^-''••:%::.'^it:^t:^ 3a|g^^»3BSSH|^^0^^gQg;j!;;^|^^^lHB|^^^ '.:SSS£i^S.' ^•SKB'SS&^Sta^ lhi •ISSS^.SSE.^ ^^M8SiaE;:a, ;®i'';.l99t^, ySi &SB^ Km iSoi^^.^i^'^^.'ffeaBa^1}' ' ::.'?,,?,.S,: ^..;age:^i2®;:®sa^s»-;'.:::::::.^'•,.- .^'!.:,:.-.:':'^' :"''.:.v- ^.•...^;''' .^':^a-;:;'".^.^:' ^ '".^' •: :'; •"'.: :.. -:;/.::^' • ' • .. :''-:^';; .•.::.". ''U; ^,^^ii^^^'^ag&.®m^||E^s.^^ /^•Bxs€B|et'^^y<a£pl)^ '.'^^@§|! v,..v^as^s-^^ - %' ;:'::/:' . ':';i^ :• •.i-N.ia1 'W£^^^^^^Ey^ BH£»|^aii|!H,;yl ?e»E<)a|^:^.s<EettaiE(^i3B|s|35i.e|£i :'?^*i^^!^^ "^Ksff&sf. :'.^:ss;^ .'•"r-.-^';: ;:y^;:.^':'.':.:^^::;ssS^:w C^:.<>^.^^eK3M|EB^®.sagR^|aai£a:iEm^Ssg vssx^^y^aasss.s^ii^'mi'e^^Sigf ^.?-·^- Birendra Verma -V.ersus- State of Madhya Prg-desh (Now Chhattisgarh) »i Judgm.ent for consideration Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge /^—- Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge ^ Postfor: §"/10/2005 Sd/- Judge <T/10/2005 s°. ^ ^-i.^^ Birendra Verma -Versus- State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarhj ant by Shri Abhay Tiwari, Advocate. Shri Devesh Verma. Panel Lawver. [Delivered on 05 /1Q./2005) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.10.99 delivered in Sessions Case No. 209/99 by SKri A.K. Chaturvedi, Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg whereby the appeUant was convicted U/S 302 of the Indian Penal Code for com.rn.itting raurder of his wife Revati Bai in the intervening night of 28tfa/29th of April, 1999 in village Funda, P.S. Patan and was sentenced to undergo im.prisoninent for life. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payraent yf fine to undergo siraple iinprisonment for 6 months. 2. It is not disputed that deceased Revati Bai was the wife of the appellant. It is also not disputed that in the iuterveniiig night of 28th/29th of April, death of ?(• Revati Bai was caused due to strangulation by a rop^. Admittedly, the appellant had, on the n^ht of the occurrence, gone to Navagoan to attend a wedding at the place of Than Singh, P.W. 3. It is also not disputed that the appeUgnt had, in the intenirenin{ night of 28th/29th of April, 1999 gone to the house of Balwant Verma, P.W.4 late at night and had slept in his house. Derha Ram., P.W. 7 is the father-in-law of the appeUant. i.^- 3. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that in the intervening night of 28th/29th of AprU, 1999, the appeUant after returning from. the wedding at Than Singh Yadav's (P.W.3) place, cominitted murder of his Y\"Ife Revati Bai by strangulating her by a rope and 'lLingi'. Tnereafter, the appeUartt scattered the articles in the house aU over to m.ake it look like a case of theft, dug a pit in the field near the Devada canal and hid Rs. 2,800/- therein. He thereafter went to the house of Balwant Verm.a P.W. 4 and slept there. In the niorning of 30th April, 1999, the appellant retumed home and raised hue and cry that his wife was dead. Cholan Das, P.W. 1, Arti Das, P.W. 2 went there and saw that Revati Bai was dead, a rope and a piece of cloth was tied around her neek. Cholan Das,?P.W.l lodged F.I.R in P.S. Patan on 29.4,99 at 10,30 a.m. Investigating Officer, R.K. Joshi, P.W. 8 reached viUage Funda and prepared inquest m.em.o vide Ex. P-7 and registered m.erg intimation vide Ex. P-8. The body of Revati Bai was.. sent for postmortem. Dr. Lal 1 1: ,i ) :1 'l': • :^ » Mohamm.ad, P.W. 9 found that the face of the deceased was cyanosed, eyes were closed and tongue was protruding between teeth. There was a Ugature m.ark aU. around the neck by 'lungi' with knot on right side and also another Ugature mark around neck by rope with knot on left side. Deep ligature casticised raark of rope was present cdl around the neck. There was a sweUing on the left parietal area 4x5 cms on scalp, a haem.atom.a lOc.rci!. x 6c.ru with clot was present on the scalp, middle parietal haem.atom.a 6x3 c.m. under scalp and another soft ligature over the thyroid and a ligature cut frora left side was present. Vide report Ex. P-12, Dr. Lal Mohamm.ad opined that the death of Revati Bai was caused due to Asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Sub-Inspector R.K. Joshi, P.W. 8 during investigation recorded the m.era.orandura. of appellant vide Ex. P-3 on 30.4.99 in village Hunda and recovered Rs. 2,800/- froin beneath the agricultural field near Devada canal. After com.pletion of in.vestigation, the appellant was prosecuted U/S 302 of the I.P.C. The appeUant abjured his g"uUt, pleaded inn.ocence and led no evidence in defence. 3B 4. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. The Trial Judge, relying upofi the circuinstantial evidence of the recovery of Rs. 2,800/- at the instance of the appeUant from- under the field and the probabflity emerging from the evidence of Ta.an. Singh, P.W. 3 and Balvant Verma, P.V/. 