E M??? aJ :vn . ..L.§/ §T$ v ‘ W Admi m? V‘ n1" um mm “u“:w A: V) Q CF0000061 694 Uiviiian iiend'; ( .mmml ) 1N THE ar ( F Jmmmum AT JUR. criainal Appeal No. ‘7 Q 97.. g § Man30dh ged abgut 34‘ears son of a‘van $ay 60m M ” ‘o village mummy P5 Jay Naar, Tahsil Surapur ¥ Dist’rict Saruja Ky.“ -Versu3 — EL“ A. ik. ‘% ne spondeat %ICTLQE us' 302 IPc State = of mdha Prade she”; gg_z caxmwu. ApPEAL __s_3_zgg.cr.xa.c. or ” a g 3.x. f life nd fine of $.5g‘ m default af paymeat of irm furthex l. for “an“ $ P g J g m z €Y.£J ea mm O AW ( y f m 2 HIGH COURT OF' JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH Criminal Apeal No. 1761‘ of 1997 p Manboh d ersus ‘ State of Madhya Pradesh o JUDGEMENT FOR CONSIDERATION ‘L sw— DHJRENDRA msmm}; Judge ' {1v i x ‘ ‘ HON’BLE SHRI L.C.BHADOO J. ._.1_————-———-—I-— , . sdl- ‘ L.c.BHADoo [a / o4 /2006 X POST FOR JUDGN ON 11 — L; — 290 ‘ Sdl— DmNDRA WSW V N (Ik m w I , \ 1 XI \ MET 6 l DIVISION BENCH; HON’BLE SHRI L.C.BHADOO & HON’BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA, JJ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 1761 of 199? Manbodh Appellant State of Madhya Pradesh Respondent V - Shri Praveen Das Iearned counsel for the appeHant. Shri U.N.S. Deo learned Additionai Public' Prosecutor for the respondent/State. . JUDGMENT (Delivered on 11 .04.2006) Dhlrendra Mishra, J ‘ The appenant has preferred this appeal under section 374(2) of the Cod‘e of Cnmmal Procedure questromng the legality and correctness of the impugned judgment dated 2971997 passed by learned Additional ~ Sessrons Judge Manendragarh (Sarguja) In ST No 354/1993 convrctlng the ccused/appellant under section 302 of the IPC‘for causrng homlcrdal dea of his wrfe Rampatr Bar, and sentencmg him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rl for two years. 2. l Case of the prosecution in brief is that appellant himself went to poli »e station Jainagar along with Jamasadar, Phooi S'ai and watchman of the iilage and gave merg intimation of Ex. P—15 mentioning therein that on 52 1993 his wife Rampati Bai had consumed excessive liquor for whl h he had reprimanded her and this was seen by the brother of the deceased also lt was also stated that she slept separately m the night 0n <262 1993 In the morning he saw that she was dead Thereafter he Info med Patel of the Village about the incrdent. After registering the merg Station ,House Officer proceeded for the place of incident and'suspecting eath of Rampati Bai as homicidal he recorded Dehati Nalsi Ex. P-16. 531 " d Inquest over the body of the deceased was performed vide Ex. P-8 after due notice to the witnesses ‘in their presence. During inquest Station Ho 'se OfFicer found nurnerous injuries over the body of the deceased. At thre piaces in the stomach and at two piaces over the chest burn injuries wer noticed, abrasions were aiso noticed over her left year, teft knee, righ Ieg and right elbow. He also noticed cut injury over the right side of her vagina. Body of the deceased‘was lying on the floor of verandah. Dur ng investigation on basis of memorandum of the appellant Ex. P—2 bio dastained club was seized vide Ex. P-3. Plain and blood stained soil was! also seized from the place of incident vide Ex. P-4. Blood stained T shi and Iungi were seized vide Ex. P-5. Sealed packet containing pettjcoatf blouse .an‘d sari of the deceased sent by the doctor was seized Vide Ex. P-12. Site plan Ex. P—14 was prepared by Halka Patwan. Flrst lnfoirmation Report Ex. P—1 7 was registered. Dead body was sent for post mortem examination to Primary Health Centre Vishrampur vide Ex. P-18. Dr. KK. Tamrakar PW-5 conducted the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased who submitted the post mortem report Ex. P'-10. Doctor opined that cause of death Was coma due to head injury and the dea h was homicidal in nature. Club seized from the appellant was sent for exarnination to Dr. Tamrakar who opined that at] the injuries except inju esNo. 1, 14 and 18 could be caused by the club so seized. Opinion of the doctor is Ex. P-11. After completion of investigation charge sheet was tiled under section 302 of the IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate ’First Class Surajpur who in turn committed the case to the Courtof Ses‘ ion Judge Ambikapur from where learned Additional Session Judge, Mariendragarh received the case on transfer for trial. i 3. Learned Additional Session Judge framed charge under section . 302 of the IPC against the>_ appellant. Appellant abjured his guilt. 