(1) Cr.A.No.1524/2002
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR
Division Bench: Hon'ble Justice Shri Rakesh Saksena
Hon'ble Justice Shri T.K.Kaushal
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1524/2002
Vijay Kumar @ Raju Soni S/o
Shri Nanhu Soni, aged about
23 years, r/o Village Gudari,
Police Station Slimnabad,
District Jabalpur (M.P.)
.......Appellants
-Versus-
State of Madhya Pradesh
.......Respondent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the appellant: Shri Mohammad Salim, Advocate.
For the State: Shri B.P.Pandey, Deputy Government
Advocate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing: 03/05/2011
Date of Judgment: 19/05/2011
**********
JUDGMENT
Per: Rakesh Saksena,J.
Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment
dated 6.9.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora,
District Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.904/1993 convicting the
appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentencing him to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1000/- for
committing murder of his wife Lalli Bai.
2. According to prosecution, Lalli Bai, the deceased was
married to appellant about 7-8 years before the occurrence, which
took place in the night of 21.8.1993. Her parents had given dowry
in the marriage according to their capacity, however, her mother-
in-law Sumitra Bai (dead), father-in-law Nanhuram and appellant
used to harass her. Appellant did not like Lalli Bai. Apart from
(2) Cr.A.No.1524/2002
that, all the accused persons used to demand motorcycle, TV and
radio from her. She used to inform her parents and brother about
the maltreatment meted out to her by her husband and in-laws.
Her husband used to manhandle her on being provoked by her
mother-in-law Sumitra. A few months before the death of deceased
her father-in-law took her to her parents’ house and left her there
saying that she was not liked by his son therefore he will not keep
her. After about a month deceased’s father Pyarelal and Adharelal
(PW-8) carried deceased to her in-laws’ house. With great difficulty
they permitted deceased to live in the house.
3. Deceased’s elder sister Puniya Bai was married in the
neighbouring village Bichhiya to Arjun Soni (PW-5). On 22.8.1993
at about 9:30 AM Rajendra Prasad informed Arjun Soni that his
sister-in-law had died. Arjun Prasad (PW-5) with his wife Puniya
Bai (PW-4) went to village Gudri to the house of appellant. They
found deceased lying dead on a mattress in the room. They saw
injuries on her face and neck. They also found a tyre lever of cycle
lying pressed in the arm-pit of deceased. Arjun Prasad (PW-5)
informed about the incident to Kotwar Rammilan (PW-6) who went
to police station, Slimnabad and informed about the incident
whereupon a marg No.38/93 under section 174 Cr.P.C. was
registered.
4. S.D.O.P. Surendra Singh Baghel (PW-11) went at the
spot, conducted inquest proceedings and recorded inquest
memorandum Ex.P/5. On inspection of the body, he found injuries
on the face and neck of deceased. Honey and lime was applied on
the marks of injuries. He seized a cycle tyre lever from the spot
vide seizure memo Ex.P/6 and sent the dead body of deceased for
postmortem examination to Government Hospital, Sihora where
Dr. Smt. Maya Tiwari (PW-2) and Dr. N.A.Ansari (PW-13)
conducted postmortem examination. Vide their report Ex.P/1, they
(3) Cr.A.No.1524/2002
found that deceased had died of asphyxia due to strangulation.
After marg enquiry, Station Officer of police J.K.Tiwari (PW-12)
registered first information report Ex.P/13 under sections 302/34
and 201 I.P.C. After investigation, charge sheet was filed and the
case was committed for trial.
5. All the three accused persons abjured their guilt and
pleaded false implication. According to them, family members of
deceased had concocted a false case because Lalli Bai had died.
Accused Sumitra Bai, the mother-in-law of deceased, died during
the pendency of the trial.
6. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial and upon
appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, held the
appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him of the charge
under section 302 I.P.C., however, finding the evidence
insufficient against co-accused Nanhuram, father-in-law, acquitted
him. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction, appellant
has preferred this appeal.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. As far as the homicidal nature of death of deceased,
Arjun Prasad (PW-5) and Puniya Bai (PW-4), sister of deceased,
deposed that on getting information about the death of Lalli Bai,
they went to the house of appellant. They found Lalli Bai lying
dead. Arjun Prasad, Puniya Bai and Ramanuj (PW-10) saw the dead
body in the house of appellant in village Gudri. Village Kotwar
Rammilan (PW-6) went to police station Slimnabad and tendered
information about the death of Lalli Bai. SDOP Surendra Singh
Baghel (PW-11) recorded marg and enquired about the death of
deceased. He conducted inquest proceedings and recorded
memorandum Ex.P/5. Dead body of Lalli Bai was sent for
postmortem examination to Government Hospital, Sihora where
Dr. Smt. Maya Tiwari (PW-2) and Dr. N.A. Ansari (PW-13)
(4) Cr.A.No.1524/2002
conducted autopsy. Puniya Bai (PW-4), Arjun Prasad (PW-5) and
Radheshyam (PW-1) found marks of injuries on the face and neck
of deceased. According to them, honey and lime was applied on the
neck. SDOP Surendra Singh Baghel also observed marks of
injuries on the neck and face of deceased.
9. Dr.N.A.Ansari (PW-13) on postmortem examination
found following injuries on the body of deceased:-
(i) Numerous marks of linear abrasion on right
side of face, size ¾ cm x 1 cm. Face was swollen and
congested.
(ii) Similar three linear abrasion marks on the left
side of face.
