9ivision each (Criminaf ' J 1' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDCATURE M JABA'LPUR. Cri. Appeal o. f 199. K' Sukulr-Singh son of Chamroo Ram anwar ge aout 43 ears \}%§’ mnmn. ¥ I }} '”* uf CF0000061 978 W I °7$ Ao Batam /P.S. Kari-ala, Th. Korba, Dlst. R ; t Korba ?P’.' VERSU\ S The State of Madhya Prg'desh. REPT:— SONDEN - S W h :,14: 3.1-4 ' CRIMINAL A§PE§¥L UNDER smTION 374 O :‘' CODE' OF CRIMIW REDURE. _ A 4 / APPELLANT :— K, ad b y, B ) . N o 9 , M/ mm F THE OC 1 1 ‘ l 1 i JudgeM 1512 I _ ,. ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.C. BHADOO I i ‘ L.c.BHADo $ 19 — 12-2006 é PosT FOR JUDGMENT ON 10 T" DECEMBER‘ 2006 Sd/- y}; HEENDRA WSI‘mA Judge ' D ’ \ 131422006 o HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISQARH! DIVISION BENCH* CORAAA:: HON'BLE MR.7L.C. BHADOO & HON'BLE MR. DHIRENDBA MI§HRA, .TJ’ Crimina' Agent ‘No. 73 of 1999 Sukul Singh ‘1‘ Vs. ,AThe $faf€§of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhamsgarh) Present Mr. AbWay Tiwar'i, Advocate for 'l'he appellant Mr. N.K. l 1 The foilpwing judgmen'f of fhe Cour? was delivered by Dhirendm Mishra, J. Meh‘l'a, Panel Lawyer for fhe Sfafe. JuDeMENT (Delivered ongbecember, 2006) 1. Afppellanf Sukul Singh has preferred 'Hwis criminal appeal under Slecfion 374(2) of ‘rhe Code of Criminal Procedure, as he s‘rands ‘ coilnvicfed under Sedition 302 of 'l’he I.P.C. vide judgmen‘i' da'fed l ‘ 195111998 passed lay +he Addifional Sessions Judge, Korba in Sessions T;rial No.3/97 and sen'renced 'ro undergo imprisonmenf for life for l aJ causing homicidal deafh of his wife Balkunwar. l 2. Bfriefly sfafed, fhe case of prosecufion is ‘i'ha‘l’ fhe appellanf himself lddged 'rhe Firs'r Information Repor‘l' of EXP-11 informing fhe police 'l'ljia'l‘ on The previous day i.e. on 15.9.1996 af abou‘l' 7.00 p.m. when he whs refurning f0 his home from village side, Hariram di Meghnafh > ; . , ' y\ * ’ «mi 1/ ‘ «gee " \ ,‘v i 1/ i x @ icame behind him, therefore, he sfopped negr fhe we“, af +ha1‘ 'l'ime Meghna'l'h assauH'ed him by a club, which sfruck his leff knee, as a .resul'l' of which he fell down-and fhereaffer, bofh of ‘l'hem pounced over him. On hearing a shouT, Balkunvv’ar, wife of accused came, l separated him and fhereaffer he immediafely ran fo his house. Thereaffer, Meghna‘l'h 8: Harimm bofh assaul'red his wife Baikunwar by club, who fa" unconscious. He has fur-The!" sic-red 1'ha1' oui' of fear, he slep'r in his house and his wife was iying in The courtyard whom he saw a1' abouf 10.00 p.m‘ when he woke up. He found injuries on her hand, head,‘ ieg and blood was oozing. She was asking for wafer ‘ whereupon he‘ provided her wafer. He fook her inside fhe house and advised for freai'men’i‘, however, she did no? go for frea‘rmen'l‘, as she was feeling giddiness. He. alone wen? To 'l-he house of Village Pafel Mongol Singh 6i Anandram, narrated fhe incident ‘fo 1'hem, bofh of fhem came fo his house and sfa‘ied fhaf 'l'hey shall be going 1'0 lodge ‘i'he repor‘l‘ in The morning. He has fur‘iher sfa‘red fha‘i' a'l’ abou‘i 3.00 ‘ a.m. he saw fhaf his wife'was breafhing very slowly, on which he wenf ‘ro call his son & daughi’er from his father's house and by 'l'he fime 'I'hey re‘rurned, his wife was already dead. Affer conduc‘iing fhe invesfiga‘rion police filed The charge shee'l’ againsi' fhe appellani’ under Secfions 302 & 201 of The I.P.C. as ‘i'he informafion given by the appellan'i in fhe F.I.R. was no? esfablished and on fhe basis of evidence collecfed +he appellani' himself was found responsible for causing dea'rh of his wife Balkunwar. Homicidal deafh of deceased Balkunwar is no? in dispufe. Even ofherwisefrom perusal of fhe sfa'remenf of Dr. BP. ‘Kanwar (PW-16), who has conducfed 'rhe pos‘imor‘l'em on The dead body of Balkunwor, submiffed his repor'r of EXP-21 in. which he found 14 injuries on 1he person of fhe deceased described below and opined +ha1' 1'he cause of deafh was coma due 1'0 injuries over ‘l'he head, mul‘riple injuries over The dead body and The injuries presenT on The body were sufficieri'l' fogg/e/ ,/i «so A #73:...m X‘. . @ cause dea'rh m The ordmar-y course Accordingly, homlczda! deafh of ldeceased Balkunwar Is esfabllshed 1 Lacemfed wound In The Size of 1"x 1" xrbone deep on righf chm. n 2. Lacem‘red wound In The Size of 1" x 1 side of fronfa! region 3. Lacem‘red wound m fhe Size of 3"x 1" on posfer'ior aspecf of rtgh'r forearm. "* " 4. Lacem‘red wound in fhe size of 1" x %"x § on fhe lef1' wrisf near‘ if anofher lacera‘red wound in fhe size of %"X%"x z,- x medial aspect 5. Diffuséd confusion on righ‘r elbow. 6. Diffused confusion over righf fempor'al region. 7. Confusion in ‘ihe size of 4%" x 3%? wifh abrasion in The size of 2" x i” over abdomen jusT above The amIyTis. I 8. Confusion in The size of 4" x 3" over righT iliac cresf z 9. Confusion in The size of 7"x5" over fronf of righf fhigh of middie. 10 Confusmn in The Size of 3s; x g on mid of fronf of ieff leg. 11. Abrasion in The size of é-"x i1" wifh confusion on roufe of i V1053. 12. Confusion in fhe size of 5" x 3%" over leff knee. 13. Muifipie confusions in fhe size of 6" x 2" on back and over renal region. 14. Locerafed wound in The size of 2 %" X vi” x iv" on The posferior aspecf of The middle of leff fhigh. Learned counsel for fhe appellanf submifs Thaf There is no eyewifness ifo The incidenf, fhe convicfion is based on fhe circumsfanfial ‘evidence, however. fhe circumsfances relied upon by fhe frial courf ”Jidoes nof \lead fo irresisfible conclusion fhaf The appellanf was responsible for fhe deafh of deceased. He furfher submifs fhaf fhe/ r x bone deep on left 1n l l . @ facfs men‘rioed in fhe FIR lodge byrhe appeHanf is duly orrobomfed by the sfafemen-rs of PW- Ananm & PW-3 Mangal h who have adH’ed ThaT 'fhe appellanf wen‘r 1' Thei house n nih? and formed fhe 'l'ha‘r Mghna’rh & Haam PW-4 & -5 respec‘vely have assauHed h e Balkunwar. He further Iuifs ‘I'ha'l' The Invesfiga‘ring Officer on The basis of parfisan nvesfigefio hs implica‘red :l'he appellanf in 'rhe above offence eliberafely absoMng ‘rh frue offenders. He fu'rher submifs Thaf hefcirms'fances relied upon by fhe Trial cour‘l' such as, on 'l'he dae f incident d neighour hearid The cries of deceased ikunwar when 1'he ‘deceased and The accused were quarreiiing; reporf lodged b fhe appelianf s ‘found fo be faise affer invesfiga'rion; and aleged exfrajciai confession of 1'he appellan'r beore Ramsingh (PW-11), wh is admi‘rfeiy the bro‘rher of deceased Baikunwar. Exrajudiciai cofession, n The face of if, is unreliable, as here wa no occasion i fo fhe appellan'l' To cfess 'rhe guil‘l’ 'l‘ha‘' foo before fh bro'rher of dceased and fhe facfs o FI canno‘r be doubfed I Vlw of “the sfa'remenfs of PW-2 Anandra P Mangal gh PW-9 Chamar Bai, ho had also seen fhe ppella Meghna'rh & Haram before fhe inciden'r near 1h well. On 'l'he ofher hand, learned counsel for h Sfa'l'e suppor‘l‘s 'rhe udgmen'r of 1'he ‘rrial cour‘l’. 