iz:^; ^^3 j ..y^'^ !••:"' c. -y ^k^^ ^? 9-^T ?CT •^n'^Tdq', ^fflT w"T3T?T jiiTTFr p. -2^n ?rg 2000 0^on8ench(^;^i 3iqtiiT'-ff :- ^cT^i BFTTa^ :~ 3~?TW wq-7 3TT?^5f ^5T TTfl- WT 1^ -""SJT qi?Tsr 23 vS ftnrrft- -ait;fr, SIT^T -g?I?trf, -P?(iTT -JT?IH?' IlD9T3| :! ^ ^" ~ ': ^ ft^e W FST W?FT ir- Wi?^T?t 3Bt(T Sf'-ri-lri tfH'T 57482 J ^ yl^T ^•°e^' 1973 3s- '-'^^^ ;^;f^?:.^^. "s^S ^ 1^:~.1;':1''® Sgg^fg^^g^^^ Cr.^DOi^M^QT/SH^h •SKSSSSSS^ ^i^;f.j~/sSfS!;i,'. ^"SS!fx~: •iKgsi Ut+ain Kumar- :'.':;Vs.' State^Afadhyn(|^ |u<fe^iT|ifor|S^CTisJsaieratiCT, Sd»- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge 0HJKi88iii*Siiii oW-ie-SW 'svs9SI!KltS!!s!SW'S!I^^Wi!s•••••:;;;:. • . •: ^^^^'ft^'^H^^^.^^&^^^^^:^^^",^.' - xsss — HI5H COURT OF CHHAmSeAftH <4T BILASPUR Criminal Amw\ No. 297/2000 »' Uttam Kumar Vs. S+ate of Madhya Pradesh (Kjow State of ChhattisgarM Coram :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE &HIRENORA MISHRA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MLIP RAOSAHEB OESHMUKH, JJ. Prgsent:- Shri P.K.C.Tiwari. Senior Advocate with Shri Avinash K. Mishra, leamed Counsel for the appellant. Shri U.N.S.DeQ.Sovt.Advocat®for the State. fThe fotlowina Judament is d&livered on 0^! -08-2006) ikh. J. This appeal is directed ago.inst the judgment dated 19-08-1999 delivered by Smt. Anurodha Kho.re. Ist Additional v/ Sessions Judge. Baloda Bazor. Oistrict-Kaipur in Sessions Trial Number-317/1998 whereby the appellont was convicted under Section-302 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and olso to poy a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo odditiona! rigorous imprisonment for 5 months. ^^--—. a z 2. It is not disputed that the deceased AAeena Bai was the wife of the oppellant. Suleson Bai PW-7 is the sister-in-law and Oarhin Bai PW-9 is the step mother of the oppellant. Homicidal death of Meeno Bai on 05-07-1998 in the Parchi of her matrimonial home at Village-Satoni is also not duputed by the learned counsel for the oppellant in this oppeai. ,, 3. Brie-fly stated the prosecution story is that prior to the occurrence the appellant had driven out Meena Bai from tfie matrimoniol home and during this period whiie she was living in her maternol home she had giyen birth to a child. The appellant doub+ed th®character of Meena Boi. On 05-07-1998 ot about 12 Noon. the oppetlant caused the death of Meena Bai in the Parcfii of his house by assaulting her repeatedly on the head by means of a Tongia. Suleso" Bai PW-7 who wo.s prepo.rmg meals, heard cries of Meena Bai and came to the Parchi, 5he sow that AAeena Bai was lying on the floor in a pool of blood ond the appellont was standing near her with tcingio jn his hond. Suleson Bo.i PW-7 informed her mother-in-law Oerhin Bai PW-9. Derhin Bai PW-9 saw the oppellont leaving the house with the tongia in his hond. On being asked, he told her that he was going to Potice Station-Kasdoi. She tr-ied to stop the appellant but he threatened to assauit her by the tongia and went away. On returning from the field Dauwa Ram PW-10 saw that Suiesan Bai PW-7 ond Oerhin Boi PW-9 were crying in front of the house. Some villogers had also dssembled there. He saw the dead body of Meena lai lying in a pool of blood. Sahas Rom PW-15 also came to the pla.ce of occurrence ond sow the dead body of Meena Bai lying in o. pool of btood in the Parch/wrth injuries on her head. Derhin Bai PW-9 told J^ him that the appellant hod caused the death of Meeno Bai by a.ssaulting her with a tangia. 4. Sohas Ram PW-15 lodged F.I.R. Ex.P-13 at P-S. Kasdol. situoted 24 K.M.. west on the same day ot 06.10 P.M. Merg intimation was also "egistered vide Ex.P-14 at obout the some time. Memoronduw of the fi appellont wos recor-ded on 06-07-1998 vide Ex.P-17 by Sub Inspector Ratnesh Mishra PW-20 in which the appellont stoted to have concealed the tangia in the bushes near the petrol pump in Kusdol. On such memorondum tangio with blood like stains was recovered from the bushes near the petrol pump in Kasdol vide Ex.P-18. Plain soil cmd blood stained soil we.re. seized from the place of occurrence on the same doy vid®Ex.P-19 and one old Herculis Cycle wos also seized on the same day Vide Ex.P-20. Autopsy on the dead body of Meena Bai was conducted by &r. K.L.Bonjure on 06-07-1998 cmd following injuries we.re. found on her person: 1. Contusion over forehead at mid site measuring 1"?