Chhotku @ Satyanarayan Gupta vs State of M.P.

This appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant against the judgment dated 30.4.2007 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shehdol in

Sessions Trial No.210/2006 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced for life

imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.

It is not in dispute that deceased Sheshwati was wife of the appellant. Both were residing together at the time of incident i.e. on 29.5.2006 at

Gandhinagar, Amlai District Anuppur. Sheshwati died an unnatural death at the house of the appellant.

In brief, the prosecution case is that on 28.5.2006 at about 11.25 am, appellant took dead body of his wife at C.H.C. Budhar. Doctor declared

his wife as dead and informed the police. Merg intimation was registered at police Station, Amlai. During investigation, it was found that on the

date of incident, due to some quarrel between appellant and his wife, the appellant committed murder of his wife by strangulation and he showed

that his wife committed suicide. A crime was registered against him under Section 302 of IPC. Charge sheet was filed against him.

Learned trial Court conducted trial and framed charge under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant. Appellant abjured guilt and pleaded that

he has been falsely implicated by police. Defence witness was examined by the appellant.

Learned trial court broadly appreciated the evidence and held that on the body of the deceased the doctor found so many injuries. The

deceased died due to asphyxia which was caused before strangulation. Doctor denied for any possibility that the deceased had committed suicide.

It was established that the appellant killed his wife and showed a scene that his wife committed suicide. Hence, the appellant has been convicted

under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment.

The aforesaid findings have been challenged by appellant on the grounds that learned trial Court has wrongly held the appellant guilty for

commission of murder of his wife by ignoring the version of defence witness Chandabai (DW1). Dadnu Gupta (PW3) father of deceased, Homan

Prasad (PW4) brother of deceased and Kanchanlal Gupta (PW5) neighbour of the deceased, all are the interested witnesses, hence on the basis

of their testimony appellant cannot be convicted. Marriage of the deceased took place before 11 years of the incident. The appellant has not been

named in the FIR. On 25.5.2006 at 8.30 am the deceased committed suicide due to ill behaviour of her relatives. Hence, the appellant prayed to

set aside the impugned judgment.

Learned Govt. Advocate has vehemently opposed the submissions of the appellant and contended that the learned trial Court has rightly held

the appellant guilty for committing the offence.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

The point for consideration is that - whether the appellant has committed murder of his wife ?

It is not in dispute that at the time of incident both appellant and his wife (since deceased) were residing together. The appellant had not taken

the ""plea of alibi"" in his defence, therefore, it can be presumed that at the time of incident, he was present with the deceased at his house. In

accused statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in question No.2, he admitted that on the date of incident at about 11.25 am he brought the

deceased to the hospital. In his defence, he pleaded that the deceased was aggrieved with the behaviour of her close relatives of maternal side,

therefore, she had committed suicide by hanging herself.

Learned trial Court broadly discussed the defence taken by the appellant and held that there is no evidence on record to establish that the

deceased committed suicide. In this regard, testimony of Dr. K.K. Gautam (PW10) is very important. He found following injuries on the body of

the deceased:-

(1) Ligature mark around neck 2.5 cm wide shallow groove, transverse over thyroid cartilage and with contusion of nail marks below angle of

mandible on right side.

(2) Multiple abrasion over both side of cheek, with blood clot.

(3) Haematoma of size 5cm x 2cm axa at midline of head.

(4) Abrasions on both elbows 2x1 cm with blood clot.

(5) Contusions over left forearm of size 10cmx2.5cm with two parallel oblique radish blue marks.

(6) Contusion at front right leg of size 7.5 cmx2cm.

(7) Contusion over both thighs of size 8.5cmx2.5cm

(8) Abrasions infra scapular axa on the right side of size 4cmx2.5cm.

Doctor K.K. Gautam opined that soft tissues of neck under ligature mark were congested. Petechial hemorrhage was present. Trachea was

loose and compressed. Right chamber of heart was full of blood and left chamber was empty. In cross examination, Dr. K.K. Gautam clearly

mentioned that if the case of the deceased was under throttling, then all the bones of trachea would be found in broken condition.

We are also in the agreement with the opinion of Doctor Gautam. It is established that, the deceased was subjected to physical cruelty before

her death. The deceased died due to aforesaid injuries at the house of the appellant in his presence. The appellant himself has not stated that at the

time of incident other persons or other family members were present there. Therefore, now the burden lies on appellant to offer explanation how

the deceased/his wife sustained so many injuries at his house in his presence.