4 that the accused/appeUant before going to the house of 3alvant Verm.a P.W 4 had gone to his house and coininitted murder of his wife, convicted the appeUant U/S 302 ofI.P.C. and sentenced him. as aforesaid. ^- 5. Learned Counsel for the appeUant has contended that the case rests upon circum.stantial evidence of a ver;' weak nature and the evidence led by the prosecution falls short.»ofthe requisite standard of proof required for establishing the guUt in criininal cases on the basis of circuxn-stantial evidence. The evidence of recover;? of Rs. 2,800/- at the instance of the accused/appellant does not conclusively establish the guilt of the appeUant beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the State argued in support of the impugned judgment. 6. We have considered the rival contentions and have also aone through the record ofthe Sessions Trial No. 209/99. The case of the prosecution rests solely on cu-cum.stantial evidence. The law relatm.g to appreciation of circunistantial evidence has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Dhanan.'joy Chatterjee Vs. State ofW.B. reported in (1994| 2 SCC 10, which is as under: In a case based oh circuinstantial evidence, the circurastances froin which the conclusion ofguilt is to be drawn have not only to be fully established but also that aU the circumstances so established should be of a conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of the iuilt of the accused. Those circumstances should not be capable of being explained f-^t \i- by any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused and the chain of the evidence must be so complete as not to leave any rea-sonable ground for the belief consistent with the innocence of the accused. It needs no reininder that legaUy established circumstances and not merely indignation of the court can form the basis of conviction and • the more serious the crim.e, the greater should be the care taken to scrutinize the evidence lest suspicion takes tKfe place ofproof. •7 In the light of the law laid down bv the Apex Court, we have, therefore, to ascertain whether the evidence led by the prosecution fulfils the standard of proof required for estabUshing the g'uilt of the appellant. Upon scanning the evidence led by the prosecution, we find that Derha Ram, P.W. 7 who is the father of the deceased stated that Revati Bai used to teIL him that her husband used to beat her often. He has further narrated that Revati Bai had told hirn that Birendra often used to fight with her and used to say that he would kfll her som.e day. Cholan Das, P.W. 1 has also stated in cross-exainination para 5 that the appellant Birendra did not like his wife Revati Bai and used to often beat her. Sahasrain P.W. 6 also testified that 3-4 yars prior to the occurrence the appeUant had ousted Revati from. the hguse after a quarrel whereafter Revati lived at her maternal home for about one year. This witness has disclosed that the reason for this was that the appellant did not like Revati Bai. Thus, it has emerged froni the unrebutted testimony of the above inentioned witnesses that the appeUant had the motive to kiU his wife Revati iai. Balwant Verma, P.W. 4 has narrated that on the night of 28.4.99, while he was sleeping, the appeUant carcie to his house and slept there. This has been adraitted by the appeUant in reply to question No. 6 & 8in his examination U/S 313 of the Cr.P.C. wNo explanation, whatsoever, has been offered. by the appellant for sleepiag at the house of Balvant Verma. The appeUant had absolutely no reason to go to the house of Balvant Verma on the n-^ht of occurrence for sleeping. Cholan Das P.W. 1 has stated that the appellant cacae to his house on the inornmg of 29.4.99 and told hun that his wife was iputtering [g<3^i'Si whereupon he went with appeUant to his house but saw that Revati Bai was lying dead on the cot with a piece of rope tied across her neck. Cholan Das P.W. 1 has also stated that he questioned the appellaat that Revati Bai was already dead and how he was sayin$ that she was inuttering. The testimony of Balwant Verma also shows that the a-ppeUant was not the first person to know about the cfeath of his wife and sonie person from. the viUage had com.e to his house to teH hira- that soraebodv had killed the wife of the appellant. Upon this, he told the appellant that he should go to the house since his daughter was iU. In this light, if appears that the stateraent made by the \.''