S.L. Kochar, J.
1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 13th June, 1997, passed by learned Sessions Judge, West Nimar, Mandleshwar in Sessions Trial No. 178/1996, whereby convicted the appellant for commission of murder of his wife, sentenced to R.I. for life.
2. In nutshell, the prosecution case was that deceased Ayodhyabai was married before 10-12 years according to their village custom called Natra. In that (evening sic.) the appellant was beating his wife, deceased Ayodhyabai, who was running here and there to save her. But nobody rescued her because of fear of the appellant. Thereafter he had given electric current by live electric wire on several parts of the body resulting into her death and thrown dead body in the morning at 4.00 a.m. of 26.9.1995 outside his house and after putting the lock outside the door of his house, he went away. The incident was witnessed by mother of the deceased Gendabai (P.W. 2) who was residing in adjacent to the house of the appellant. She narrated the whole incident to her husband Bahadur (P.W. 3) and also to his son Motiya (P.W. 1). Motiya (P.W. 1) went to the Police Station on 26.9.1995 lodged the F.I.R. at 11.30 a.m. The distance of the police station as shown in the F.I.R. is 13 kilometres. On this report, G.S. Bhanwar (P.W. 9) reached in the village, prepared inquest of the dead body, map of the spot and sent the dead body for post-mortem. Post-mortem was performed by Dr. M. Sharma (P.W. 5). His report is Ex. P.4, who found as many as nine burn injuries right from the face upto thigh on different different places. According to him, mode of death was cardiac arrest because of electric injuries i.e., electrocution. He arrested the appellant on 30.9.1995 and also seized about 14 ft. long electric wire. After doing necessary investigation, he has filed the charge-sheet. The appellant has denied the charges and according to him, because of death of her two sons by drowning, she was generally weeping and consuming liquor. The learned Trial Court, after examining the prosecution and defence witnesses and after hearing both the parties, convicted the appellant as mentioned above. Therefore, this appeal.
3. We have heard Mr. C.B. Patne, learned Counsel for appellant and Mr. G. Desai, learned Dy. A.G. for state and also perused the record.
4. The contention of the learned Counsel for appellant is that the conviction is based on interested witnesses and there is manipulation in the F.I.R. He has also submitted that since dead body was found outside the house, the presumption against the appellant cannot be drawn for Commission of crime. He has also put forth that the F.I.R. was delayed.
5. As against this, the contention of the learned Dy. A.G. Mr. Desai is that looking to the medical evidence, it is crystal clear that the deceased met homicidal death. She sustained as many as nine electrical burn injuries all over her body. These injuries are positively excluding the death of deceased by accident. The defence of the appellant does not find support from the post-mortem because doctor did not find any alcohol in the stomach of deceased. The dead body of the deceased was found at the doorstep of the house of the appellant and deceased. Adjacent to their house, in-laws of the appellant were residing and after hearing the cry of the deceased, her mother Gendabai (P.W. 2) reached over there and witnessed the incident and immediately narrated the same before her son Motiya (P.W. 1) and husband Bahadur (P.W. 3). Merely because she is the mother of the deceased, her testimony cannot be discarded. Over and all he has supported the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court.
6. So far as the homicidal death of the deceased Ayodhyabai is concerned, there is now two opinions on this point. The evidence of Dr. M. Sharma (P.W. 5) is clearly establishing the fact that she died because of electrocution and the injuries found on her person neither could be self-inflicted now accidental. The learned Counsel for appellant has also not disputed the homicidal death of deceased Ayodhyabai.
7. Now only question for determination before us is that the witness Gendabai (P.W. 2), mother of deceased could be believed or not. Now the law is well settled that the testimony of the relations of the deceased could not be brushed aside only on this count but while appreciating the evidence Court has to take due precaution and appreciate the same with care and caution.
8. We have gone through the statement of this witness. This witness has stated that she was residing by the side of the house of the appellant. She was the mother of deceased Ayodhyabai and appellant is her son-in-law. She overheard the cry of her daughter of which she rushed to the house of the appellant and saw that appellant was beating Ayodhyabai by kicks and fists and thereafter started burning her by live electric wire. She tried to obstruct him but appellant rushed towards her to beat her and threatened her for leaving his house, otherwise also kill her. She has also stated that Ayodhyabai died because of shock from electric current. She sent her son Motiya (P.W. 1) to Police Station for lodging the report. In the cross-examination, the suggestion was given to this witness by defence that Ayodhyabai was mentally disturbed and she and the appellant were drinking liquor. In paragraph four in cross examination, again she has narrated the whole story in detail. In this paragraph, she has also stated that early in the morning, she went to see her daughter and found dead body of Ayodhyabai was lying outside the house and house was locked. At that time her daughter Rajubai (P.W. 8) was also with her, Again in paragraph six, she has denied the defence suggestion that appellant went to bring doctor and also disclosed before this witness and other relation that deceased caught the live electric wire, resulting into her death. She has also denied that in that night she had consumed liquor. In cross-examination, not a single omission, contradiction or improvement was brought on record by the defence and we do not find even an iota of material in her statement to have doubt in the veracity of her testimony. Her statement is also corroborated by Bahadur (P.W. 3); her husband, before whom she has narrated the incident. Though, Bahadur (P.W. 3) tried to become eye-witness in the Court but his total statement is disclosing the fact that he was informed by his wife Gendabai (P.W. 2). In paragraph four, this witness has denied the defence suggestion regarding mental disturbance of the deceased, drinking of liquor and in the evening of the date of the incident also she consumed lot of liquor, whereas appellant went to call doctor right in the morning. Again the third witness Rajubai (P.W. 8) is also corroborating the testimony of Gendabai (P.W. 2). We need not to reproduce her statement herein. The statement of eye-witness further find corroboration from medical evidence of Dr. M. Sharma (P.W. 5) that deceased died because of electrical burn injuries.
9. There are circumstances also going against the appellant. The dead body of the deceased was lying in front of his house and house was locked from outside. Thereafter appellant was not available in the village and he was apprehended on 30.9.1995. In a normal course, if deceased had died because of accidental electric current, the appellant would have not remained absent from his village for two days and he would have gone to the Police Station for lodging the report. This conduct of the appellant is also going against him and lends assurance to the testimony of eye-witness Gendabai (P.W. 2) and other witnesses. The defence of the appellant does not find support from the statement of any of the prosecution witnesses, medical evidence as well as the circumstances are also going against the appellant.
10. Appellant has examined two witnesses Dhansingh (D.W. 1) and Pannalal (D.W. 2). Dhansingh (D.W. 1) has deposed that relation between the deceased and the appellant were cordial and because of death of her two sons she was always weeping and he was not in a position to say as to how she died. Same are the statement of Pannalal (D.W. 2). These statements are not sufficient to establish the innocence of the appellant by preponderance of probability. On the other hand on close scrutiny of the statement Of prosecution witnesses and eye-witness Gendabai (P.W. 2), we do not find any inherent weakness which may render them unreliable.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Therefore, same is hereby dismissed.