Full Judgment
(1) Cr.A.No.550/2001 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH:HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE T.K.KAUSHAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.550/2001 APPELLANT : Ramesh S/o Ganjan Gond, aged 24 years, R/o village Pisajhodi, Tahsil and District Betul (M.P.) Versus RESPONDENT: State of Madhya Pradesh through Police Station Betul, Tahsil and District Betul (M.P.). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellant : Smt. Durgesh Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Shri Amit Pandey, Panel Lawyer. Date of hearing :
19. 07/2012 Date of judgment:
19. 07/2012 (
JUDGMENT
) Per: Rakesh Saksena; J.Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 20.3.2001 passed by Sessions Judge, Betul in Sessions Trial No.100/2000, convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for three years, on each count respectively.
2. In short, the prosecution case is that on 16.2.2000, appellant committed murder of his wife Ramabai by beating her with a stick and with a view to conceal the offence set her body on fire in a `Nala' near the field of Pannibai. Pannibai (PW1) and Sukhram (PW7) at about 1 P.M., when noted smoke emerging from the `Nala', went there and saw the body of (2) Cr.A.No.550/2001 woman burning. Pannibai went to police station and reported the matter. On her report, a merg Ex.P/1 was registered. After inquest, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. Dr. Ashok Baranga (PW8) conducted the postmortem examination and found that the death of deceased was caused by injuries and that the burns found on the body were postmortem in nature. After investigation, charge sheet was filed and the case was committed for trial.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no direct evidence in the case. Learned trial Court committed error in placing reliance on the evidence about the appellant being last seen with the deceased. According to her, the identification of dead body as the wife of deceased was also not established. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that from the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution, it was established beyond doubt that it was accused only, who committed murder of his wife and tried to destroy the evidence of the offence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the evidence on record carefully.
5. Pannibai (PW1) stated that when she saw smoke emerging out from the Nala adjacent to her field, she called Sukhram to see what was the matter. Sukhram (PW7) went there and saw the dead body of a woman burning. They did not knot that woman. Pannibai though stated that she (3) Cr.A.No.550/2001 saw a man wearing black pents running away from the spot with a child in his lap, but she could not identify that man. Both of these witnesses, however, stated that some parts of the clothes on the body of woman remained unburnt. Investigating Officer Ajay Dubey (PW12) went at the spot and conducted inquest in presence of witnesses Sukhram (PW7), Jugram Anthony (PW4) and Wilson (PW10). He also seized half burnt clothes found on the body of deceased vide seizure memo Ex. P/11. His evidence in this regard finds corroboration from the evidence of Wilson (PW10). He also seized a handkerchief containing tobacco in its knot vide seizure memo Ex. P/16 from the spot. Matlibai (PW6) and Latabai (PW5) respectively the mother and sister of Ramabai identified the dead body to be that of deceased Rama Bai vide identification memo Ex. P/7. They identified the deceased on the basis of clothes seized from the dead body. There is nothing to disbelieve their evidence. It is thus established that the dead body found in burnt condition was that of Ramabai, the wife of appellant.
6. Dr. Ashok Baranga (PW8), Assistant Surgeon of District Hospital, Betul, who conducted postmortem examination of the dead body deposed that it was body of a woman of about 25 years of age. Externally there were postmortem burn injuries, but on internal examination he found c-4 and c-5 of the spinal cord fractured. These injuries were at the level of neck and were ante mortem in nature. The death of deceased was the (4) Cr.A.No.550/2001 result of shock due to injury in the spinal cord. It had taken place within 12-24 hours before the postmortem examination. The postmortem report Ex. P/8 was signed by him and Dr. Surendra Koul. In his opinion, the injuries on the neck of deceased were caused by some hard and blunt object and were sufficient to cause death. Thus, it stands established that deceased Ramabai died a homicidal death.
7. Latabai (PW5), the sister of deceased stated that about three years ago the deceased was married to accused. She lived in her husband's house for about two years, thereafter she came to her mother's house at Barbatpur for delivery. About 10-11 months after delivery accused came to fetch her, but she did not go as her in-laws did not care about her treatment. On the day of occurrence at about 9 O' clock in the morning, accused took deceased and her child with him for going to his house in village Pisajhodi. On that day, her sister was wearing red colour saree, yellow petticoat and green blouse. On third day, police informed them that her sister was murdered on way to Pisajhodi. She, her mother and father went to police station and identified the clothes which were worn by deceased. This witness further stated that about a week before her death, deceased had gone to her in-laws house for fetching her clothes etc. but her mother-in-law did not let her enter the house and manhandled them. At that time accused was though present at their house in village Barbatpur, but he did not go with them to Pisajhodi. Evidence of this (5) Cr.A.No.550/2001 witness indicates that the relations between deceased and her mother-in- law and Jithani were not cordial, therefore, deceased wanted to live separate.
8. Evidence of Latabai (PW5) finds corroboration from the evidence of Matlibai (PW6), the mother of deceased. She also stated that at the time of delivery her daughter Rama came to her house. Her husband, the accused also lived with them and after the child became 10 months old, he took Rama and the child to Pisajhodi. According to her, on third day after their going police came and enquired about her daughter and son-in-law and then informed that accused had murdered Rama. When she went to police station Chowki Padhar she did not see the dead body, but she saw burnt clothes of her daughter. Accused with the child of the deceased was also present at police station. She identified the red saree, yellow petticoat and green blouse of the deceased. She also identified the handkerchief of deceased in the corner of which tobacco was tied. There appeared no reasonable ground to suspect the evidence of aforesaid prosecution witnesses. In our opinion, trial Court committed no error in placing reliance on the prosecution evidence.
9. From the aforesaid evidence, it clearly transpires that the dead body which was found in burnt condition was the body of Rama, the wife of accused. The death of Rama was homicidal and an attempt was made to destroy the body by burning it with a view to conceal the offence. From (6) Cr.A.No.550/2001 the evidence of Latabai (PW5) and Matlibai (PW6), it is also established that in the earlier hours of the day of the occurrence accused took deceased and her child on the pretext of going to his house at Pisajhodi and on the same day deceased was killed. It is also apparent from the evidence that the mother of accused did not like deceased to live with them. From the above evidence, in our opinion, a chain of circumstances has been established which un-erringly points that it was only the accused/ appellant who committed murder of his wife Rama and with a view to conceal the evidence destroyed the body by setting fire to it. We hold that trial Court committed no error in holding the appellant guilty and in convicting him under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence awarded to appellant by the trial Court is affirmed.
10. We find no substance in this appeal, it is accordingly, dismissed. (RAKESH SAKSENA) (T.K.KAUSHAL) JUDGE JUDGE AD/