<1' colour - btuish. Incised wound behind the right ear measuring 2"xl/2"xl/2" biood clots present. 3. Incised wound on right tempero-parietal region 2"x 1/2" x 2 1/2". Blood clots and Brain matl'er present. ^~^_f 4. Lacero.ted wound on occipitol region left side measuring 2 x2" x 1 i ". Blood clots and Brain matter present. Interna! examination revealed a fracture of right porietal bone, fracture of right tempor'al bone ond fracture of left occipitat bone. Depressed broin substonces were protruding from all frocture sites. I+ was opined that the injuries we.re onte mortem and deoth wos due to shock as a result of excessive hemorrhage from head m., WS'SSW'K:aKII:S's- !fsesa !m, injury ond wos homicidal in nature. Plain soil and blood stained soil and the tongia along with the blood stained clothes of the deceosed were sent for chemical onalysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Excepting ptain soil, presenc®of blood was confirmed on all the abovementioned articles. After completion of investigation, the oppellont was prosecuted under Section-3p2 of the IPC. '; The appella.nt abjured th®guilt ond led no evidence in his defence. The prosecution examined as mony as 20 witnesses. Kelying upon the evidence Isd by the prosecution learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the oppellant as aforesaid in para-1. (Supra) i o Shri P-K.C.Tiwari, tearned Senior Advocate appeoring on behalf of the nppeliont while ossailing the impugned judgment piaced relicuice on Ashish Batham Vs. Stafe of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR-2002-Supreme Courl'-3206 while arguing thnt suspicion howsoeyer strong could not be substitute for legal proof and graver •rfie charge^ ^reoter hds to be th®stondard or proof. It was argued that the testimony of Sulesan Bai PW-7, Derhin Bai PW-9 ond Sohos Ram PW-15 stood wholly rebutted by the cross examination and could not form the basis for convicting the appellcuit under Section- 302 of the IPC. Relionce was olso placed on Raikumat' Vs. State of ,Madhya Pradesh reported in 2004 AIR S.C.W.-5137 while eontending that appellont could not be convjcted on the bosis of eircumstantial evidence since the report of Forensic Science Laboratory did not establish the presence of human blood on the tangia alleged to hcve bsen recovered from the appelhnt ond motive for the appellant to commit murder of his.wife had also not been established. On the other hand, Shri U,N.5.0eo, tearned ©ovt. Advocate appearing for the State argued in support of the impugned 'TE^? ^Ut<-T^ ^^•SlS^iEL^^] [^S? ^ii^-iS^^S^ ys'iRfssig judgment. 7. Hoving heard rival contentions, we hme perused the record of Sessions Triol Number-317/1998. Homicidal death of Meena Bai is not disputed in this oppeal. Even otherwise the autopsy report Ex.P-4 proved by Dr. Prahlad Patel PW-5, as tttentioned in parg-4 (Supra) 'iewe. no room for any doubt that deoth of AAeena Bai had occurred due to severe injuries on the head with corresponding fractures of the parietal bone. temporal bone ond left occipital bone. The injuries were caused with such force that brain substance had protruded from all fracture sites. It is thus established beyond doubt that Meena Bai had died a homicidal death on 05-07-1998. Sahos Ram PW-15 had todged the F.I.R. at Police Station- Kasdol on 05-07-1998 yid®Ex.P-13. He testified that Dauwa Ram PW-10, father of the appellont had informed him that his son Uttam Kumar, the present appellant herein had killed his doughter-in-law and on such informotion he had gone to the house of Dauwa. Rnm PW-10 ond had seen Meeno. Bai lying dead in a pool of blood with the injuries on the head. He had olso stgted that upon asking 5u!eson Bai PW-7 had ttlso toid him that the oppellant had cause.d the death of •Mesna Bai. The testimony of Sahas Ram PW-15 that Duawa Ram informed him as above finds corroboration from the F.I.R. Ex..P-13 and merg intimation Ex.P-14 lodged by him on the date of occurrence. The defence has been unable to impeach the credibility of this witness in cross-examination. This witness bears no grudge against the oppellant and has no.reoson to fal.sely implicate him. In our considered opinion, this part of the testimony of Sohas Ram PW-15 M 11 6 sssiiSaa thot Oauwa Ram PW-10 had informed him that his son Uttam Kumar had coused the death of his daughter-in-low is fully trustworthy. 9. Dauwa Ram PW-10 ho^ nlso dqposed thot a Bahlika had token place in which he had stated that his son did not go aton9 well with his daughter-in-law. He also admitted that wife of the oppelkiit had liven birth to a child after she was driven out of his hous®ond was residing in her maternal home. 6uho Ram PW-8'has also corroborated flie fact thnt after being driven out from her matrimonio.l home. she was residing in her maternal home for about a yenr. This part of the Lth/ testjmony is whollyfrebutted in cross-examination and shows the motive of the appeltont to cause the death of Meenoi Bai. 10. Sulesan Bai PW-7 has deposed that while she was cooking food on the date of occurrence, the accused-appellant said to her tho.t he has committed murder and went on a cycle to the Police Station. Thereafter, she saw the deceased and fell unconscious, 5he hos al.so admitted that ffi.ee.na Bai was lying in a pool of blood with injuries on the head on the floor. Her testimony that the oppellant hod told her that he had committed murder and left for the Police Station on a e/cle is wholly unrebutted in cross-examinotion. In cross exomination, a tricky question was osked to this witness to which she ns'plied thot on the date of occurrence she had not met the appellant. No specific question was osked to show that the oppetlant wos not present at the house before she saw the dead body of AAeeno Bai. The admission in cross excmination that she did not meet the appellant on the date of oceurrence therefor®did not rebut her testimony in para-1. No other question - was asked in cross examino.tjon. Her testimony that •Hie appellont had told her that he had committed murder and went on a cycle to the Police Station ond stsrgassit ">;; Ks she thereafter sow the dead body of Meena Bai lying in a pool of blood is thus wholly worthy of credence. 11, Derhin Boi PW-9, step mother of the appellgnt hos narrated thot white she wos in the Pardfi she saw Sulesan Bai crying cnd coming out of the house and further saw thot AAeena Bai was lying in o pool of blood. She also odmitted That-'the oppellant while saying that he had committed murder and was^oing'to the Police Station had left the house on a cycle. Agmn the same solitory tricky question was asked to this witness that she did not meet the appellant on the date of occurrsnce. It was <xlso osked that at the time when the qtpellant went on a cycle, she did not talk to -t+ie appe!lant. The above answers do not rebut the testimony of this witness in any mcuiner because she has norrated that it was the oppellant who while saying tiiat he had commifted murder and was going to Police Stdtion had !eft ths house. The mere admission in cross examination that she did not speak to the appellant does not rebut her testimony in lany manner. She is the step mother of the appellont and hod no reason whatsoever to fatsely implicate her son. 12. In his testimony Dauwo Ram PW-10 stated that on reaching the house he scw a crowd near the house and also saw Suleson Bai & uerhin 8ai crying and Derhin Bai informed him that the