\. appeUant to Cholan Das P.W. l that his wife Revati 'iai was m.uttering was completely false since he knew that she was ah-eady dead. ^. Arti Das P.W. 2 has narrated that on going to the house of the appellant he saw that Revati Bai was lying dead on the cot with a plastic rope tide across her neck and a piece of ''Zungi' near her mouth and that the articles in the house were aU. scattered here and there. Balwant Verm.a P.W. 4 has also corroborated this and has further said it appeared as if som.ebody had ransacked the house. Sub Inspector R.K. Joshi P.W. 8 has in para 4 stated that the appellant had, on being questioned said that he had hid Rs. 2,800/- in the field near the canal and he had seized the said aruount of Rs. 2,800/- at the instance of the appeUant from. the said field. Arti Das P.W. 2 has fully corroborated the above. There is nothing to indicate that the appeUant had lodged any report about any theft in his house on the day of occurrence. The recoveiy of Rs. 2,800/- at the instance of the appeUant also clearly shows the guilty intention of the appeUant. It is apparent that while throwing the articles here aiid there inside his house, and the mortey raissing he wanted to inake it look Ukeia case of theft and had deliberately hid Rs. 2,800/- in the field so that while the raoney would be found missing frora the house, it'would be safe there. The accused wanted it to appear that soraebody had Idlled Revati Bai while committu'ie theft from the house. .i' 10. A question was. asked to Arti Das P.W. 2 in para 6 of cross-exam.ination by the defence as to whether the appeUant had made extra judicial confession in front of his house at night that he had killed Revati Bai. Answering to this question, Arti Das P.W. 2 has stated that •it is true that the appellant Sirendra had niade an extra judicial confession at 12.00 in the night in front of his house that he had kfiled Revati Bai. This h'as not been rebutted in further cross exam.ination. vant Verma P.W. 4 has in para 2 stated that after having dinner, he slept and while he had coTupleted a part of the sleep, the' appellant cam-e to his house, woke him up and slept with him on the sam.e cot. This clearly goes to show that after returnm.g from. the house of Than Singh P.W. 3 at about 11.45 p.ni. the appeUant went to his house, strangulated Revati Bai with the help of a rope and a lungi. After killing Revati Bai, the appeU.ant went to the house of Balvant Verm-a P.W. 4 and alept with him. In the niorning sonieone from. the vfllage cam.e to the house of Balvant Verma to inform that Revati Bai had been kffled. Upon receiving'^inform.ation the appetlant r went to Cholan Das P.W. 1 and falsely told him. that his wife was inuttering whereas he actually knew that Revati Bai was dead. if 12. Thus, the foUowing links in the chain of circumstantial evidence have been fuUy egtabUshed by the prosecution in this case. i) That, the appeUant had the motive to coDimit murder of Revati Bai. ii) That, Revati Bai had died a homicidal death due to throttUne in the intervenuii night of28th/29,th April, 1999. iu) The appeUant had made an extra judicial confession before Arti Das P.W. 2 about havinp kflled Revati Bai. iv] No explanation has been offered by the appeUant as to why after retuming froru the house ofThan Singh P.W. 3, he went to the house of Balvant Verma late at night to sleep there. v) There is also no explanation as to what was the appeUant doing at horae after returnins frora the house of Than Singh Yadav. vi) There is no explanation as to why the appeUant hid the amount of Rs. 2,800/- inside the field near the canal. viij No report of theft in the house waS lodged by the appeUaat. viii) The appeUant fcnowing that Revati Bai was dead falselv informed Cholan Das that Revati Bai was muttering. 10 13. Considering the above nientioned fy.Uy estabUshed links in the chain. of circum.stantial evidence led by the prosecution, we are of the considered opinion that the above mentioned fully established links complete the chain of circum.stantial evidence against the appellant and conclusively excludes the hypothesis of the innocence of the appellant and are whoUy consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of.'the appeUant. Thus, it is estabKshed beyond doubt' that the appeUant had coramitted raurder of Revati Bai m the interveninj night of 28th /29th April, 1999. Thus, the trial Judge has rightly convicted the appeUant:U/S 302 of the I.P.C. for conim.itting the murder of Revati Bai in the interveningnight of28& / 29th April, 1999. r 14. In the result, we find< no substance in this appeal which is accordingly disniissed Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge Sdf- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge