, IMHyF/Iggqgnggwgfitk O 1N THE HiGti COURT (31" JIDIGATUEE 3 AT JABALPUlb QRIMINAL APPEAL ‘ wo‘. ‘m‘rL /1999 . ’ Adhimen Singh alias Bega son of Ramcharan (30nd, aged 60 years, Resident of Village ShiVpur Darripara, PoliCe Station Khadgawan District Kariya (MaPn) n PmMT m JAIL) Vs. state of Madhya Pradesh awomm E GRliv1JNW&g_mww EEmwgEgw OF gm whitey cmmm’AL pRQcwURE. (L gkagn‘ A ‘ XI~HC-22 EgggagMLl Cm mm E 200 m W w mm WW mmmrw WWEWW égmm Division Bench: Hon’ble Shri LC‘Bhadoo, J & Hen’ble Shri V.K. Shrivastava: J'; 21 -09-2006 Shri Parag Kotecha, counse! for the appenant. Shri U.N.S. Deo, AddL Public Prosecutor with Shri U.K.S. Chandel, Panei Lawyer for the $tate. Oral judgment dictated on £)ais. Per L.C. Bhadoo,J. This appeal is directed aga'nst the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28-7-1999 pa sed by the Additionai Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, in Sessions Triai 0.33911 998 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge after hoiding the mused/appellant guiity for commission of murder of Sukhwariya Bai, hi wife, under Section 302 of the indian Penai Code, convicted and sent nced him to undergo imprisonment for iife. The case of the prosecuti n, in brief, is that Thakur Ram (PW-1) iodged the First information R ort in Poiice Station Khadgawan on 22-8—1998 at about 6.35 pm. to the effect that he came to know from Mainprasad that Adhiman $ingh Bega has committed the murder of his wife Sukhwariya Bai. He along ith Mainprasad went to the house of Adhiman Singh where some 0th r persons were atso present and saw ’ \\ that the body of Sukhwariya Bai was tying on the ground in the house. (he shes) XI—HC-22 3am, Wm,W W WW m 200 W mmmw .— L, mm§fg€rm $Ww§¥i There were injuries on her wrist on the ieft hand and the palm of the ieft hand. There was a black mark on the neck of the deceased on account of pressing of neck of the deceased. The blood was oozing out of the mouth. The blood was also oozing out from the private pans. On enquiry from the accusediappeilant Adhlman 3ingh @, Bega, it ie inlormed that on i8—8-1998, in the mid day, Vléh‘en He wife was eleeping in ihe house and Clio not to the agricultural fieltly sag when he returned from éhe field go agricultural seeing his wife sleegaing! he becéme infuriated, picked up a iaihi and assauiteol the deceased wiih laihi 3n her necka as a result of which she susiained injuries and was nof able to walk properly. Looking to her oitiahle condition, he was not able to bear the pain of his wife, therefore, on 21-8—1998 at about 10.0!) a. ., he pressed neck and committed murder of his wife. One lathi we inserted into ihe private part of the deceased, as a result of which she ied instantaneously. On receiving the report, th Station House Officer registered a crime under Section 302 of the lndi n Penal Code and left to the scene of occurrence. While in the Police ustody, accused gave memorandum, wide Ex—Pia about the club, which was used for assaulting the deceased and in pursuance of that. it was r overecl under Ex-PM. The sari of the deceased was taken into posse on under Ex-Pl5. Blood stained soil and plain soil were seized from the place of occurrence under Ex-PIS. The clothes of the deceased were tak n into possession under Ex-P/8. The Panchnama of the body of Sukh riya Bai was prepared vide Ex—PJ’H. (no thee) XI—HC-22 WW WW The body of the deceased was lsent for postmortem examinatiori to the Governmen't Hospitai, Khadg n where Dr. O.L. Verman (PW—9) conducted the postmortem on t e body of Sukhwariya Bai. Postmortem report is Ex—P/9. The Doctor opi ed that the death of Sukhwariya Bat was due to asphyxia (cardio respirat ry faiture) and was homicidat in nature. The clothes, ciub and other articl s were sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory Sager from where report (Ex-PI’M) was received. After completion of the in estigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Fi st Class, Manendragarh, who in tum, committed the case to the Sessi ns Judge, from where learned Additional Sessions Judge received the cas on transfer for trial. The prosecution in orde to establish the charge against the accused persons examined ten tnesses. On the other hand, statement of the accused was recorded