@ XI—HC 78 WW, WW, u . C..z. WW @200 2‘ mm (FEW) " XI PIC—78 WWW am mam default of payment of fine to udher undergo R.I. for three months, fespectively. I} Case of the prosecution, i brief, is that in the intervening night of 916th & 17‘“ May, 2001 in Kn harpara Bacheii the accused/appeiiant committed the murder of his Wlf Smt Padmini Bai by pressmg her neck ‘On 17-5 2001 at about 9 25 a m brother of Padmini Bar nameiy, Cheturam lodged a report to r e effect that he Is resrdent of Viiiage Faréigaon, Potice Station Jagdlpur, Police Outpost Bakvand and he is iworking as a Carpenter with Mu‘irkhan. Previous day evening, he along with his sister Padmini Bai, brther—in-law Tulsi Ram & wife Dayamati consumed liquor & chicken in th house of Padmini. At about 8-9 p.m. he along with his wife Dayamati vnt to his adjoining house. On the fateful day morning when his brother— n-law & sister were not visible, he went towards their house and saw that the door was locked from outside. Thereafter, he along .with his wfe peeped into the room of his sister and when she did not wake up eve after his call, he called Ramu & Sirdhar. Thereafter, they opened the dor after taking out the chain from the l0ck. V He saw that the body of his siter is covered with a sari. Tulsi Ram left the house without informing an body, his belongings & clothes were also not there. He does not kno 1 the cause of death of his sister. After ‘ consuming liquor, Tulsi Ram ued to beat and quarrel with his sister'and \\rrv\ \‘ ' r e used to abuse her also. W . \ h 3E W, @émilEJ W3? @ aasea on ’Ihé , merg inquiry was conducted. The I ‘ occurrence. After giving notic 3- prepared inquest Ex.P-5 on‘the plan (EXP—2) of the place of oc fgnt for post-mortem examinatic "' mortem and prepared the po, opined that the cause of death i 1 of‘death is h‘omicidai. The Inve broken pieces of bangies as al the hand of the deceased unde under EXP-9. After receiving registered under Ex.P-6. Doc Investigating Officer regarding previous wife by the accused. After completion of inves gation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant for offence unishable under Sections 302 & 201 of the l.P.C. in the Court of Chie Judicial Magistrate, Dantewada, who in turn, committed the case to th Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur, from where learned 15‘ Additional Session Judge, Jagdalpur, received the case on transfer for trial. i The prosecution in 0rd r to establish the charges against the accused, examined eight wit‘ sses. Statement of the accused was corded under Section 313 f the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the \\\ westigating Officer left for the scene of ie Exs.P-3 & P-4 to the witnesses, he body of Padmini Bai. He prepared site :currence. The body of Padmini Bai was tn. Dr. (Smt.) V.P. Tirkey conducted post— st—mortem report EXP-19 in which she s asphyxia due to throttling and the nature tstigating Officer took into possession the so the pieces of hair which were stuck in ‘ Ex.P-7. Key of the lock was also seized the post—mortem report, the case was ument EXP—20 was also seized by the ‘the commission of the murder of his ll \\\\\’\ re l \\t mm®'.3(. .................W ‘ 200 L. MW (Wu) mmw am mm WWW WW f€ém é? a‘fmm e C’9m..7 WWW mm (We) WWW material appearingagalnst nun Padmini Bai was not his wife, a i to work as Carpenter, he was I days he used to stay at the Residence of Padmini Bai and every week he In the night ofthe incident, he was not at @ WWW mmafs‘émrt $Wm k \ \\ used to go to his Village Parpa. the residence of Padmini Bai. Learned trial Court after i convicted and sentenced the ac We have heard Mr. R. . Jha, learned counsel on behalf of the appellant and Mr‘ Sudhir Baj ai, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate on behalf of the State/respondent. \ As far as the nature of d ath of Padmini Bai is concerned, Mr. R.N. ‘ Jha, learned counsel appearng for the appellant, argued that the prosecution has not been able o establish beyond reasonable doubt that the death of Padmini Bai was omicidal. While inviting the attention of the Court towards para 6 of th evidence of Dr. (Smt.) V.P. Tirkey (PW- 8), he submitted that the doc or has stated that it is correct that the symptoms found on the body o the deceased could be of suicidal death. In order to appreciate th argument advanced by Mr. Jha, we have perused the evidence of Dr. (S t.) V.P. Tirkey (PW-8) who has stated in her evidence that she conducte