IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Jail Appeal No. 364 of 2007 Kamal Singh Rawat @ Vinod … Appellant Vs State of Uttarakhand … Opposite party Sri M.C. Pant, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State. Coram: Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal,J. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. [(Judgment Per: B.C. Kandpal, J. (Oral)] This jail appeal has been preferred by the accused- appellant Kamal Singh Rawat @ Vinod against the Judgment and order dated 7.6.2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 213 of 2004 whereby the accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C. 2. Prosecution story of the case, in brief is that the accused-appellant Kamal Singh Rawat and deceased Smt. Katumbri Devi were married to each other 8-9 months before the date of incident. They were the tenants in the house of P.W. 1 Krishan Lal. On 9.10.2004 both the husband and wife quarrelled with each other. On that day at 4.00 A.M. neighbour of P.W. 1 Kishan Lal told him that the wife of the accused-appellant (tenant) was sitting outside the house throughout the night. He asked the accused-appellant as to why he turned out his wife out of the house. He took them into his house and served tea to them. At 6.30 a.m. he saw the smoke coming out of the room of the accused. When P.W.1 Kishan Lal visited the house of the accused, he saw that the wife of the accused appellant lying dead in a burning stage. She was put to fire by the accused-appellant while in the unconscious state. The accused appellant was apprehended at 2 Triveni Ghat. The marriage of the couple took place 8-9 months before the date of the incident. The information was given to the police station through telephone and the first information report was lodged on 9.10.2004 at 8.30 a.m. 3. The accused-appellant was arrested on 9.10.2004 and arrest memo Ext. Ka-7 was prepared. The investigating officer prepared the inquest report as Ext.Ka-2 and sent the dead body, after preparing the connected papers from Exts. Ka 8 to Ka-12, for autopsy. 4. The autopsy on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Hemant Bhardwaj (P.W.4) on 9.10.2004 at 4.20 p.m. He has found the following ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased:- “1:- Superficial to deep burns present throughout the body. Scalp hair singed. Faint smell of kerosene present over the body. Right side lower abdomen and both ankles and feet charred with bones and tendons visible. Whole body in pugilistic attitude. 100% thermal burns. 2:- On exploration of neck, subcutaneous itssues and muscles contused.” 5. Dr. Hemant Bhardwaj P.W. 4 also found that the cause of death was due to shock, which resulting from 100% burn. He has also opined that the death could be caused on 9.10.2004 between 6.00 and 6.30 a.m. 6. After completing the investigating of the case, the Investigating Officer, submitted the chargesheet against the 3 accused. The accused appellant was charged under Section 302 I.P.C. and alternatively under Section 306 I.P.C. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed to the tried. 7. The prosecution in support of its story has examined P.W. 1 Kishan Lal, who lodged the First Information Report and all witness of facts, P.W. 2 Ravi Kumar, the witness of inquest report and son of P.W. 1 Kishan Lal, P.W. 3 Rajeev Bhartwal, the neighbour and who scribed of the first information report, on the dictation of P.W. 1 Kishan Lal. P.W. 4 is Dr. Hemant Bhardwaj, who conducted the inquest of the deceased. 8. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has admitted his tenancy of P.W. 1 and that of his wife in his room, but denied his presence at the home. According to him, he was arrested from the shop of Halwai. He has further alleged that the victim was suffering from asthma and she could not move. The defence has examined no witness. 9. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the entire evidence on record, convicted the accused appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment vide judgment and award dated 07.06.2005. 10. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and conviction dated 7.6.2005, the appellant has preferred this jail appeal before this Court. 11. We have heard Sri M.C. Pant, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record. 4 12. Kishan Lal (P.W.1) lodged the First Information Report on 09.10.2004 at 08:30 a.m. alleging therein that Kamal Singh Rawat @ Vinod and Smt. Katumbri Devi (deceased) were the tenants in his house. They used to quarrell each other. On the date of incident, his neighbour – Kanaya called him and told him that the wife of his tenant was sitting outside the house throughout the night. He asked the accused/appellant as to why he turned out his wife out of the house. He took both of them into his house and served tea to them. At about 06:30 a.m., he saw the smoke coming out of the room of the accused. When he visited the house of the accused, he saw that the wife of the accused lying dead on the floor in a burning stage. 13. Ravi Kumar (P.W.2) who was the witness of the inquest report. On the date of incident, after hearing noise at about 06:00 a.m., he reached at the place of incident. He saw that there was fire in the room and the wife of the accused was burning. The accused was not present there. He has further stated that the accused/appellant was found at Triveni Ghat from where he was brought to the house and handed over to the police. 14. Rajeev Bharthwal (P.W.3) has stated in his statement that on the date of incident some quarrel took place between the husband (appellant) and wife. He has further stated that he has written the report on the dictation of Kishan Lal (P.W.1) at the police station concerned. He has also deposed that the wife of the accused was lying in the burning stage. 5 15. Dr. Hemant Bhardwaj (P.W.4) has corroborated the version of the prosecution. He has stated that on 09.10.2004, he conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased. The doctor opined that there was superficial deep burns over the whole body of the deceased and smell of Kerosene Oil was coming out. It has further disclosed that the body was naked and tissues of feet and bone was appearing. It has further stated that she was beaten before the death. It has also stated that if the deceased was lying in unconscious stage, then it took at least half an hour for burning. 