1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE (DIVISION BENCH: HON. MR. JUSTICE S.K. SETH & HON. MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) Criminal Appeal No.1122/2002 Satyanarayan alias Satya S/O Bhagwan Singh Bagri, Aged - 35 years, R/O - village - Sihasa, District - Indore. .... Appellant Vs. State of M.P. Through P.S. Chandan Nagar, Indore (M.P.) .... Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri A. Siddiqui, counsel for the appellant. Shri Girish Desai, Dy. A.G. for the respondent/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Criminal Appeal No.1257/2002 Lakshmi Bai W/O Late Suresh Maratha, Aged - 40 years, R/O - Luniya Mohalla, Jawahar Tekri, Indore (M.P.) .... Appellant Vs. State of M.P. Through P.S. Chandan Nagar, Indore (M.P.) .... Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms. D. Arora, counsel for the appellant. Shri Girish, Dy. A.G. for the respondent/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting:- 2 JUDGMENT (ORAL) (Delivered on 8th February, 2011) Per S.K. Seth, J :- This judgment shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No.1257/2002. Since both the appeals arise out of the common judgment, therefore, facts are taken from this appeal. 2. Appellants are aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence handed down by the 13th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in S.T. No.112/2002, holding Lakshmi Bai guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”) and Satyanarayan guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with S. 34 of the IPC. Both were directed to undergo life imprisonment. Fine of Rs.1,000/- was also imposed on each of them with default stipulation of one year RI. 3. Appellant of Criminal Appeal No.1257 of 2002, Lakshmi Bai, is the widow of deceased-Suresh. Appellants were charge sheeted for having committed murder of Suresh in the evening of 16.12.2001. The incident was witnessed by PW-1 Bhagwati Bai, her husband PW-5 Madanlal, Rajesh (PW-2) and Lalita (PW-3), son and daughter of the deceased respectively. There is no dispute that Suresh died a homicidal death as is proved by Dr. K.K. Saxena (PW-8), who performed the autopsy 3 (Ex.P/5). In the opinion of Dr. Saxena, deceased died of coma due to the head injury. On trial, accused persons denied the charges. 4. Conviction of the appellants are based on the eyewitnesses examined by the prosecution. They are Bhagwati Bai (PW-1), her husband Madanlal (PW-5), Rajesh (PW-2) and Lalita (PW-3)- son and daughter of the deceased. From the evidence it is also clear that Suresh used to drink daily and the domestic fight between the husband and wife was a daily routine. Suresh suspected that Lakshmi Bai had illicit relations with Satyanarayan. The incident took place near the house of Suresh and Laxmi Bai. On the date of the incident Suresh returned to the house in inebriated condition and noticed that Satyanarayan was present in the house and, therefore, he started shouting and demanded Lakshmi Bai to turn him out from the house. This led to the quarrel between Suresh and Lakshmi Bai and during the course of quarrel Lakshmi Bai picked up a bamboo stick and gave blows to Suresh. As a result of the injuries Suresh fell down and fainted, thereafter he was dragged by Lakshmi Bai to their house. 5. The whole incident was witnessed by the eyewitnesses, as mentioned herein-above, who did not waver during their cross-examination and stuck to their version. It has also come in the evidence that Suresh succumbed to the injuries during the night when everyone were sleeping and was 4 discovered dead late in the night. 6. The FIR (Ex.P/3) of the incident was lodged by Ismile (PW-6). After the inquest and the postmortem examination, the charge sheet was filed against Satyanarayan and Lakshmi Bai. The evidence of Bhagwati Bai, Madanlal, Rajesh, and Lalita clearly shows that domestic fight between deceased Suresh and his wife Lakshmi Bai had become a part of their married life. From the evidence it is also clear that deceased used to cultivate agricultural land belonging to Satyanarayan and on the fateful day Satyanarayan had come to the house of deceased for settling the account. Thereafter, the deceased came and started the fight with Laxmi Bai.. Deceased had consumed liquor, is also clear from the evidence of PW-2 Rajesh, who had brought two quarter bottles of liquor which were consumed by the deceased. The incident took place in front of the house of PW-1 Bhagwati Bai and PW-5 Madanlal and their presence was natural. There is no reason to hold that Rajesh and Lalita, son and daughter, would falsely implicate their mother-Lakshmi Bai. There is no doubt that they witnessed the incident and they clearly deposed that their parents had a fight over the presence of Satyanarayan in the house of the deceased. It is also clear from their evidence that Lakshmi Bai picked up a bamboo stick and hit Suresh, as a result of the injury Suresh fainted and he was dragged to the house by Lakshmi Bai. It is not very clear whether she took the aid of Lalita in the process of dragging because this fact is denied by Lalita in her deposition, but the fact 5 remains that deceased was dragged to his house; where he succumbed to the injuries late in the night. 