nppellouit hoid caused the deoth of Meena Bai. No specific question wgs asked in ccoss examination to this witness that berhin Bai had not narrated the above fact to him or not. 13. Achche Kumor PW-16 is the witness who stated that on hearing shouts in the aftemoon he saw Sulesan Bai standing in the iadi. On his asking she told that The appellant was assaulting his. ia.il j ssaiS 1 xs3 wife. Soon thereafter he saw the appellant holding an axe. Thereafter, his aunt Derhin Bai asked him to catl someone since there was a pool of blood on the place where Meeno; Bai was lying dead. Nothing has been elicite3 in cross examination which would indicote that this witness beors any grudge ogainst the appetlant or hod any motive to falsely implicate |iim. It is true that in his case d'm.ry statement Ex.D-1 he did not sta-te hoving seen the oppellont with,an oxe near the place of occurrence but so far as the fact that Suleson Bai had informed him that the appellant hod caused the death of Meenn Bai ond ran awoy finds place in his statement Ex.D-1 also. 14, Sub Inspector RatneshMishra PW-20 has proved the foct of recovery of on axe on the memorondum Ex.P-17 of the appellant vide seizure memo Ex.P-18. His testimony also established beyond doubt that Tangia was recovered at the instance of the appellcmt which had contained blood like stains. The report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.P-26 also establishes beyond doubt thot presence of blood was confirmed on the Tcmgia seized from the appellant. 15. The case law cited by ths lear-ned counsel for the oppellant does not help the oppellant in any manner since the circumstontial ^ividence led by the prosecution leove no room for any doubt that the cppellant was the author of the crime. Applying the test laid down by the Apex Court thot in Ashish Bsrtiam Vs. State af Madhya Ppadesh reported in AIR-2002-Supreme Court-3206. the evidence ied by the prosecution safisfactorily meets the standard of proof required to estab!ish the charge of mupder against the appellant. 5o fnr as the case of ReJkiwar Vs^ Sfate of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2004 AIft S.C-W. -5137 cited by the learned counseL F%s:??? •:"°^::~^ss^ for the appellont. the focts are clearly distinguishable since in the present case the evidence led by the prosecution establishes the presence of the appellant on the scene of the crime immediately after the occur'rence. 16. Having thus considered the evidence led by the prosecution in <ff._ its entirety, the following facts are established:- (A) The oppellant had motive to commit murder of Meena Bai since their relatioriship was strained ond he doubted the character of Meena Bai. 1) Death of Wvae.na Bai wos honiicidal in nature and caused due to severe incised injuries with fractures underneath w»theskull. (C) The testimony of Suleson Bo,i PW-7 & Derhin Bai PW-9 establishes that the appellont had, immediately after the occurrsnce. left for the police station on o. cycle while stating thdt he had committed murdep. The testimony of these witnesses finds corroboration from 1+ie prompt F.I.R. lodged by Sahas Roim PW-15 vid® Ex.P-13, merg intimation Ex.P-14 ond also the testimony of Sahas Ram PW-15 and Achche Kumar PW-16. (D) The. recovery of on axe on the memorondum of the oppellant on the very next day after the occurrence and presence of blood thereon is also established. 17. In view of the abovementioned facts.-we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved beyond the shadow of doubt that the appeliont was the outhor of the crime of nnurder of Meena 10 ^ ^t^.il^g^ VWtsm^ Bai. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and the sentence owarded thereunder by the learned trial Judge being well founded do not call for any interference in this a 18. In the resuit, this appeal bsin9 devoid of merit fails and is hereby dismissed. -/ —-—---- Sd/- Dilip Raosal?eb Dhirendra Mishra Deshmukh Judge Judge