Judgment:
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.
1. Brief was Kiran's span of life, fleeter than the lightning flash. She was chastised, her liberties were taken undeterred and she was burnt to death in the bathroom of her in-laws house. Her husband, the appellant (herein after described as accused) along with three other co-accused was placed on trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chhabra District Baran in Sessions Case No. 344/1992 for having committed offence under Section 304B, 302, 201 and 498A IPC. Learned Trial Judge while acquitting the co-accused persons, convicted and sentenced the accused as under:-
Under Section 302 IPC:
To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Six Months.
Under Section 498A IPC:
To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Two Years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Six Months.
Under Section 201 IPC:
To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Three Years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Six Months.
Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. Put briefly the prosecution case is that the informant Ramesh Chand submitted a written report at the Police Station Chhipa Barod with the averments that his daughter Kiran got married with the accused on June 6, 1991. Soon after the marriage the accused and the in-laws of Kiran started beating her on the pretext of demand of dowry. Kiran while on family way was left by the accused to the informant's house where she delivered a child. Kiran refused to go back with the accused, since she had apprehension of her death. On July 4, 1992 when the accused assured not to till treat her, Kiran reluctantly went with the accused. But on September 4, 1992 she was burnt to death. Police Station Chhipa Barod registered a case under Section 304B IPC and investigation commenced. Post Mortem on the dead body was conducted. Site was inspected. Three Kerosene tins, 24 letters and a diary got seized. The accused was arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before he learned Additional Sessions Judge Chhabra, District Baran. Charges under Section 302, 201, 498A and 304B 1PC were framed against the accused, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 30 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr. P. C. the accused claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing the final submissions convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated herein above.
3. We have heard the submissions and carefully scrutinised the material on record. Since the prosecution case is founded on the circumstantial evidence, we have to examine as to whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and is consistent only with his guilt.
4. Dr. Dhanna Lal (PW. 25) who conducted post mortem on the death body, deposed that except chest, both upper arms and upper part of abdomen, all other parts of the body were burnt and clotted haemorrhage was present on center part of brain. Testifying the autopsy report (Ex.P-4) Dr. Dhanna Lal stated that cause of death come might be caused due to head injury.
5. It is canvassed by the learned counsel for the accused that because of intense heat, clotted haemorrhage could be present and it could not be presumed that Kiran was given beating and the said internal injury was the result of such beating. Reliance is placed on Modi's Medical Jurisprudence. Relevant portion of which reads as under:-
'.....The skull bones are found fractured or burst open, if intense heat been applied, characteristic curved fractures in skull and long bones are reported. The brain and its meanings are generally congested. There is extravasation of blood, usually brick-red or a reddish brown deposit upon the upper surface of the dura mater. The brain is sometimes shrunken, though its form is retained. Sometimes if the head is exposed to severe heat after death not only the charred skull vault may be fractured causing false suspicion of violence but there is a thin layer of extradural blood underneath, which looks like a cooked spongy mass. This has been called a heat haematoma. If death has occurred from suffocation, the nasopharynx, trachea and bronchial tubes may contain sooty carbon particles, and their mucous membrane may be congested and covered with frothy mucus. Some of the sooty mucus may trickle into the stomach.'
In order to appreciate the submissions, it is to be seen as to whether the clotted haemorrhage was the result of intense heat. A look at the Inquest report of dead body of Kiran demonstrates that most of her long hair were found intact. As per the autopsy report (Ex. D-4) neither skull bones were found fractured nor the brain was found shrunken. Nasopharynx trachea and bronchial tubes did not contain sooty carbon particles and their mucous membrane did not have any congestion and coverage of frothy mucus. Dr. Dhanna Lal (PW. 25) specifically deposed that body was burnt after the death. We thus find no merit in the contention of learned counsel.
6. Coming to the testimony of witnesses we find that informant Ramesh Chand (PW. 17) in his deposition stated that he has four daughters and eldest daughter was Kiran, who was married to the accused on June 6, 1991. After the marriage as and when the informant and his wife went to meet Kiran, she told them that the accused ill treated her and insisted for the registry of informant's shop of Chhipa Barod in the name of accused. During her pregnancy when Kiran was sent to the informant's house, she told that the accused obtained her signatures on blank stamp paper. After delivery of female child the accused and his father came to the informant's house and on their assurance Kiran was sent back with them on July 4. Thereafter on September 4, telephonic message of Kiran's death was received by him. Testimony of informant was corroborated by Jyoti Bansal (PW. 9), Gita Bai (PW. 15) and Surya Prakash (PW. 16).