post-mortem on the body of Padmini Bai on 19-5-2001, at that time, mo th was half open, blood was coming out from the right ear, lips & nails were bluish. There was abrasion on the right shouider in the size of 4 c s. x 1 cms., abrasion on back side of the i i i / i / r ,, i m 2001 dud pleaded innuc . d that pout two months back he went to Bacheli ot having any house therefore, for some tearing counsel for the respective parties cused as aforementioned. \ WWW ammm Wmm chest In the Size orB—TX‘mn-x—‘i—cm—abraswm—were-M hrs :0Id, swelhng on the neck In the suze of 10 cms. x 5 cms. and that was 48,— ;72 hrs. old. On opening of the head it was found that there was fracture tof base of skull, hyoid bone V icongested, right chamber was ft hatf digested food was present 3 asphyxia as a result of throttlinc Even though the doctor In the symptoms which were found on 1 in the case of su1crde also. Bu. doctor and the post-mortem rel body of the deceased, sweliing hyoid bone & trachea. Above circumstantial evidence was commission of suicide by the covered with a sari and there was fracture of base of skull bone also. All these symptoms show that the ln the circumstances, based on the evidence of the doctor and nature. the post-mortem report EXP-119, it is established that the death of Padmini Bai was homicidal in nature. As far as complicity of the accused in the crime in question is concerned there is no direct cr ocular evidence in this case in order to connect the accused wrth the crime in question Whole case rests on the ln older to conVIct an accused based on the mm%=€€tm €€an%q3n%w Nas fractured, left & right lungs were Ill of blood, left chamber was empty and in the stomach. Cause of death was and the death was homicidal in nature. cross—examination has stated that the the body of Padmini Bai could be found If we look into the total evidence of‘the )ort, there were abrasion injuries on the on neck, fracture of base of skull bone, injuries cannot be self-inflicted and no found on the spot that suggests the deceased, rather her body was found =\ Circumstantial evrdence. death of Padmini Bai was homicidal in WW mzoo?\ @ 6 . G» agw/ Wm (Wu) mam ammm mgfgam WWW‘&WW $¥3fi=<mm ln the present case, in t light ofthe above principle now'we shall proceed to scrutinize 'the evide ce and the material available on record. ln the present case, the pros cution has tried to establish the crime based on the following circumst nces: - 1. “In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn ‘ have not only to be fully established but also that all the circumstances so established should be of a conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Those circumstances should not be capable of being explained :by any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused and the chain of the evid ence must be so complete as not«to leave any r ‘ sonable ground for the belief consistent with the innocence of the accused. lt needs no remind r that legally established circumstances and not’ merely indignation of the court can form th basis of conviction and the more serious the cr me, the greater should be the care taken to s rutinize the evidence lest suspicion takes the place of proof.“ The accused used to re ide with Padmini Bai at her house and in the fateful night the cused, the deceased, brother of the deceased namely, Chet ram & his wife Dayamati consumed liquor & chicken together and hereafter, Cheturam & his wife Dayamati left the house leaving be ind the accused & the deceased. ‘1‘“ s circumstantial eVIdence, the Apex Court in the mattcsef Dhananjoy Chatterjee vs. State of W.B. reported in (1994) 2 SCC 220 held that: e h c r\wation EXP-1. When he w nt to the house of his sister, accused Tu ;w 2. NexfHay morning i'ne from outside and accused Tulsi Ram was found missing from the place. 