(iii) Seven abrasion marks on the right side of
neck, size ½ ” x ¼ ” .
On internal examination, Dr. Ansari found
thyroid bone dislocated. Blood was deposited under
the thyroid bone. There was blood under the skin
and neck muscles. Trachea was congested. Muscles
of neck were also deeply congested. There was
diffused red swelling in front of the neck size 3″ x 4″.
It could have been caused by compression by thumb
and fingers. In his opinion, the death was caused
within 24-48 hours before the postmortem
examination. The cause of death was asphyxia due to
strangulation. The abrasions found on the face were
possible by nails of the fingers. Injury to neck was
possible by some hard and blunt object like tyre
lever sent to him for examination. Postmortem
report is Ex.P/1.
It was thus clearly evident that deceased Lalli Bai died of
strangulation and that her death was homicidal in nature.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted
that the trial Court gravely erred in placing implicit reliance on the
evidence of Radheshyam (PW-1), Puniya Bai (PW-4), Arjun Prasad
(PW-5), Adharelal (PW-8) and Ramanuj (PW-10) and in holding that
(5) Cr.A.No.1524/2002
appellant had any motive to cause death of deceased. According to
him, it was not established beyond doubt that it was appellant who
caused death of deceased. Learned counsel for the State, on the
other hand, justified and supported the conviction of the appellant.
11. We have gone through the entire evidence on record.
12. It is true that there is no direct evidence in the case,
but the prosecution has adduced circumstantial evidence to
establish that appellant committed murder of deceased. It has not
been disputed that deceased was the wife of appellant and she
lived in the dwelling house of her husband. Her dead body was
also found in the house of appellant. It has been established by the
medical and other evidence on record that deceased had died a
homicidal death due to strangulation. Absolutely no explanation
has been furnished by the appellant as to under what
circumstances deceased died. It has also not been indicated by the
appellant or the evidence on record that any outside person
caused the death of deceased. Trial Court after appreciating the
evidence on record, concluded that it was not established by the
prosecution evidence that accused Nanhuram, father of appellant,
caused the death of deceased.
13. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Versus State of
Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681, Apex Court observed that :
“Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a
house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly
be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to
be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree
as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The
burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of
Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding
burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as
to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot
(6) Cr.A.No.1524/2002
get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on
the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies
entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an
accused to offer any explanation. In a case based on circumstantial
evidence where no eyewitness account is available, there is
another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle
is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused
and the said 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 a case relating to murder of wife by accused, Apex
Court held that: ” Where an accused 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, it has been
consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation
how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is
found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that
he is responsible for commission of the crime.”
14. In the instant case, it has not been disputed that
appellant was the husband of deceased Lalli Bai. According to
Radheshyam (PW-1), brother of deceased, whenever deceased
used to come to his house she told that her mother-in-law and
husband used to demand money, radio and TV and manhandle her.
Though this statement of Radheshyam (PW-1) was sought to be
confronted with his police statement Ex.D/2, but on perusal of
Ex.D/2, it does not appear to be an omission.
15. Adharelal (PW-8) deposed that deceased told to him
that appellant and his mother used to harass and manhandle her.
Ramanuj (PW-10), cousin of deceased, deposed that Lalli Bai told
(7) Cr.A.No.1524/2002
to him that appellant demanded Rs.10,000/- and TV. This witness
was though declared hostile, but he remained firm on his
statement that appellant used to demand Rs.10,000/- and a TV. No
doubt the fact about the demand was not specifically mentioned in
the police statement Ex.P/11 of Ramanuj (PW-10), but it was
clearly mentioned by the witness that deceased told to him that
appellant, her father-in-law and mother-in-law used to pressurize
her for bringing TV and a cycle. Arjun Prasad (PW-5), brother-in-
law of deceased, stated that deceased used to tell him about her
manhandling by her in-laws. He deposed that appellant told to him
that deceased was not of his choice and that he would not keep
her.
16. Adharelal (PW-8), who had acted as a mediator in the
marriage of appellant with deceased, deposed that appellant and
his mother used to beat her and subject her to cruelty. Some time
before the death of deceased, appellant’s father had left deceased
at the house of her parents and nobody came thereafter to fetch
her. Then he and Pyarelal, the father of deceased, took deceased
to appellant’s house where the accused persons expressed their
unwillingness to keep her at their house. However, on their
insistence, they let deceased live with them but after 2-4 months
he came to know about the death of deceased.
17. After a close appreciation of the aforesaid evidence, it
seems to us that appellant did not like deceased. Relations
between him and deceased were not cordial. He manhandled her
and often subjected her to cruelty. Even after death of deceased,
he did not inform police or the relatives of deceased. On
postmortem examination by doctors, it was found that deceased
died a homicidal death due to strangulation. Appellant did not
offer any explanation about such a death of his wife/deceased. He
did not say that deceased did not live with him in his house.
(8) Cr.A.No.1524/2002
18. After appraisal of the facts situation of the instant case
in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan (supra), we are of the definite opinion that
the trial Court committed no error in holding that it was appellant
only who intentionally caused the death of his wife Lalli Bai by
throttling and convicting him under section 302 of Indian Penal
Code.
19. Thus, we find no merit in this appeal. We uphold the
conviction of the appellant and life sentence with fine of Rs.1000/-
awarded to him under section 302 of IPC.
20. Appeal fails and is dismissed.
(Rakesh Saksena) (T.K.Kaushal)
Judge Judge
b