Gargi vs State Of Haryana

Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2019.09.19 the present case, the appellant was charged with the imputations that 17:07:35 IST Reason: 1 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 341-DB of 1998 and 359-DB of 1998. 1 she killed her husband by strangulation and, with the help of co- accused persons (her brothers), hanged the dead body in one of the rooms in the house, as if it were a case of suicide. The matter rested on circumstantial evidence where, according to the prosecution, the relations of the deceased (husband) and the appellant (wife) were too strained; the deceased had stated threat perceptions that his wife might kill him, for she was involved in illicit relations and was desirous of grabbing his property. Two of the siblings of deceased, one brother and one sister, testified in support of the prosecution case. Per contra, the appellant, while denying the imputations, took the plea that she was leading a happy married life with her husband for 18-19 years with two children; and that the brother of the deceased, on whose statement FIR was registered and who was the prime prosecution witness, was carrying the ill-intentions to grab the property of her husband and had managed her prosecution. The Trial Court convicted all the accused persons while accepting the prosecution case and rejecting the defence version. In appeal, the High Court, though found that the circumstances brought on record were not sufficient to bring home the charge of conspiracy against the brothers of the appellant and acquitted them but, affirmed the findings against the appellant and maintained her conviction for the offence of murder of her husband. Hence, this appeal.

The relevant facts and background aspects 2

2. Put in brief, the prosecution case had been that on 01.05.1997, having received information that a man had committed suicide in House No. 1297, Sector-15, Panchkula, ASI Amar Singh (PW-9), accompanied by UGC Bidhi Chand and UGC Baldev Singh, reached the spot at about 11.30 p.m.2, only to find that in the room on the second floor of house, the deceased Tirloki Nath, husband of the appellant, was hanging by neck with his feet touching the floor. They also found that a pool of blood had collected near the dead body; and that the dead body was emitting bad odour. The appellant and her children were in the same house, but on the first floor. 2.1. At about 4.30 a.m. of 02.05.1997, i.e., nearly five hours after the police having arrived, the complainant Brij Bhushan Kaul (PW-7), brother of the deceased, reached the spot with his wife, mother, sister’s husband and sister Smt. Radha Puri (PW-8). The complainant made the statement that relationship of the deceased and the appellant was too strained due to which, they were residing in separate rooms in the same house; that the appellant had been ill-treating her husband, which included restricting his use of bathroom facilities in the same house; that the deceased had once expressed his fear that the appellant would leave the gas cylinder open with the intention to kill him; and that the deceased had also stated that ‘the character of his wife was bad’ and she was living ‘with bad women’. The complainant 2 At what time did the police and the complainant receive this information, by which mode of communication, and through whom, are some of the questions having bearing in this matter, as shall be noticed hereafter later.

3 also stated that on 28.04.1997, the deceased came to his house (at Ambala Cantt.) and told him that he would go to Panchkula and would come back with his luggage as he was ‘very much fed up and frightened’. The complainant further stated that in the night of 01.05.1997 at about 11.30 p.m., he received a message that his brother had passed away and thereupon, he arrived at the house of the deceased accompanied by his mother, wife, sister and brother-in-law, only to find the deceased in the condition as described hereinabove. While concluding, the complainant stated his suspicion that the appellant had murdered his brother because the deceased had not transferred his house as per her demands.

2.2. For the incident in question, FIR No. 174 dated 02.05.1997 was registered on the basis of the statement so made by the complainant. In the preliminaries, the inquest report (Ex. PH/2) was prepared by ASI Amar Singh (PW-9); rough site sketch (Ex. PM) was prepared; photographs were taken by the photographer Shashi (PW 11); and the dead body was sent for post-mortem. Thereafter, the investigation was taken over by Inspector Jag Pravesh (PW-10), who recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the spot, got prepared the scaled site plan (Ex. PD) and also arrested the appellant. SI Ishwar Chander (PW-

3. After committal, the case was tried as Sessions Case No. 63 of 1997 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala. The prosecution, inter alia, examined 12 witnesses. Having regard to the subject matter of this appeal and the questions involved, it would be advantageous to take note of the relevant aspects emerging from the statements of material witnesses in requisite details, even at the cost of a little inflation.

3.2. PW-7 Brij Bhushan Kaul (brother of the deceased) has been the prime witness of prosecution in this case. The relevant assertions occurring in his examination-in-chief read as under: -

in-chief that he reached the hospital on 02.05.1997 where he was handed over the statement EX.PH as made by PW-7; the inquest report Ex.PH/2 prepared by PW-9; and the post-mortem report EX.PA. He drew up the necessary proceedings; recorded statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code ('CrPC'); testimony having occurred in the extraction hereinabove, the other parts of her testimony in further cross-examination are not being extracted. 12 collected blood from the spot; and arrested the appellant. In his cross- examination, this Investigating Officer stated, inter alia, as under: -

3.8. PW-4 Sant Lal Gupta, the then Assistant Audit Officer, AG Audit, Punjab, Chandigarh testified to fact that the appellant was working as Senior Auditor in his office; that she was on casual leave on 28.04.1997 and 29.04.1997; and that she attended the office on 30.04.1997 and 01.05.1997. In his cross-examination, this witness expressed want of knowledge if the appellant often used to come to the office with her husband and used to leave after office hours with her husband. This witness also stated that ‘no complaint was received from the side of husband of Smt. Gargi or any other relation of husband of Smt. Gargi against Smt. Gargi’.

14 3.9. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution had been PW- 5 Head Constable Ramesh Kumar; PW-6 UGC Baldev Singh; PW-11 Shashi, who took the photographs at the site; and PW-12 SI Ishwar Chander, who also partly investigated the case.

5. The appellant in her statement under Section 313 CrPC stated, inter alia, that her husband had informed about his going on a tour on 29.04.1997; and that she had taken casual leave on 28.04.1997 and 29.04.1997 on account of her ill-health. She also stated that she and her husband were having cordial relationship and would share the bed with their son. She also stated that the case against her was a motivated one and that she was not guilty of committing the murder of her husband. Some of the answers given by the appellant in her statement under Section 313 CrPC may be usefully extracted as under:-

6.1. The Trial Court concluded that the deceased was done to death by way of strangulation, essentially on the basis of medical evidence and with reference to the position of the hanging dead body and other features at the spot, like the one that door of the room in question was not bolted from inside. The finding that the appellant had committed the offence with her brothers in the intervening night of 28/29.04.1997 got its basis, inter alia, in the statement allegedly made by the deceased to PW-7 prior to his departure from Ambala Cantt. where he expressed fear of his life, as also in the facts that the appellant had taken leave from her office for 28.04.1997 and 29.04.1997 and that the appellant and her brothers were not grieving when the body of the deceased was found.

39 Homicide or suicide

Last seen theory: Proof and effect

The prosecution case not established beyond reasonable doubt 56

34. In the given circumstances, when the prosecution has not been able to remove the aforesaid doubts and the motive as imputed on the appellant does not appear existing, the benefit of doubt, obviously, goes to the appellant.

CONCLUSION

36. Consequently, this appeal is allowed in the manner that the impugned judgment and orders convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC are set aside; the appellant is extended the benefit of doubt and is, accordingly, acquitted. Her bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.