3. Padmini Bai met with homi 4. Key of the lock was seized F'gs; circumstance cidai death. from the accused. i i As‘ faras this circumstance is concerned, Mr. R.N. Jha, learned counsel for the appellant, argue that the prosecution has utterly failed to ¢heturam & his wife Dayamai consumed liquor & chicken together, establish that in fact, in the ateful night the accused, Padmini Bai, _ 4 ‘ Padmini Bai & the accused wer present in the house. He further argued that nothing has been produ ed to establish that the chicken was prepared & eaten by these pers ns and the liquor was consumed. _ in order to appreciate t e above argument .of Mr. Jha, we have scrutinized the material availabl on record. Cheturam (PW—2) has stated in his evidence that in'the fate i night, Padmini Bai & the accused were sleeping in their house, he is esiding in the same vicinity in which his brother-in-law & sister were re iding. When his wife was going to fetch water, she peeped into the h use of his sister and saw that she was sleeping, when Padmini Bai di not respond to the call of Dayamati, she informed him, therefore, he w nt there and called his sister, but She did not respond. After removing the chain from the lock, he entered the house and saw that his sist r was lying dead. He lodged the merg lsi \ CQ..'3.7 Wm ...:......m 20o 2A Wt“W (We) ammm ammm Wmm Wmawm wk i V\ & others. Thereafter, the villagers broke open the Iock. He'did not enqui e anything from Tulsi Ram. In para 7 of his evidence, he has stated tha Ramu & Shridhar also came there and they enquired the whereabouts of his brother-in—Iaw, but they could not trace out his whereabouts. Hi sister was lying dead. The pieces of s‘ - broken bangjes were also iying here and there were marks on the neck of his sister. in para 16 of his e idence he has stated that he is doubting that‘Tulsi i Ram has committed he murder of his sister, because in the sari. He called his friend Ramu fateful night the accused and hi sister were in the house. He has also istated that Padmini Bai & accused Tulsi Ram used to reside together as husband & wife, behaviour of Tulsi Ram with Padmini Bai during the life time was good. stated in her evidence that Cheturam Kanta Bai (PW-3) has ‘ not responding, she went to the house of am, Shridhar, Ramu & others were taking ‘I entered the house, she also entered the '» Padmini was lying in the kitchen, broken pieces of bangles were also ly ng there, there was mark on the neck of on the back of Padmini, Tulsi Ram was also doubted that Tulsi Ram must have committed the murder of Padm ni Baiby pressing her neck. In the fateful night she had gone to Bacheli hill top, she returned at 7 a.m. next day informed her that Padmini Bai is Padmini Bai at that time, Chetur out the chain from the lock, the: house and saw that the body o \ Padmini and there was an inju not present there, therefore, s L:\\ i and when she reached there, t e Police also came there. CO - (4‘ EO Wm W209; WW(W§3) ' WWW mmawm twm am was no ith a ~ (”M4 2x. WW i;m mm (ma) Dayamatl (PW—4), wife’b Cheiumm (PW-'2), has statcdirin her evidence that accused Tulsi Ram is the husband of Padmini Bai, they heed to reside together. In the iateful night she along with her husband \ivent to the house of Tulsi Ram, they took their dinner and she aiong with \r ‘ her husband came back to their house, she does not know whether any \ duagrel took place between Tulsi Ram & his wife in the fateful night. In the morhingr her husband infO'med her that Tuisi Ram is not at his residence and the house is locked from outside, therefore, she along with her husband went to the housa of Padmini Bai, they peeped into the house and saw that the body of Dadmini Bai was Iying in the kitchen, th‘ey called Padmini, but she did not wake up. Thereafter, Shridhar & Ramu were calied, as the house was Iocked from outside, they took out the chain from the lock, opened the door and saw that the body of Padmini Bai lying in the kitchen covered with a sari and broken pieces of was bangles were also lying there. Ramu Mandavi (PW-5) has stated in his evidence that the behaviour of Tulsi Ram with hs wife Padmini Bai was good, but Tulsi W ‘ Ram was in the habit of consuming excessive liquor and after consuming liquor, he used to quarrel witt his wife. Next day morning Cheturam informed him about the incident, therefore, he also went on the site and saw that the villagers were taki g out the chain from the lock, at that time, Tulsi Ram was not present. l‘Te also went inside and saw that Padmini with a sari. XI-HC 78 WW W,1%Img? WWG§a s 7 mm (Wm z ML Mmm WWW WW éiaif‘manéw mama?