Kanhaiya Lal (PW. 11) in his deposition stated that on the date of incident the accused and deceases were the tenants in his house.
Heera Lal (PW. 18) deposed that on September 4, 1992 when he visited the house of the accused, the accused told him that he had a quarrel with his wife in the preceding night. Heera Lal was working with the accused in the Bank. We have carefully gone through the cross examination of the witnesses and on examining their testimony from the point of view of trustworthiness we find them wholly reliable.
The learned Trial Court found following circumstances established against the accused:-
(i) Kiran married to the accused on June 6,1991 and died on September 4, 1992 i.e. within 15 months of the marriage;
(ii) The behaviour of accused with Kiran was not good and he used to ill treat her. She stayed in the house of her parents during her pregnancy.
(iii) The accused had illicit relation with one Geeti Sharma as is evident from letters Ex.P-14 to Ex.P-21.
(iv) The accused had obtained signatures of Kiran on blank stamp paper (Ex.P-31.)
(v) Initially Kiran was shown as nominee by the accused in his bank account, but prior to her death, name of Kiran was replaced by the accused and he nominated his father as nominee.
(vi) At the time of incident the accused was present at the house.
(vii) The accused after committing murder of Kiran took her in bath room and burnt her since the burn injuries were not ante mortem.
(viii) Death of Kiran was not caused by poison or accident.
(ix) The accused made attempt to destroy the evidence of murder by burning the dead body.
(x) Memo Ex.P-7 shows that the gate of bathroom was not closed from inside.
(xi) Post mortem report reveals that injury on brain was ante mortem.
(xii) The match-box was found out side the bathroom and not near the dead body.
(xiii) After burning the deceased, the accused escaped from the place of incident.
(xiv) The death was unnatural and there was evidence of demand of dowry and ill treatment of deceased prior to her death.
7. These facts are established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused and Kiran got married on June 6, 1991 i.e. 15 months prior to Kiran's death and immediately after marriage the behaviour of accused was cruel with Kiran. During her pregnancy she was sent to her parents house where she delivered female child. On the date of incident the accused and Kiran were the tenants in the house of Kanhaiya Lal. Kiran's dead body was found lying burnt in the bathroom. Although kerosene tins were there in the bathroom no match stick was seen. Match box having small of kerosene oil was found lying on dressing table outside the bathroom. The bathroom was not bolted from inside. The burn injuries were post mortem in nature and from the medical evidence it is proved that Kiran was burnt after her death. From the testimony of Heera Lal (PW. 18) it is established that while he took tea in the house of the accused on September 4, 1992 at 10 AM, there was nobody in the house except the accused, his wife Kiran and four months old daughter. Death of Kiran occurred between 10 and 11 AM on September 4, 1992. From the evidence of Nand Ram Chaudhary, I.O. (PW. 30) and memo of site plan (Ex.P-7) it is established that rented room of the accused was not bolted from inside. From the letters Ex.P-14 to Ex.P-21, it is proved that the accused had illicit relationship with one Geeti Sharma. Pleas of suicide and absence of the accused were found false.
8. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mulak Raj v. Satish Kumar, (1992 Cr.L.J. 1529 (SC) observed as under: -
'It was established from the evidence that the deceased and the husband alone were living in the upstair's room. The circumstances that the death took place in the bedroom of the spouse and attempt to destroy the evidence of murder by burning the dead body, the unnatural conduct of husband, immediately after the occurrence, the false pleas of suicide and absence from house are material relevant circumstances which would complete the chain of circumstantial evidence leading to only one conclusion that the husband alone committed the ghastly offence of murder of his wife.'
9. It is well settled that circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. It should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. In the case on hand, we are satisfied that the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution is combination of facts creating a net work through which there is no escape for the accused, because the facts taken as a whole do not admit of any inference but of his guilt.
10. For these reasons, we find no merit in the appeal and the same stands dismissed.