16. Learned amicus curie appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that there was no direct evidence against the appellant, which may connect the appellant to the commission of crime. According to him, after the incident, the appellant was found at Triveni Ghat from where he was given to the custody of police, therefore, there was no eyewitness who had seen the appellant at the place of occurrence/time of commission of crime. 17. We do not find any force in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, as there is a motive with the accused to commit the crime. It reveals from the perusal of the statement of Kishan Lal (P.W.1) who had lodged the First Information Report that on 09.10.2004, the accused/appellant and his wife had some quarrel with each other and he had thrown his wife outside the house in the night. On the saying of Kishan Lal, the appellant took his wife to his house in the morning. This witness has further stated that at about 06:30 a.m., he saw the smoke coming out of the room of the appellant and on reaching at the spot, he saw that the wife of the accused lying dead in a burning stage. The prosecution case also get support on the basis of the arrest of 6 the appellant. The accused was apprehended by Ravi Kumar (P.W.2) at Trivini Ghat in the presence of Baldev and they handed over the appellant to the police. On the other hand, the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that he was arrested by the police from the shop and his version is falsified. The arrest of the accused/appellant just after the occurrence from the Triveni Ghat is also a strong circumstance supporting the prosecution story. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant has further stated that the deceased died his natural death. He has further submitted that the deceased was suffering from Asthma and she could not move, so she committed suicide. He has further relied upon the postmortem report of the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination which not only disclose the injuries found on the neck of the deceased but as per the medical opinion, the death was due to squeezing or throttling of the neck. 19. We again do not find any force in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. Considering the statement of witnesses as well as perusing the record available before us, we find that chain of circumstances, in this case very well connect the accused in commission of murder of his wife. The testimony of witness, namely, Kishan Lal (P.W.1), Ravi Kumar (P.W.2), Rajeev Bharthwal (P.W.4) and Dr. Hemant Bhardwaj (P.w.4), proves the prosecution story to the extent that the accused/appellant is involved in the commission of crime. Firstly, all the witnesses have stated that they used to quarrel with each other and secondly, on the date of occurrence, the accused/appellant thrown out his wife from the house in the night and on the saying of Kishan Lal (P.W.1), he took her back to the house in the morning. After 7 some time, at about 06:30, Kishan Lal saw that the smoke coming out of the room of the accused. When he saw inside the house, the wife of the accused lying dead in a burning condition on the floor of the house. Thereafter, the accused/appellant was found at Triveni Ghat and he was apprehended by Ravi Kumar and thereafter, he was handed over in the custody of police. Thirdly, the accused/appellant has stated in his deposition that he was arrested by the police from the shop but the fact is that he was found by Ravi Kumar (P.W.2) at Triveni Ghat in the presence of Baldev and thereafter, handed over to the police. All these circumstances, connect the appellant to the commission of crime. 20. Another very strong circumstance, in this case is the company of the accused/appellant, the death of the wife of the accused took place inside the room admittedly the accused/appellant had been living in the same room along with his wife and in the night of the occurrence they both also slept inside the room together, when the witnesses reached in the room of the accused/appellant, they found the deceased was lying on the floor in a burnt stage. She was also found naked as no cloth was there on her body. The absence of the accused/appellant from the room and subsequently, his arrest from the Triveni Ghat clearly indicates that the accused/appellant tried to flew away from the place of the occurrence after committing the alleged crime. There does not appear any reason as to why any other person who is not connected that the affair of this matter shall commit the crime. The accused in spite of saving his wife tried to flew away from the place of occurrence in order to come out from the clutches of the law. The accused/appellant raised no alarm as well as no hue and cry for help when his wife was burning inside the room. Rather, he did not lodge any First Information Report at 8 the police station. This conduct of the accused/appellant clearly indicates his involvement in the commission of crime. 21. Another aspect in this case is that the defence, which has been taken by the accused is that his wife committed suicide but keeping in view the posture in which the deceased was lying on the floor clearly indicates that it could not be a case of suicide in any manner. The stove was found by the Investigating Officer at an extreme corner of the room while the deceased was lying found near floor of the cot in a naked position. Further in the postmortem report of the deceased appears that she was strangulated first and then was put to fire. In any case, the defence could not establish that the deceased committed suicide. 22. Thus, under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that there is none except the appellant who had committed the offence. We do not see any sufficient reason to interfere either with conviction recorded by the trial court or the sentence awarded by it. 23. For the reasons, as discussed above, we do not find any force in the appeal, which is liable to be dismissed. 24. The appeal is dismissed. The conviction recorded by the trial court against the accused/appellant is upheld. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Superintendent of Jail, where the accused is detained. (B.S.Verma, J.) (B.C.Kandpal, J.) 03.09.2009 ASWAL