“ Perusai ot the ewdence of the above witnesses cleariy establishes Dadmini Bai at her house oftenly and band & wife, to that extent even the accused has admitted in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the 3r.P.C. and has stated that about 2-2 1/2 months earlier he came from his {‘ill‘age Parpa to Bacheii for doing ‘ that the accused used to stay with :they were residing together as hus as Carpenter, he was not having ‘ any house a‘t‘Bacheii, therefore, he used to stay at the house of Padmini and at the end ofthe week he used o go to his Viliage Parpa, As per the evidence of Cheturam (PW-2), bro her of Padmini & Dayamati (PW-4), Nife of Cheturam, in the fatefui nig ti.e. intervening night of 16“" & 1‘7‘h Vlay, 2001, the accused stayed wth Padmini at her house and even 3heturam, Padmini, the accused/a pellant & Dayamati consumed liquor and took dinner together, thereaft Dayamati & Cheturam left for their 1ouse leaving behind Padmini & ccused Tulsi Ram. Therefore, it is established that in the fateful night he accused was in the house of the deceased. .Second circumstance As far as this circumstance is concerned, Cheturam (PW—2) & Dayamati (PW—4) have categoric lly stated that next day morning ”admini Bai & Tulsi Ram were not v sible and the house was locked from )utside, therefore, they peeped int the room from a hole where they ‘ound that Padmini was sleeping, C eturam called the villagers and all of hem opened the door after taking o tthe chain of the door from the lock ‘and saw that the body of Padmini s lying in the room, the same was i l, i ' b e , ' a XI-HC—7 8 WWWW WW caqzw) @1200 ' L mm (Wu) mmm‘ Wmm r WWW WW ammm %a1fcmané¥r movere WI a san an ere were njunes on Eer neck accused T lsl Ram was not present in the house, ereas, as per the eVIdence of these tnesses, in the fateful night, C eturam & Dayamati left the house ‘ \ 1 ccused also establishes and points towards his involvement in the crime Kanta Bai (PW-3) has also s ated that in the morning, Cheturam 1i formed that Padmini is lying de r t ot present there. Ramu Mandavi (PW-5) has st ted that Tulsi Ram was in the habit consuming excessive liquor and e used to quarrel with Padmini. In morning when the villagers were opening the door, Tulsi Ram was not r e i en Tulsi Ram replied, “brother, t ereafter, the Police Inspector cam therefore, he could not talk to the in the'room, the room was locked 1 om outside, thereafter, she went a d saw, Cheturam, Shridhar, Ramu & l hers were also present there, they opened the door and Tulsi Ram was f e esent. Munir Ahmed (PW-6) has stat d in his evidence that 3-4 days after incident, the accused was arres d in Police Station Bacheii, he was so called there, he enquired from Tulsi Ram as to why he ran away, at has happened has happened”, Therefore, the above evide ce establishes beyond reasonable ubt that the accused, in the fatef l night, was with Padmini Bai in her v h i a h o XI—HC—7 8 3am, W, W @ 12 mgvg3(7 m 200 L mm (Wu) WWW _rb—om‘,fh—ft‘—W erea er, e Isappearea af WWW \‘ ammm WW WWR ’$ aim! m fer commlfflng tHe murder of Padmini and the room was Iocked from outside. Third circumstance As has been discussed in the Bai met with homicidal death’whici i the doctor and the post—mortem repc Fourth circumstance As far as this circumstance is concerned, Mohan San/van (PW-1), SUE inspector, has stated in his evidence that Cheturam gave merg ntimation Ex.P—1. He prepared the site plan, collected the broken pieces i 3f glass bangles and seized one lock under Ex.P-7. On 25-5-2001, one 1 y was seized from the accused u der Ex.P-9 that bears the signature TuIsi Ram at ‘B’ to ‘B' portion an that was sealed. Therefore, the key f the lock was seized from the poss ssion of the accused. Besides, the accused has ma e a false statement that in the fateful ight he was not at'Padmini Bai’s ouse, whereas the same has been s h rime in question. For the foregoing discussion hat in the fateful night the accused s in the house of Padmini, they c nsumed liquor & food together, next y morning, the dead body of P dmini Bai was found in the room vered with a sari, the room wa locked from outside, the accused isappeared in the night and the' eath of Padmini was homicidal in earlier part of this judgment, Padmini is established .from the evidence of rt. V : tablished by cogent and clear ev dence of the prosecution witnesses. is conduct of the accused also in icates towards his involvement in the e f a a o @ WW,WI€, Wm Q9 ' F} L .$(. ” @1200 L mm (Wu) mmw mafgam WWW ®23W ammm ‘ %31‘f<w311%¥r na ure. e 0c was opene ‘Wh—‘T—W’fr— y e VI agers an e accused absconded. ‘The’refore, all the abcve circumstantial evidence irresistibly establish the involvement of the accused in the crime in question beyond reasonable, doubt and there‘is no- possibility of the commission of the crime by any third person. *" In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. t \u l Sdl— Sd/- ’N lé.C.BHAD,OO l: IRSharma ‘” Judge i l Judge Soma