In case of Suresh Vs. State of Haryana (2015) 2 SCC 227, the Supreme Court has observed that:-

No doubt, the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is not meant to relieve it of that duty but the said provision is attracted when

it is impossible or it is proportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish facts, which are strictly within the knowledge of the accused.

In case of Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (2000) 5 SCC 7 in para-18 of three judges Bench of Supreme Court as held that:-

Reliance was placed by this Court on Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 3 SCC 106 in which case the appellant was prosecuted for

the murder of his wife inside his house. Since the death had occurred in his custody, it was held that the appellant was under an obligation to give

an explanation for the cause of death in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A denial of the prosecution case

coupled with absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the

appellant was a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife.

Similarly, in Dnyaneshwar v. State of Maharashtra (1992) 3 SCC 106 the Supreme Court observed that since the deceased was murdered in

her matrimonial home and the appellant had not set up a case that the offence was committed by somebody else or that there was a possibility of

an outsider committing the offence, it was for the husband to explain the grounds for the unnatural death of his wife.

In Jagdish v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 10 SCC 445, the Supreme Court observed as follows:

It bears repetition that the appellant and the deceased family members were the only occupants of the room and it was therefore incumbent on the

appellant to have tendered some explanation in order to avoid any suspicion as to his guilt.

See also Jamnadas Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Manoj Vs. State of Madhaya Pradesh (2016) 13 SCC 12.

We find that the appellant has not explained about the incident. He falsely stated that the deceased committed suicide, because she was fedup

with the behaviour of her relatives of maternal side, therefore, adverse inference can easily be drawn against the appellant that he caused death of

his wife by inflicting fatal injuries to her.

The nature and number of injuries of the deceased clearly established that the appellant had an intend to commit murder of his wife. After killing

his wife, he took her dead body to the hospital only to show that he wanted to save the life of his wife. These circumstances clearly indicate that the

appellant had committed murder of his wife with preplanned way.

The appellant challenged the testimony of close relatives of the deceased on the grounds that they are interested witnesses, therefore, their

testimony cannot be relied on for his conviction. There is no restriction that testimony of interested or related witnesses cannot form the basis for

conviction.

In case of Arjun vs. State of C.G. [2017 (2) MPLJ (Cri.) 305], the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as under :

Evidence of related witness is of evidentiary value. Court has to scrutinize evidence with case as a rule of prudence and not as a rule of law. Fact

of witness being related to victim or deceased does not by itself discredit evidence. [See also Roop Narain Mishra Vs. State of UP {2017 Cri.LJ

1487} Chandrashekhar Vs. State of Tamilnadu {2017 SCC Online 620}, Kamta Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar { (2016) 16 SCC 164 and

Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh and Ors.{2016 SCC Online SC 1163}

Dadnu (PW3) father of the deceased, Homan Prasad (PW4) brother of deceased they are the best witnesses. With regard to tense

relationship between the appellant and deceased, they deposed that before the incident, the appellant was used to beat his wife. Once they heard

the appellant was assaulting their daughter Sheshwati, thus they took her (deceased) with them. But considering the social implications they did not

lodge any complaint against the appellant. In cross-examination of Dadnu (PW3) and Homan Prasad (PW4), we find their testimony is unshaken

and sufficient to inspire confidence against the conduct of the appellant.

In our opinion, the related witnesses normally want to punish the actual culprit. They do not want to save the real culprit and falsely implicate

any innocent person. Therefore, in the present case, the testimony of the related witnesses is more reliable. Their depositions were trustworthy of

credence. Hence, conviction can be based on their evidence. Their testimony fully corroborated by neighbour Kanchanlal Gupta (PW5). He also

stated that the appellant was used to beat his wife.

It is on record that the appellant had some sexual transmitted deceased as stated by Dr. Ashok Jain (PW9). S.P. Singh (PW12) deposed that

he recovered some incriminating articles from the appellant''s house which were used for committing offence. As per information given by the

appellant, a white towel was seized as per his memorandum Ex.P8 vide seizure memo Ex.P9. Dr. K.K. Gautam (PW10) opined that symptoms

which were found on the neck and injuries of the deceased can be caused by using the aforesaid towel for strangulation. Dr. K.K. Gautam

(PW10) not found any incised wound on the neck of the deceased, therefore, blood stains were not found on the towel.

We find that the learned trial Court has duly appreciated and relied on the aforesaid evidence against the appellant on record and held him

guilty for committing murder of her wife. After considering the entire evidence on record, we are inclined to accept the findings of learned trial

Court against the appellant.

In view of the foregoing, we find that there is no case to interfere in the findings of the learned trial Court. This appeal against the conviction of

the appellant, deserves to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed.

Copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance alongwith the record immediately.