^ •;/> y APPELLANT COURT GF CHHATTIS^AftH AT BILASPUR Criminal Aoiwal No.85S of 1993 Vish Ram ftowNOt S/o 6opi Ram Rawat, aged about 45 years, resi<ient of Village Mohda, Thana Mainpur, Distt. Raipur (M.P.)(NowC.B) RESPONDEhfT Vcrsus The State of M.P. 'through 5.0.. Mainpur. (Appeal under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure) Divjsion Bench: Hon'blc Mr. T.P.Sharma & Hon'bte Mr. N.K. Aaarwol. JJ. Present: Smt.Indira Tripathi, coun«lfwt+ic appeMant. Shri Rayindra Agrawal, P.L fop tht 5'hBte/ re^onctent. ORAL JUD&M6NT ^assed w 04th <toy of March, 2010) PerT.P. Sharmo. J. Challenge in this cppeal is to the judgnient <^ cwivictioR oatd order of sentence dated 28-04-1993 passed by First Atldittonal Sessions Judge, Raipur in S.T. No.89/1992 whereby and whereunder !®amedAdditional Sessions Judge after holding the appeilant guilt/ for the commission of offence of culpabte homicide amountjng to murder of his wife &jkhwsrt-i (dectased), convicted "rtie appellant punishable under Sectlon 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for ^iort l+ie IPC) and sentenced him to unctergo jmprisonment for life, 2. The judgment js jmpugned on the ground thart* without any iota of evidence, suffjcJent for conviction of tbe appeltant, the ieamed Court- beiow hays convicted flaid sentenced -riie cppellant as aforementJoned and thereby committed illegallty. 3. Brief fact-s of prosecution case are that deceastd Sukhwati, wife of the oypelkmt wos resid'mg wrrt^ llie eppeltent at BIBHUTI PRASAD Digitally signed by BIBHUTI PRASAD Date: 2025.02.07 12:55:30 +0530 % ^ ^ Village Mohcb, P.S. Mcunpur, &istrict ftatpyr. C^i th®fa*eful dty of 07-07-1991 at about 3.00 P.M. when Ihe deceoaBd Sulthwfifi was pre^int Jn her house, sSnie wxs found dead in atoiormd circumstances. The presentappettant who is husbaB'icl of the deced^d informed 1+»e brol+ier of the decea^d Jou|chw (PW-8). the resident of bhawxlpur who wspected the dbai^ of deasa^d and lodged Merg Intimation vide Ex. P-8< Inwstigating <iffsi<^r teft for the scene of occurrence and after aimmoning the witmssses vide Ex, P-12-A, inqi«st over the dlead body of 1+ie deceased was prepared vide 6x. P-12 in whieh he found -thQt sotn® foul vi9orous smell was coming from the blood cn?id "t+ienfc wepe scratches over -rtie neck of 1fie deceaaed. Qead bocly we«aBnt fw autopsy to Primary Health Centre, (Soryaband. tSr»Amw Jawalter QPW-6) has conducted aurhc»psy vide 6x. P-S and foundlf®ltowin| symptoms of injuries: (1) Body was cyanosed, swelling woes found over -rtie face; (2) becomposition from 1+ie body started and bltsters were present; (3) Skin peeled out around the neck wditleh aj^ears 1tie jnjury like abrasion, (4) Abrasion found over teft, right eibeiw <3Blic( shoylcter; 4, According to his opinion, causa af death wxs @dphy>8Q as a resultof strartguhxtion. FXft, was lodged vide Ex. P-2L buring course of investigation, appelteit was taNen into custody and ma^ disclosure statenwsnt of crowbar and sswee vide Ex. P*3 <»id the same was recovered from the ^)ot vide Ex. P-14. Or»08-07-1991, one local mad®bed-sheet (Khatri) was fiec^d vida Ex. P-15. Soil where dteceosed alteged to be omJtted was FBcovereAvidle 6x,M6. Saree was seized at 1fie instanceof qipellant vide 6x»P-i7. Spo* map was prepared vide Ex.P-13 caidPortwyi has also prepcped Spe>t mqp vide Ex.P-2, OneKurta ^ros seized from the acaise^ VJ<AB Ex. ^)' P-4. Seized articles were swt for ckemical cxamination yide Ex. P-22. Pre^nce of btood WCBS found over 11ie Kurtci and Dheti of the accused vide Ex. P-23. 5, Statements of 1+ie wtnesass were recorded ynder Sectiwi 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedur®,1973 (for ahorl- %e Code') and after comptetion of jnvedtigation, charge alieet was fttect before the Judicial A^agistrute First Class, @ariyab«»idwho in turn, comniitted ihe case to the Court of Sessions, Raipvr fr®m where learmid Additjonal Sessions Jud^, receiwd Ihe ca»on tronsfer for trial. 6, In ordter to prove the gyitt of the appellaRt, prosecution examined as many as 16 witness^s. Accuaarf waff examhied undeff SectJon 313 of 1+ie Code inriiere he denied Ihe circymslwices appKiring against him, plea<ted innocenc^ and fa^ impljcatjon, H< offered exptanation that wdien he came to the hoy«t/tesow the body of hss wife was hcnging inside his hause, 7. After fltffording opporhinity of h<Mtrlng t»-riTie p<a*t»s, learned Additional Se^sions Jydge convicted 1+»appedlant ynder Section 302 of IPG and senten<»d 1<i® a|^»ellant as aforementioned. 8. We have heard teamed counsel for the part'iea, pemsed itie judgment impugned and record of Coyrt below. 