Binod Singh vs The State of Bihar

G.S. Chaube, J.—The sole Appellant, Binod Singh has been convicted under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the first offence and R.I. for 2 years for the second one. However, the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

The prosecution case is that the Appellant was married to deceased Veena Devi, daughter of one Jagdish Singh Rataur of village Baranti within Rajapakar police station in the district of Vaishali some time in the year 1977. However, soon thereafter the marital relationship between the couple become strained so much so that in the year 1978, the deceased filed a criminal case against the Appellant and other relatives and started living with her parents. However, on 21.10.85 the Appellant took the deceased to the marital home situated at village Paharpur within Baligaon police station in the same district. Next morning deceased was found dead. The village Chaukidar, Ram Sewak Sahani (P.W. 5) heard rumour to this effect and also came to know that the Appellant and some other co-villagers including his father were intending to cremate the dead body of the deceased hurriedly. Therefore, he rushed to Baligaon police station at about 1 P.M. on the same day and lodged a first information report which was recorded, in absence of any police officer, as S.D. entry No. 346 dated 22.10.85 (exhibit-2). Immediately, literate constable who made the entry, rushed to village Paharpur and saw that 25-30 persons were present there and performing the funeral of the deceased. On seeing the police party, the persons present there fled away leaving pyre in burning condition. However, the fire was extinguished and some burnt pieces of flesh and bones were recovered from there.

Later on, the Officer Incharge of Baligaon police station registered case against the Appellant and ten Ors. under Sections 302 and 201 of the Code. On completion of investigation the police submitted chargesheet against all the accused persons named in the first information report. The Appellant was specifically charged u/s 302 of the Code, while other accused persons alongwith him were charged u/s 201 read with Section 34 of the Code. The defence of the Appellant is that his wife died due to diarrhoea. On trial the learned Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur found the Appellant guilty of committing murder of his own wife and also causing disappearance of the evidence (dead body of the deceased) in order to screen himself from punishment; and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as indicated above. The learned Sessions Judge, however, did not find the remaining accused persons guilty of the charge u/s 201 read with Section 34 of the Code and acquitted them of the same.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances brought on record to prove the guilt of the Appellant are not satisfactorily proved and whatever circumstance has been brought on record, is not of definite tendency to prove the guilt of the Appellant. He has further submitted that according to the prosecution case, deceased was murdered by poisoning. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory shows that no poisonous substance was found in the viscera sent for examination.

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the wife of the Appellant died on 22.10.85 and when the dead body was being cremated, police party arrived on being informed by the village Chaukidar and recovered some burnt pieces of flesh and bone from pyre after extinguishing the fire. P.W. 5, Ram Sewak Sahani, is the village Chaukidar who first informed the police. In his statement, he has stated that even though earlier relationship between Appellant and his wife was not cordial, subsequently, matter had been compromised between them. He further stated that at about 4 in the evening on the day preceding the date of the occurrence, the deceased had arrived at the marital home with the Appellant. Next morning she was seized by diarrhoea. Therefore, she was taken to a doctor. However, around 10 A.M. she died. The witness was declared hostile and his attention was drawn to the previous statement made in the station diary entry (exhibit-2) to the effect that he had learnt that she had been killed by poisoning and Appellant and other accused persons were planning to cremate her dead body hurriedly. P.W. 2, Pramanand Jha, who was then posted as literate constable at Baligaon police station, stated that on 22.10.85 on receiving information regarding the demise of the deceased and attempt to cremate the dead body by burning it hurriedly, he made entry No. 346 dated 22.10.85 in the station diary and proceeded to village Paharpur where he found the dead body in burning condition on the embankment of a pond and several persons were present there. On seeing the police they fled away. The fire was extinguished and burnt, bones and flesh were recovered. After returning to the police station he made Anr. station diary No. 352 of the even date (exhibit 2/1). P.W. 3, Raghunath Mahto and P.W. 4, Umesh Pd. Singh, were members of the police party who had gone to village Paharpur and extinguished the fire and retrieved the burnt pieces of flesh and bones of the deceased. So has said P.W. 13 Kanhaiya Mishra.

P.W. 8, Shanti Devi, is the mother of the deceased. According to her evidence, the relationship between the Appellant and the deceased was strained and consequently deceased was residing at Baranti with her parents. On 19.10.85 uncle of the Appellant went there to take the deceased to the marital home on the pretext that her mother-in-law was seriously ill. However, deceased was not allowed to go. Consequently, uncle of the deceased stayed at Baranti. Next day, i.e., on 20.10.85 the Appellant himself went there to take the deceased with him on the ground that his mother was seriously ill. Consequently, the deceased was allowed to accompany the Appellant and his uncle. She has further stated that after 3 days, the uncle of the deceased went to her house at Baranti and disclosed that her daughter, namely, the deceased was dead. She also stated that the Appellant and the in-laws of the deceased used to assault and torture the deceased for dowry; and consequently, the deceased had instituted a criminal case against them.

