CRIMINAL APPEAL No.514 OF 1988(D.B.) ---------- Against the judgment and order dated 26.07.1988 passed by Sri Bishwanath Prasad Singh, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah, in Sessions Trial No. 224 of 1987. ---------- Sarita Devi, wife of Baleshwar Ojha, resident of Village- Bhatkora, Police Station- Jogapatti, District-West Champaran...Appellant. -Versus- The State of Bihar........................................................Respondent. ---------- For the Appellant: Sri Aaruni Singh, Advocate. For the State : Sushri Shashi Bala Verma, A.P.P. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DHARNIDHAR JHA THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH --------- Dharnidhar Jha & D.K.Singh,JJ. The solitary appellant was tried by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah, in Sessions Trial No. 224 of 1987 and by judgment dated 26.07.1988 she was found guilty of committing offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for five years, respectively, 2 under both the counts. The appellant assails the order of conviction and the sentence passed upon her through the present appeal. Not finding counsel, whose name appeared in the cause lists, before us to argue the appeal, we requested Sri Aaruni Singh, Advocate, to assist us and he is ready to argue and assist us. The prosecution case is that in the night intervening 12th- 13th of January, 1987 the appellant came to the informant at the dead of night and informed him about the death of her mother-in-law, the wife of the informant, i. e., deceased, Rumali Devi. The informant stated that the appellant killed his wife, Rumali Devi, because the appellant had illicit relationship with many persons in the village and the deceased used to the doors of the house which was being objected to by the appellant and for which the appellant had been assaulted and chastised by the informant himself on some earlier occasions. It was stated that the appellant was a vagrant person who might have migrated to the village of the informant and because the son 3 of the informant was an idiot, the informant got him married to the appellant in spite having no details of her lineage etc. with her actual place of residence. It was alleged that the appellant in order to clear the obstacle in leading her life as per her own ambition, had committed the murder of the deceased. On the basis of the information lodged by P.W.6, the informant of this case, namely, Kashi Nath Ojha, the F.I.R. was drawn up and the investigation was taken up. It appears that the appellant was sent up for trial after winding up of the investigation by the Investigating Officer who has not been examined in the case. So far as the allegation of causing death of Rumali Devi is concerned, the evidence of P.W.7, Dr. Anshumali Shukla, puts the issue beyond any contention. He has stated that he found one lacerated wound 1/2” X 1/6” X skin deep on left side of chin and another lacerated wound on the right side of palm measuring 3” X ½” X 1”. He further found that the whole of thinner muscles were absent except the tendons and that the injury 4 appeared caused on account of eating away by insects. P.W.7 further found fracture of third tracheal ring and hemorrhagic rings spots on the mucous membranes of trachea and bronchia which suggested that the lady Rumali Devi was strangulated to death. In support of the charges, seven other witnesses were also examined in addition to P.W.7. Out of whom, P.W.1, Dular Devi and P.W. 3, Jagarnath Sah were declared hostile. P. Ws. 2 and 5 Dhupwa Devi and Brij Devi respectively were tendered for their cross- examination whereas P.W.4, Punam Kumari Pandey, who was sleeping in the same house, but in a separate room, stated that she woke- up on hearing the weeping of her grand- father, P.W.6, and came out and found that her grand-mother (Nani)was lying dead and it was bleeding from her chin. The appellant stated to P.W.4 that probably the deceased had been beaten by mice. In cross-examination, P.W. 4 stated that the appellant, deceased and the husband of the appellant were also sleeping in one room and there was a door outside and the informant was sleeping at the Darwaza in a 5 separate room. The room in which the witness, P.W. 4, was sleeping was situated inside and in which the deceased, appellant and the husband of the appellant were sleeping was another room. It was an old house and it was surrounded all around by fields and that there were mice in the house. P.W.6, the informant, of the case has supported the story that he had only one son who was an idiot and he got him married to the appellant. But, she digressed from the rightful path and had developed illicit relationship with many persons. She used to sleep inside the house and used to venture out from her house to meet several persons of the village. The deceased suspected as if she had developed illicit relationships with some persons of village. P.W.6 further stated that the deceased used to keep a close watch on her above conduct and used to lock the door and widows of the house so that the appellant could not stray away from it. He stated that on account of that reason the appellant had killed the deceased. Thereafter he supported the story that his wife, Rumali Devi, was murdered and that news was brought to him by 6 P.W.4 who was also sleeping inside the house. P.W. 6 stated that he was informed by P.W. 4 about the death of his wife but she did not state that the lady has been strangulated to death and it was bleeding from her nose, mouth and chin. In cross-examination, P.W. 6 has stated that he had not himself seen the appellant indulging in any of the unbecoming acts and further that the deceased, his idiot son, Baleshwar Ojha and the appellant were sleeping in