9. Smt, Indira Tripathi, learned oounsel o(»peaiting fcr 1t»e appellant submits 1tiat this is a case of unmxtund cbaAh ef the wife of the cypelbnt inside <Hie hovse of 1+ie appellant but only an 1fie ground of unnaturol and abnormal death of i^feof the appeiJant. oppellant cannot be held tiabje fer 1+ie commtssion of offence of murder, Prosecytton is required to prove N's €a» beyond all shadow of doubt. In the present oasse., proseajilion hos _failed to adduce any evidence against the oppellant. The i(iqt»<t report- reveals that deoeased has consumed polson. Bviderae of PW-1 reveals that decefle%d commithed suictde by hanging. 10. As stated by -rtie prosecution reveals thcrt- -riie dppellartt has strangylated hte wife which showsltiat prosecution it»N:fe not sune about the cause of dteath and jtd nature and in absence of proof of homicickxl dealli of 1+ie deceased, appetlant is not ticible for comwission of homicidal death of the cteasased. 11. On the other hand, leamed counsal flppaeiring for the S^xte opposed the appeal and aibmits -Hiat Doctor has cleartyopimsd the cause of death os strangulation. Defence has not askcd anything to the Doctor. In his cross-exainination to felsify hfe vr^on, otead body of the deceased was found inside -rtie house ef -Hie appellant. The appellant was under obtigation to offer eKplcuiatton rebting to the cau«of dea1+i of his wife and non-effering of the explanation is a strong cira.imstoince against 1f»e appellfluit flBid even aame is ^jfficient for drawing inference that dppedlant was an autiior of the crime. 12. In order to appredate the argumentd advanced on bdicrff ®f 1+ie parties we haye examined the evidence adduced an behalf of the pro^scutlon* In the present ca»/tiie cypellwt has offemd explanation that the decea^d has committed syjcide by han<|irig. Jhe inquest report Ex.P-12. reveals that foul smeM was combig vjgorously from the blood of the deceased and scratches were found over the neck. Face wois cyonosed. The symptoms are ajg^stive of the fact that the deatK of deceased mis as a msylt of asphyxkii. ^sphyxia may be caused by poi»»ning, by strangulation, by hanging i^hich may be acddental, syicictal or homicidaj. Dr. Amxr Jawalkar (PW-6) who has conducfd oaurtopsy vide Ex. P-5 has depoaed in his evidence that decomposition of the body started when he conduclBd autopsy aftcr two days of ttw death. Face was cyanosed. Skin wos peeled out from diffennt parts of -tiie body includjng neck which gives the flppcaran^ of abrasion, Abrasion was al»> found over the elbow, slioukter cnd auxiljary fold. Doctor has opined -rfiat cause of dea^i wes as a result of strangulation. He has denied the aiggestion 1fiat firstly he has used the word other than honniGidal. 13. Doctor has opined that ccuse of death was asphyxteas a result of strwigyfatian but he has not given tiie cay^s^ for siich opinjon especially he was not aire of any injury owr the &<»dyof the deceased extemalty or Jntenwlly. In absence of svch symptoms/injury it is difficult to hold that naturo of death was homicidal and deceased died as a result of stnngula'frion. ©ho^iram(PW-1) hostite witness has deposed in Ms cvtdenee that he has seen 1+ie body of the deceouaed wrfiidi was haragteg insidte the hou^ whksh ^hows that deceased has commit^ed aiicide bat no Jigature mark wos found on the neck of the deceo^ed, 14. Inquest report 6x. P-12, reveals -that fotit smeN was conAig from the blood of "rtw dec&a»dwAiich was sug^effNve of the fact that the deceased djed due to poisanin9, faut prasecytiwi lias not adduced <any evlctenc®to show liiat dtececu»dIws conainied poJswi* Prosacution has examme.d A6 witr^s»sbut any af 1+ie witiiesses has not deposed cgainst the flppelfaunt -that h®has conimitteGl 1fc< murder of the cteceased or be has stranguktted th®cleceased or even he has administened poison to the deceased. Th<e only ground that the deceased was found dead tnside the ihause of the appellant in abnormal condition. llability cannot be fastened upon the appellant efipecially/ w4»w»the prosecutton has not provBd the fact that the appellant was present at the time of daalti of the dccec^ed^ 15. On close scrutiny of the evideRce oddu<»4on bdhalf of Ihe prosea-ition, we are of the view that pros^aition has rwt adduasd wvf evidence against tiie flppellont to prove his guilt and in Qbsence €-. ^•^•;a-^:-.. '••^^is^ "t~^ ..^ 6 of any evidence, conviction and sentence of itie ap|allant ynder Section 302 of the IPC is not sustainable under 1he kw. 16. Conseqyently/ the appeal is atbwed and convJGtion of the appeilflmt under Section 302 of the IPC is det a^de, he te acquitted of <rtie said charge* He be reteased if not HBquired in any olher case. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Judge Kvr