P.W. 11, Birendra Kr. Singh is Anr. son-in-law of P.W. 8 and resided of village Chakchuhar within Goraul police station in the same district. He stated that at the relevant time he had gone to village Baranti. On Saturday, i.e., on 19.10.85 an uncle of the Appellant arrived there and wanted to take the deceased with him on the pretext that her mother-in-law was seriously ill. Next day., i.e., on Sunday, the Appellant himself went there and took the deceased with him on the pretext that his mother was ill, even though the deceased was quite unwilling to go with him. After two days of her departure from her parents'' home, one Bhagwat Singh Jogi informed him and other members of the family that the deceased was dead.

Thus, it is manifest that no body had seen the deceased being murdered. According to P.Ws. 8 and 11 the deceased went to the marital home on 20.10.85. The earliest version given by P.W. 5 and even in Court is that the deceased had arrived at the marital home only on the preceding evening, i.e., on the evening of 20.10.85. Thus, the story of P.Ws. 8 and 11 that the deceased had accompanied the Appellant to the marital home on 20.10.85 stands falsified. Even though what P.Ws. 8 and 11 have stated is taken to be true, this is one link in the chain of circumstances for arriving at the guilt of the Appellant. The other links in the chain are that relationship between the Appellant and the deceased was strained so much so that in the year 1978 itself the deceased had filed a criminal case against the Appellant and his other relatives. Exhibit-6 is the written complaint filed by the deceased in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur which was registered as case No. CI-451/78. Exhibit-7 is certified copy of the information petition purporting to have been filed by P.W. 8 before the Subdivisional Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur in the month of July, 1984 making certain allegations against the Appellant and some of his relatives. Exhibit-4 is Anr. informatory petition filed by the father of the deceased before the Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur on 2.5.80 reiterating strained relationship between the Appellant and the deceased and an attempt on the part of the Appellant and some Ors. to throw acid on him. Yet Anr. link in the chain is that on 22.10.85 the deceased died and was suspected to have been killed by poisoning and there was an attempt to cremate her hurriedly.

Law respecting cases based on circumstantial evidence only is that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused must be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing to the guilt and that those circumstances should be inconsistent with the hypothesis of innocence of the accused. It is also settled law that the circumstances relied upon should not only be conclusive in nature pointing to the guilt of the accused, but they must also be satisfactorily and cogently established. In the present case, I have already pointed out that there is some discrepancy in the evidence regarding the arrival of the deceased at her marital home. It is quite inconceivable that if the relationship between the Appellant and the deceased was strained to such extent that she was residing with her parents, the latter would have allowed her to go to the marital home on the ground of illness of her mother-in-law against whom she had also filed the-criminal case. The evidence of P.Ws. 8 and 11 is that even after the institution of the criminal case by the deceased against the Appellant and other members of his family the Appellant used to visit the place of his parents-in-law at Baranti. This falsifies the story of strained relationship between the Appellant and the deceased at the time she met with her death. In this connection, it may be mentioned that there is evidence of P.W. 8 that the case which was filed by the deceased against the Appellant and Ors. was subsequently compromised even though it had not come to an end. Probably this was reason why the Appellant was on visiting terms with his parents-in-law.

The prosecution has brought to the witness box one Dr. Brajesh Kr. Singh (P.W. 9) of Patepur Health Centre. He stated that on 21.10.85 at about 4 P.M. the Appellant had gone to the health centre accompanied by his wife Veena Devi for her treatment as she was suffering from diarrhoea. They also disclosed their intention to go to Hajipur hospital for better treatment. Therefore, on their request, he referred the patient to Hajipur sadar hospital. Later, he came to know that Veena Devi died on 22.10.85 in suspicious circumstances. This evidence of P.W. 9 falsifies the earlier story that the deceased was taken to the marital home by the Appellant in the evening on 21.10.85 and she died on 22.10.85. From the evidence of P.W. 10 (I.O), it appears that burnt bones and flesh had been sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is exhibit-10 and it clearly states that deceased was not done to death by administering poison. In this view of the matter, the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution cannot be said to be of conclusive nature unerringly pointing to the guilt of the deceased of murdering his own wife. The evidence of P.W. 9 and the report of chemical examiner create, at least, a reasonable doubt respecting the prosecution version. Once element of doubt creeps in a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence, the accused charged with the commission of crime cannot justifiably be convicted.

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentences of the Appellant u/s 302 and Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Code are set aside. The Appellant is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

J.N. Dubey, A.C.J.

I agree.