un er Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied t e material appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, he stated hat he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He also stated that witnesses have deposed against him on account of animosity. Learned Additional Sess Judge after hearing Additional Public Prosecutor and counsel for te accused, convicted and sentenced accused as mentioned in para on of thisjudgment. (n‘idtfa‘n) a a i e i s XI—HC—22 mam,m,W m W Cw=H...2922./g9 m W mmmw g_K‘ w ”Edqwa’§w‘§€( amfamm We have heard learned cou nsel for the parties. The fact of homicidal de‘th 0f Sukhwariya Bai has not been disputed by learned counsel for th accused/appellant. Apatt from that, in View of the extra judicial aonfessi n made by the accused before PW-‘l Thakur Ram, PW-2 Badrinaraya , PW-3 Mainprasad, PW-4 Shivprasad and PW-5 Balbhadra Singh, as er the medical evidence of Dr. O.L. Verman (PW—9), sukhwariya Bal led on account of asphyxia, the death was homicidal in nature, it is esta lished that the death of Sukhwariya Bai was homicidal in nature. As far as involvement of he accusediappellant in the crime in question is concemed, the case r sts on the circumstantial evidence, as there is no direct and ocular evide ce in this matter. The prosecution has tried to establish the charge a ainst the accused on the following circumstances : (l) That the accused mad extra judicial confession before the villagers. (ii) The dead body of Sukh ariya Bai was found in the house of the accused and he offered explanation as to how the deceased sustained the injuries, ven the clothes of the deceased and club were recovered at e instance of the accused. The blood was found on these item . \\\\ ‘\% \i ~ \ 1" - /’ (the W) XI—HC—22 WW,W;W mym m 200 m ma mm mmmm rg/ WW%WW WW » $af§nané¥r As far as first circumstance is concerned, Thakur Ram (PW-1), (PW-3) and Shivprasad (PW-4) have categoricany stated that on comin to know about the death of Sukhwariya Bai, wife of the accused, they we tto the house of accused and saw the dead body of Sukhwariya Bai. deceased. Blood was oozing out of the mouth. Even bfood was oozing *é out of the vaginal part of the dec ased and therewas injury on the neck. On enquiry, the accused disci sed that he has murdered his wife Sukhwariya Bai by pressing Bhadrinarayan (PWQ), Mainpras There were injuties on the body of r neck. All these witnesses are independent witnesses. They ha e no grudge or animosity against the accused, therefore, there is no re son before the Court to disbelieve their 4 evidence and their evidence i spire full confidence of the Court. Therefore, it is established that th extra judicial confession was made by the accused before these person that he committed the murder of his wife. The body of the deceased was recovered from the house of the accused and that was iying in ho se since last 3-4 days. The accused did not disclose the matter to an body and when the villagers came to know about the incident, their: nly the accused made extra judicial confession before them. % Brpla ation has been offered by the accused that how the deceased sustained the homicidal injuries on her body and w'the matter was not reported t anyone. Therefore, this circumstance also establishes the involvement o the accused in the crime in question. (dis that) d e (aistliaa) XI—HC—22 WW, Wm,W m 6r 2a22/gj W mam mm mmmm , I; WzigméT9‘WWK , . WW , a E 3 is As far as second circumstance is cancerned, the clothes of the accused and the deceased were sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Sa ar. As per the report of the Laboratory, it is found that the Dhoti of the accused, ciub and the petticoat of the deceased were stained with blood Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the cumulative effect of all the circumstances u erringly establishes the involvement of the accused in the crime in questi n. Accordingly, we do not tin any substance in this appeal, there is no reason before us to disturb e finding of trial Court and there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgme t of the trial Court. i» in the result, the appeal fail and sameyioalismissed Sd/— _ ” ’i Sdl— L.C. BHATDOO g v_K, Shrivastava Gowri Judge n ///J“dge//’