7 Prosecution in order to establish the charge against the appellant has examined as many as nine—wimesses. Somar Sai Was examined as court witr ess‘ Not-Thereafter, statement ofvthe accused was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied p«u, . , c aJ 1o i ‘ the circumstances appearing against him in the case of the prosecution. In reply to question No. 24 the appeiiant denied that he lodged the merg inti ation Ex. P-15 informing that his wife died by consuming excessive. iiqu r. He pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case and took the defence that he was on duty at the relevant time and was not at hom and stated that when he returned from duty he found the dead body of hi wife at some distance under a tree Thereafter he called Gayaram and Jamasadar and brought the dead body to the courtyard of his house and thereafter watchman of the Village lodged the report In the police stati n. He also examined Gayaram and Jamasadar as defence Witnesses No. 1 and 2. Homicidal death of Rampati Bai is not in dispute. Even otherwise, looking to the injuries noticed in the inquest report as also in the post mortem report which have been duly proved by KR. Kamre, investigating officer PW-9 and also Dr. Tamrkar PW-5, homicidal death is established. 4. 5. l The only question to be decided .in this appeal is whether the prosecution has been able to establish the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. 6. There is no eyewitness to the incident and the entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant solely on the basis of the circumstance that the appellant himself gave merg intimation in the police station falsely stating that his wrfe died because of consuming excessrve liquo and that In the night of rncrdent the appellant was present in his house along wrth hrs Wife and In the morning her dead body was found In his ouse with multiple injuries and also that the defence of alibi taken by the coused that in the nighti'o‘f-incidenthe was on duty has also been found toibe false. lt is further argued that Vipin PW-2 in paragraph No.5 of his statement has stated that inquest over the dead body of the deceased i N l r \ l w l l i »w A was performed some 100 meters away under a banyan tree Defence Witrpess Jamasadar has also stated m paragraph 2 of his statement that de d body of the deceased was Iylng under the banyan tree. Slmllar Is the statement of Gayaram DW-2. However, the court below has ignored the above statements of these witnesses and hetd that dead body of the deceased was found in the house of the appeliant. it is further argued that the e is no evidence available on record to show that the appellant was present in the house in the night of incident. 0n the contrary DW-1 Jamasadar has categorically stated that on the night of incident he had gorte to the house of the appellant to request him to inform his office that he would not be able to attend duties as hrs daughter was suffering from fever However he met hrs wrfe Rampatr Bar who was standing at the door and stated that Manbodh had gone to his offce and thereafter rn the next motning when he was going to call the doctor, he saw the body of decieasfed Rampati Bai lying under a banyan tree and at the same time Manbodh returned from duty and all of them identined the body to be of wifé of Manbodh, ln the cross examination the prosecution has not been able‘ to elicit anything to discredit this witness whose statement is duly a r l corrloborated by the statement of Gayaram DW-2. it 8. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent/State suqported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. 9. ‘ We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the ma ierial available on record. 10. Learned trial Court has convicted the appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are summarized hereunder: (i) ' that the appellant who is the husband of the deceased gave false information—toothe police that his wife died because of consuming liquor; (ii) ‘ that dead body of the deceased was fOund in the verandah of the house of the accused with multiple injuries; E / (ii) ‘ that appeHant took a false plea of alibi that in the night of incident he had gone to his duty and he found the dead body of his wife under a banyan tree only after he returned from duty in the morning. 1 So far as the first circumstance is concerne PW-Q Station d use Ofncer, Mr. kamre has proVed the document of Ex. P—15 and s ted that on 26.2.1993 at about 10 p.m. accused gave information hat‘his wife died after consuming liquor. The accused came to'iodge the report with one Phool Sai and the Chowkidar of the viiiage. Thereafter, this witness recorded his information as merg No. 13/1 993 ri'id proceeded for the place of occurrence in the foilowing morning. defence witness Jamasadar has aiso stated inparagraph 3 of his statement that he along with Manbodh, Agnu and Phool Sai went to h%e police station to lodge the report at about 10-1 0.30 a.m. However, heir report was registered in the night at 8-9 p.m. after return of the Station House Officer. Manbodh lodged the report. DW-2 Gayaram has also stated in paragraph 2 of his statement that Phool Sai, Jamasadar a d Manbodh went to the police station to lodge the report. Though the appellant has denied lodging of merg intimation But this fact has been d‘ ly established from the statement of above witnesses and therefore, i e are of the considered opinion that the Court below has not w cjommitted any illegality by arriving at the conclusion that merg iritimation Ex. P-15 was in fact lodged by the appellant wherein he gave false intimation to the police that his wife died due to consuming eixcessive liquor. As far as the second circumstance is concerned, the diefence of the appellant is that dead body of the deceased was not found in his house but it was found some 100 meters away from his ouse under a banyan-tre'egstatements of Jamasadar and Gayaram ave been-referred to in this regard who have stated that after iscovery of dead body from under a banyan tree they went to police station and lodged the report whereupon police personnel said that tll1ey‘would be coming in the morning and investigate the matter and till i. o. H t a t t 1 then body should be kept in the house of the appellant. Thereafter, they took the dead body from under the banyan tree to the courtyard of M nbodh. PW-2 Vipin has also stated that inquest ptoceedings were co ducted by the police some 100 meters away from the house of Manbodh under a banyan tree. However, defence of the appellant in- thi regard and the account given By the defence witnesses is falsified b the appellant himself who has stated in reply to question No. 42 that the ‘de‘ad body was found under a banyan tree, he called Gayaram, Jamasadar lifte‘d the dead body and brought it to his courtyard and thereafter Village watchman gave the Information In the police station 0n the contrary, ‘ PW-1 Alam San PW-3 Sukhmmbal and PW-4 Ramdeo who are the stgnatones to the inquest have stated that they were present at the time of inquest and saw that body of the deceased was lying in the courtyard of Manbodh. From perusal of the inquest report P-8 and the statement of the Station House Officer PW-Q it is evident that the body of the deceased was lying in the verandah and asl it was dark in the verandah, the body was shifted to the courtyard a d thereafter inquest was performed. So far as statement of PW-2 Vipin is concerned, initially he has stated that the dead body of the d lceased was lying in the backyard of the house of the appellant but s bsequently he stated that inquest was performed some 100 metrs away from the house of Manbodh under a banyan tree Therefore the Court below has rightly rejected the verston of this Witness and accepted the verSion recorded in the inquest report duly proved by the WiLnesses and Station House Officer Thus we are of the conSIdered °‘linion that the court below has rightly held that the body was found in the house of accused ‘l it So far as defence of alibi of the accused that in the ml} rvening night of 25/26?1993 he was onduty and he came to know bout the death of his Wife after his return from the duty is concerned this defence has rightly been disbelieved by the court below as in the merg‘intimation P-15, the appellant has‘given the information that he ‘3. . ,. 1 Sdl- L.c.BHADoo lJudge reprimanded his wife in the evening of 25.3.1993 as she ‘ad taken excessive liquor and thereafter she slept separately. There is’ no mention in this merg intimation that the appellant was on duty in the intervening night of 25/26.2.1993. There is no suggestion put to the Station House Officer on behalf of the accused that the appellant was not present in the houSe in the night of incident and thus the defence taken subsequently is an afterthoiight. 1w? Thus considering the proved circumstances that the appellant is the husband of the deceased who ,died in his house and ‘that the appellant gave false intimation to the police that his wife died due to consuming excessive liquor though number of injuries were present on the person of the deceased which were visible as per the l statement of defence‘witnesses and further that the appellant took a false l plea that the body was found under a banyan tree, we are of the lconsidered opinion that the prosecution has been able to establish the iinvolvement of the accused in causing death of his wife through icircumstantial evidence. ln our opinion the court below has not committed any illegality or infirmity in holding the appellant guilty for] causing the death of his wife and convicting him under section 302 of the IPC. A x ‘15 g ln theresult, there is no force in the appeal and the same is l _ {liable to be dismissed. lt is accordingly dismissed. i ; h i