from splenic rupture and fracture of limbs.
8. We have minutely scrutinised the cross-examination of P.W. 7 at the hands of the defence and we find that the defence has not disputed the, findings of P.W. 7 and/or her opinion with regard to the cause of death of the said deceased. That apart, we also do not notice anything inherently improbable or incorrect in the findings of P.W. 7 and/or in her opinion with regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the said deceased and/or the cause other death.
9. The evidence of P.W. 7 also discloses that the fracture, which the said deceased had sustained on her forearm, could have been caused by a blunt object and the rupture of the spleen too could have been caused by means of a blunt object. In her cross-examination, P.W. 7 has clarified that though there was no bleeding from the fracture injury and she has not ascertained the age of the fracture, the fracture was antemortem and not old. These assertions of P.W. 7 have gone unchallenged by the defence.
10. From the findings of P.W. 7, what we notice is that the said deceased had suffered deformity of the left wrist joint, fracture of forearm and rupture of spleen, all the injuries aforementioned being ante mortem, but not old. We have also no doubt in our mind that the said deceased met with her death due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the c splenic rupture and fracture of limbs.
11. Though it was admitted by P.W. 7 that the injuries found on the said dead body could have been sustained by the said deceased by fall on a hard substance, what needs to be noted is that the present one is not a case of a single injury; rather, there were multiple injuries, which the said deceased had suffered and all these injuries could not have been caused by a single fall. In the face of the facts, as pointed out hereinbefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the injuries sustained by the said deceased were neither accidental, nor self-inflicted and that her death was homicidal in nature.
12. Bearing in mind our above findings, when we turn to the evidence of P.W. 1, who is a neighbour of the accused, we notice that according to his evidence, he (P.W. 1) and the accused returned home from Barapunji Bazar at about 11.00 PM and while the accused went to his home, P.W. 1 came to his house; but after about ten minutes, P.W. 1 heard hue and cry raised from the house of the accused and, on arriving there, P.W. 1 found Abdul Latif (father of the accused) outside the house. The father of the accused expressed his ignorance as to what was the cause of hue and cry, whereupon, P.W. 1 entered into the dwelling house of the accused and found Ayarunnessa lying on the floor and struggling ° with death and a few minutes thereafter, Ayarunnessa died. What is also of great significance to note is that when P.W. 1 arrived at the house of the accused, the accused was admittedly present there while Ayarunnessa was found lying in dying condition and Ayarunnessa died in presence of the accused.
13. It is also in the evidence of P.W. 1 that on being instructed by the father of the accused, he, on the following day, in the morning, went to the house of P.W. 4, Abdul Mannan (father of the said deceased), and informed him about the death of’ his daughter, Ayarunnessa, whereupon P.W. 4, accompanied by other members of his family, came to the house of the accused.
14. We have closely scrutinized the cross-examination of P.W. 1 at the hands of the defence ; but we do not find that the evidence given by P.W. 1 has been disputed or denied by the defence. We, therefore, see no reason not to place reliance on the evidence of P.W. 1.
15. Close on the heels of the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, who is also a neighbour of the accused, has deposed that on the day of occurrence in the morning, deceased Ayarunnessa had complained to him that the accused had taken away her nose ring and sold it away against her will and P.W. 2 assured Ayarunnessa that he (P.W. 2) would settle the c matter after return from Karimganj. It is in the evidence of P.W. 2 that when he returned at about 11 PM, he came to know from his wife that Ayarunnessa had died and, on being so informed, when he went to the house of the accused, he found Ayarunnessa lying dead on the floor inside the dwelling house of the accused. The accused was present there d and the accused told him that his wife died by consuming poison. In his cross-examination, however, P.W. 2 has clarified that the accused had told him that his wife had died either by consuming poison or something else. The evidence of P.W. 2 has also remained unchallenged by the defence.
16. From a combined reading of the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 what clearly emerges is that there was a complaint made by Ayarunnessa on the day of occurrence, in the morning, to P.W. 2 against the accused and, immediately after arrival of the accused at his home, hue and cry was heard being raised from the house of the accused and, on arriving there, P.W. 1 found Ayarunnessa lying on the floor in a dying condition and shortly thereafter, Ayarunnessa died. The accused, at this point of time, offered no explanation to P.W. 1 as to what had been the reason for Ayarunnessa’s death. Even to P.W. 2, the accused had tried to explain away the cause of death of his wife by saying that she had died either by consumption of poison or she had eaten something. Thus, there was no claim made by the accused, at the earliest possible moment that his wife had died because of epilepsy. Far from this, the accused claimed that his wife had died by consuming poison or something else. The post mortem examination report, however, completely rules out the possibility of Ayarunnessa having died due to consumption of poison. As a matter of fact, the defence did not even suggest to P.W. 7 (doctor) that Ayarunnessa could have died by consumption of poison. The evidence of P.W. 7 clearly reveals that Ayarunnessa suffered multiple injuries on her body moments before her death. In the face of the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, there can be no escape from the conclusion that Ayarunnessa’s death was homicidal in nature and at the time, when Ayarunnessa raised hue and cry, only one person, i.e., the accused was a present there and it was within the knowledge of the accused as to how his wife had suffered injuries and as to why she was struggling with death. In these circumstances, no prudent man can have any reservation in holding that it was the accused, who was the author of the injuries, which the said deceased was found to have sustained. We may also hasten to add here that at no stage v. it has been the case of the defence that on reaching home, the accused found his wife lying in injured condition or struggling with death. In the absence of any explanation, either offered by the accused, in this regard, or discernible from the evidence on record, one can have no option, but to conclude that the accused was the one, who had caused injuries found to have been c suffered by Ayarunnessa, which, eventually, resulted into her death.