the same room. P.W.6 further stated that when he reached inside the room he found his son was sitting. During cross- examination of P.W.6 what was coming out was that one of his daughters, namely, Malti Devi, had committed suicide by swallowing poison. It was contended by the learned Amicus Curie that a motive has been assigned but as per the evidence of P.W.6 himself that the motive was not established. It was further contended that the learned trial judge has held in his judgment in paragraph no.10 that the circumstances were so eloquent and speaking as to lead him to only one 7 hypothesis which was consistent with the guilt of the accused Sarita Devi but considering the history of the family as appeared from admission of P.W.6 that his eldest daughter had committed suicide, it can be said his children were born with the mental diseases. It is apparent that the informant had described his son as an idiot, so it might be possible that he had committed murder of his mother which was signified by the fact that when P.W.6 appeared in the room he found him sitting. It was further contended that there is in the evidence of P.W.6 and that of P.W.4 as how he could get the information about the occurrence. P.W. 4 does not say that she went and informed P.W.6 as appears from the evidence that witnesses rather she stated that she woke up on the cries of her Nana (P.W. 6) and found her Nani lying dead. It was contended that in the above light it could be a case in which the son of the informant had committed murder of his mother and so as to getting the only successor of the informant or his son out of the line of inheritance, P.W. 6 had lodged a false case. 8 In a case of circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances has to be so complete that there should not be any possibility of admitting of any possibility of the innocence of the accused. Besides, the chain of circumstances should not only be complete but it should point out unfailingly to the only probability and that should be the guilt of the accused. The motive might not be alleged, but if it is alleged as one of the circumstances in such chain of circumstances, it has to be established. The informant has alleged that the lady was a vagrant person and was found roaming around and she was rehabitated and got married to the idiot son of the informant. The allegation further is that she strayed away into her life to establish illicit relationship with many persons. There is no evidence of any one except that of P.W. 6 that it was a fact and that the lady had appeared bearing such a character. There could have been many persons in the village to come forward to state the above fact that within their knowledge the lady was indulging in the manner as was alleged by the 9 informant. As regards the evidence of the informant it was rightly pointed out that he has admitted in paragraph no. 9 of his deposition that he himself do not see or found the appellant indulging in any improper conduct. If this could be evidence on record or if there could be the lack of evidence just point out coming from dependent persons then it can be held that the motive for the occurrence has not been established. The informant has branded his son as an idiot. But, from the evidence of the informant it appears to us that his elder daughter, Malti Devi, had committed suicide after swallowing poison. The tendency to commit suicide is one of the systems of sizophrenia. There could be such a history in the family of P.W.6 who also admits that his other daughter was also residing with him on account of the fact that her husband threw her out of the marriage and she was forced to take shelter in her father’s house. There is a chain of circumstances indicating as if there can be a symptom of committing suicide in the family of P.W. 6 also. We suspect that the informant had 10 rather mildly described his son as an idiot. His son, when P.W. 6 entered in the room in which the dead body was lying, was sitting on the cot. It appears from the evidence that some injuries were also apparently available on the dead body. There was no sign, on the neck or on any other part of it to indicate as if the lady could have been strangulated or her neck was pressed so as to asphyxiating her death. If there could be a probability of the lady being killed, could it not be a probability that a person like the son of the informant could have preyed upon his own mother. It appears that there is variation in the evidence as regards the transmission of the information about the death of the lady to P.W.6. P.W.6, the informant, states that he was informed by P.W. 4 that her grand- mother (Nani) had been murdered by Sarita Devi. This fact is not supported by P.W. 4, rather she states that she woke up on hearing the cries of P.W.6 and found her Nani lying dead. She does not say that she had found Sarita Devi committing the murder or had made such statement to P.W.6. These are the circumstances and the evidence upon which the 11 judgment passed by the learned judge could not be sustained in law. Accordingly, the same is set-aside and sentence passed upon the appellant are also set aside. She is on bail. She shall stand discharged from the liabilities of her bail bond. The appeal is allowed. We appreciate the assistance rendered by Sri Aaruni Singh, Advocate, due to which we were able to hear and dispose of the present appeal. We feel that he is entitled to a fee of hearing and the same be paid to him by the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee. Let a copy of the first and last pages of the present judgment be made available to Sri Aaruni Singh, Advocate. Patna High Court Dated 6th July, 2010. U.K./N.A.F.R. (Dharnidhar Jha, J) (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J)