7 l We have heard learned counsel for The parTles perused The record of llower courT documenTary and oral ewdence adduced by The A ; prosecuTion as also The impugned JudgmenT 8‘ The circumsTances relied upon by The Trial courT are as under:— e . l I. FirsT InformaTion ReporT of EXP-11 lodged by The appellanT was found false on invesTigaTion. in. The appellanT and The deceased were 'lasT seen TogeTher while The deceased was alive and aT ThaT Time They were quarrelling. j .7 " ’ i i n d d c 2 dm Slng ml‘ 0 r I e g in m e nr 1e fW h is wif sbm in a d e r ifcu f o b Ba y wa l udi f o d f n o + s r on l e «e f R n e . m W 3 5m & m l w ant ir i e 6 Te i j III‘ Blood-sfains were found inside 'rhe dwelling house of the appeNan‘l' and fhe deceased. . Weapon of offence, carpen'rer axe and ofher arficles recovered from fhe room of fhe appeilanf were found shined wi‘l'h blood. V. The oppelion‘l' mode exfr'ojudicial confession before Romsing (PW-11). . o far as Circumstance No 1 is concerned if we go fhrough the FIR odged by The appellon‘i' on 'l’he nexf day of Incident o bore reading of FIR reveals fhof 1’he some is absolufely improbable and lunnafural. I‘l’ menfions £ fho'l' a yhen Meghnafh & Horirom had pounced on him, he shou‘red and hearing The shou'r his wife came fhere, separated him and +hereaffer he fled fro his house Thereaffer, Meghna'rh & Hariram l fogefher assaul'red his wife by club as a resulf of which she fainfed fheir i'rself and ou’r of fear he slept inside his house. When he woke up a1- abouf 10 pm i.e. three hours affer fhe said incidenf, he found his wife lying in The cour'ryord in‘fhe injured condi‘l’ion. Alfhough‘he has s’rafed fhaf he is assaulfed on his knee by club buf there is no medical evidence 'l'o subsfanfiafe his allega'rion. Thus, we are of ‘fhe considered opinion fhaf fhe Trial courf has righ‘rly inferred in Para 16 & 18 of impugned judgmenf 'i'haf fhe facfs menfioned in ’rhe FIR are unreliable. 1. So far as fhe circumstance No.2 is concerned, PW—1 Teejram has ‘ sfafed fha'r on fhe fafeful nigh? a'r abou'r 8.00 p.m. he and his wife Bara'ru Bai were refurning’ fo their village from Korkoma, when fhey reached near fhe house of Chhofelal Sefh where fhe accused resides, he heard fhe cries of wife of The accused, she was crying ‘save-save’. He also heard Sukul Singh scolding his wife in 'rhe name of drinking. Affer returning 1’0 home fhey narrafed 'rhe incidenf fo Tilak and requesfed ‘l'o paelfy fhe quarrel befween Sukul and his Wife However Tilak did nof go fhere and in fhe followmg day he heard fhaf Wife of S l o‘e 5 z 1 l l l l l i . . kg g i 1 I 1 4 i x i l I \ h Q l x i I x 1 iI I i } i [ I } l ukul has died. However, he does no? know asjo how she has died. In ''he cross-examinafion he has s‘rafed fha’r affer hearing Sukul, he nferred fha‘r deceased has consumed excessive liquor and he has ifi'ed fhe suggesiion 'rhaf if a per-son drinks more, he usually hout Thus, from 1he evidence of This wimess i? is paferi'rly clear ni a1' abou‘l' 8.00 p.m. in fhe nigh'r of inciden'i fhe accused and The eceased were 'l’oge‘rher in ‘l‘heir house, deceased was alive and she as crying “save-save". The s‘raiemeni o'f This wifness also belies the claim of The appellan‘l' in 'l'he FIR Tha'l’ 'lhe inciden'l Took place a‘l’ aboul' 7.00 pm and Meghna-rh & Hariram assaul'red 'lfhe deceased. o ‘far as airsumstances No 3 & 4 are concerned a memo (Ex.P—3) regardmg place of inCiden'l' was prepared before Village 5arpanch Jonram Ra'rhla Village ‘Pa‘rel Mangal Singh Anandram and Kanshiram which has been proved by ‘the Inveshgafmg Officer PW—Z Anandram Para—11 of his s'rafemen’r has s'i'a‘l'ed fhaf +he quarl'er was opened by 'rhe Inspecl’or before him and in 'rwo places small amoun'i of blood was found blood was also presen‘l’ in fhe corners of The doors and oTher places 'l‘hough he has sTaTed in Para 12 ThaT possibly The murder was noT commiTTed inSide The house, as The blood was noT presenT in bundance on The floor & walls He has also sTaTed Th'aT The club sTained wiTh blood was seized from The room.» He has denied The seizure of broken bangles, however admiTTed his signaTures over The * seizure memo Ex.F-4. PW-3 Mangal Singh has admiTTed his signaTures in ‘i'he Panchnama EXP—3. To The suggestion