17. As far as P.W. 3, who is a relative and also a neighbour of the accused, is concerned, her evidence does not help the case of the defence at all; rather, her evidence supports the evidence of P.W. 1 that when she arrived at the house of the accused, she (P.W. 3) too found Ayarunnessa lying on the floor in dying condition. There is nothing in the evidence of P.W. 3 also to indicate that the accused told her as to how his wife had sustained injuries or as to why she was found in dying condition.
18. Coupled with the above, P.W. 4, father of the said deceased, P.W. 5, the mother of the said deceased, and P.W. 6, an aunt of the said deceased, have given evidence to the effect that the accused used to, very often, beat his wife and on many occasions, they had to come to the house of the accused to bring about a compromise between the accused and his wife. Though there may be some element of f exaggeration in the evidence of these three witnesses, we do not find their evidence wholly incredible or unworthy of trust, particularly so far as -the embittered relationship of the said deceased with her husband is concerned. Their evidence show that the accused had embittered relation with his deceased wife. The unassailed evidence g of P.W. 2 shows that even on the day of occurrence, the said deceased had made complaint to him (P.W. 2) against the accused. In this backdrop, when we consider the evidence of the doctor, particularly, in the light of what has been deposed by P.Ws. 1, 2 and 7, we find that though there is no direct evidence of assault on the said deceased at the hands of the accused, yet, in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances as emerge from the evidence on record, there can be no doubt that the accused was the author of the injuries, which his wife had suffered from and which, eventually, caused her death.
19. We may point out at this stage, that the accused at the end of his examination, under Section 313 Cr.P.C, stated that his wife was a patient of epilepsy and she died of epilepsy. But there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that Ayarunnessa died because of epilepsy. In fact, no such suggestion was even offered to P.W. 7 when she was under cross-examination by the defence. Moreover, when the accused was the only one, who was near Ayarunnessa, when she was found struggling with death, it was for the accused to let P.W. 1 and Ors. know as to why Ayarunnessa was struggling with death and/or why she had died. All that the accused stated was that Ayarunnessa had died either by consuming poison or something else. This piece of evidence clearly shows that an attempt was made by the accused to mislead the witnesses and to bluff his way out.
20. For the reasons that we have recorded hereinbefore, we find that the plea taken by the accused to the effect that his wife died because of epilepsy and/or his wife died by consuming poison, is completely false and this is an additional incriminating circumstance against the accused.
21. Because of what has been discussed and pointed out above, it is clear that though there is no direct evidence to show that the accused had assaulted and killed his wife, the various pieces of evidence, which we have discussed hereinbefore, when considered together, leave no room for doubt that it was the accused, who had caused the injuries as have been found on the said dead body and that it was at the hands of the accused that his wife died.
22. When a case is based on circumstantial evidence, each of the circumstances must be clearly established. The completed chain of circumstances must not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but must also be inconsistent with the hypothesis of innocence of the accused. In the case at hand, we have taken into account every possible hypothesis of innocence of the accused; but we find that the chain of circumstances which the evidence on record prove, is completely consistent with the guilt of the accused and wholly inconsistent with hypothesis of his innocence. In such circumstances, we find no infirmity in the finding of guilt which the learned trial court has recorded. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the conviction of the accused nor do we notice any reason to interfere with the sentence passed against him.
23. What emerges on consideration of the evidence on record, as a whole, is that the accused and the deceased were husband and wife and though they used to live together, their relationship was embittered. There is also evidence indicating that the said deceased was a victim of regular assault at the hands of the accused and even on the day of occurrence, in the morning, the said deceased had made complaint to P.W. 2 against her husband and at the time when the witness arrived at the place of a occurrence, the accused was very much found present there and the accused tried to explain the cause of death of his wife by saying that she had consumed poison and/or that she had died by epilepsy, whereas his wife was found to have sustained serious injuries, which could not have been accidental and/or self-inflicted. Coupled with these facts, the accused , could not offer any explanation as to how his wife sustained injuries on her person. In these circumstances, there can be no escape from the conclusion that it was the accused-appellant who had inflicted the injuries, which his wife was found to have suffered from and it was because of the assault at the hands of the accused that his wife had died. The number of injuries sustained by the said deceased and the force with which the c injuries are shown to have been inflicted clearly demonstrate that the intention of the accused was to cause death of his wife. For the reasons so recorded, we find that the charge framed against the accused under Section 302 IPC was proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
24. In the result, and for the reasons discussed above, both the appeals fail and shall accordingly stand dismissed.
25. Send back the L.C.R.