7. Now the question is, whether Lakshmi Bai could be said to be guilty of an offence amounting to murder and Satyanarayan could be held guilty on account of the vicarious liability by virtue of Section 34 of the IPC? 8. We have carefully scrutinized the evidence and find that none of the eyewitnesses attributed any overt act to Satyanarayan, though he was present at the scene of the crime when incident took place. Merely because he was a spectator to the domestic fight between the husband and wife, by no stretch of imagination or reasoning Satyanarayan could be held guilty of any offence much less an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC. As stated above, Satyanarayan had come to the house of deceased to settle the account and was in no way involved with the fight which took place between the husband and wife. It seems that this aspect of the matter was completely overlooked by the trial Court and it failed to see that there was no involvement of Satyanarayan so far as commission of an offence is concerned. In this view of the matter, we are unable to sustain the conviction and sentence awarded to Satyanarayan. 9. So far as Lakshmi Bai is concerned, from the evidence it is clear that Suresh and Lakshmi Bai even after two 6 decades of their marriage used to quarrel almost daily. On the fateful day it was Suresh who picked up the quarrel and questioned the chastity of Lakshmi Bai on account of alleged illicit relation between her and Satyanarayan. From the prosecution evidence, it is clear that during the course of quarrel Lakshmi Bai picked up a bamboo stick and hit her husband. From the autopsy, it is clear that one of the blows fell on the head causing fracture in the cranial portion of the skull, which caused coma and ultimately resulted in the death of Suresh. The other external injuries noticed by Dr. Saxena were abrasions with contusions. In this state of injuries it is difficult to hold that appellant Lakshmi Bai had any intention of causing death i.e. culpable homicide amounting to murder. From the circumstances brought on record and discussed above, it seems to us that the intention of Laxmi Bai was not to kill. There were daily quarrels between husband and wife often ending with physical violence. On the fateful day, at the time of incident, the wife seems to have lost her head and in that state of mind rained lathi blows on the deceased. Hence the case against her does not travel beyond Section 304 part II I.P.C. In our considered opinion, Lakshmi Bai was guilty of an offence punishable under Section 304 (Part- II) of the IPC. She is in custody since the date of her conviction and as such she has already undergone more than 9 years of sentence. In our considered opinion the sentence already undergone is sufficient punishment to Lakshmi Bai in the interests of justice. 7 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal of Satyanarayan and set aside his conviction and sentence awarded by the trial judge. Since he is on bail, his bail bond and surety bond shall stand discharged. The fine amount if deposited be refunded to Satyanarayan. So far as appellant Lakshmi Bai is concerned, her appeal is partly allowed and she is convicted under Section 304 (Part-II) of the IPC, as a result her conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the IPC is hereby set aside. She has already undergone more than 9 years of jail sentence which, in our opinion, is sufficient. Thus she is awarded sentence of the period already undergone. The sentence of fine imposed by the trial judge against Satyanarayan and Lakshmi Bai is hereby set aside. Lakshmi Bai is in jail, therefore, she be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other cause. 11. Let a copy of this judgment be kept in the file of Criminal Appeal No.1257 of 2002. 12. Order accordingly. (S.K. SETH) (PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) J U D G E J U D G E Trilok/-