of fhe defence in The cross-examinaTion, he has admiTTed ThaT Sukul has called him in The nighT in hishouse, he saw Balkunwar wriThing in pain and Sukul had provided her wafer. However, he has denied The suggesi'ion ThaT Balkunwar sTaTed fhaT MeghnaTh & Hariram assaulTed her. He has also admiTTed Tha‘l’ There were some sTains inside‘The house. The InvesTigaTing Officer in Para-23 of his sTaTemenT has sTaTed ThafThe blood sTains were found in The house of The appellanT blood sTained r "l g i x J g i é l i adm s U w 1 . S ' in i i ; a @D ciofing, blood s'rained carpn‘rer- axe & club. were also found iside house of The pHanT. The ar‘ricles were senT for chemical xamination ' Forensic Science Laborafry, wh have confirmed 'rhe p!resence o blood over ‘i' Dho‘fi, blood s‘l’uined soil collecfed from i pof, peg, carpel'er axe and club seized from inside ‘l‘he house of e pellant. Above arficles, which have been Taken info possession I rom fhe place of inciden’r ie. house of The appellant is a sfrong irmstance fo suggesf fhal' fhe inciden‘i' in fac‘r, occurred inside fhe e of fhe appellant 12. o far as circumstance No.5 is concerned, 'l'he prosecfion has xamine PW-11 Ramsingh +0 es‘rablish 'lhis circumstance, who is iffedl fhe‘bro'er of deceased Balkunwar. If appears i'haf 'l‘he lle exfrajudicil cofession was mad by ‘rhe appellan‘r inside 1he poe sfa'on when fhe Poce Ispec'l’or asked T ness +0 go fo hi rofher- aw and ask hm wha'i‘ mifake he has comm‘red and 'i'hereaf'rer on h asg, 'rhe appellanf made fhe xfraial onfessio The evidence adced by 1'he prosecun in fhi‘regard does f isre conence of fhe Cou‘l and therefor we are of 'l‘he conerg oin fhaf fhe above Circumsfance i no? esfabhed in The sTanT case. i in ‘ l 13%. NeverTheless, as already held in The foregoing paragraphs, individual ll circumsTances esTablished by fhe prosecuTion esTablishes The involvemenT of TheappellanT in The crime in quesTion. We have already held ThaT7;iTl1e incidenT has occurred inside The house of The appellanT and The appellanf wiTh a view To misguide The invesTigaTion lodges a l false reporT implicaTing oThers as The offenders, which was found To be false on invesfigaTion. The prosecuTion has been able To esTablish i i i ' i E The circumsTances, in view of The law laid down by The Hon'ble CourT in The maTTer of Dhananjoy ChafTerjee Vs State of W B reporTed in (1994) 2 $CC 220 in which The Hon'ble Apex CourT held ThaT in a ase based an circumsmnha/ ewd'ence fhe Circumsmnces from which, a / i i i l l i «swoo - n i ih e n e ro o o e ape f he t s n' ap f ccu mus S u ed admy fh aegd a n e lic h li n his wif is bin l i s if is kin eJudic cn du fio s l ‘ no npi fid r' e Sidin pino s lis l l §fl1e conc/us/‘an of gui/f is f0 be drawn have naf only fa be 1il/ly 'esfabllsbed buf also fhaf all fhe circumsfances so esfabllshed should be of a conclusive nan/re and conslslenf only wn‘h Me hypo fhesls of fhe guilf of fhe accused. Mose circumsfances should ”of be capable of being explained by any olher hypofhesis excepf=flre guilf of fhe accused and fhe chain of fhe evidence musf be so comp/efe as nor fo leave any reasonable ground‘for lhe belief consislenf wifh fl1e Innocence of llre accused. If needs no reminder #mf legally esfabli'sned c. . circumsfances and nof merely indfqnafion of fhe courf can form fl1e basis of convicfian and fbe more serious #1e crime, five l greafer should be fhe care faken 1'o scrum/2e fhe ewdence lesf suspicion fakes fhe place ofproo f" ‘vln ‘the resuH, we do nof find any illegali'ry or infirmi'ry in 1'he judgmenf of Trial cour'r, 'rhe appeai of 'I'he .appellanf being [devoid of any substance Iiable 1‘0 be dismissed and i'r is accordingly dismissed. . I sdl- frik$ L.c.BHADoo , i Judge } ' €e