Dakaria S/O Malsingh Barela vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

S.K. Awasthi, J

The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 23.12.2005 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone,

District Khargone in Sessions Trial No.30/2005, whereby he has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 of the

Indian Penal Code 1860 (in short the I.P.C.) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.

Brief facts of the case are that, on 27.9.2004 at about 14.30 hours, complainant Sitaram lodged a report at police chowki-Bishtan contended that, at

about 12.30 hours, he was going to his field by footpath and when he reached nearby the field, he saw a dead body of an unknown lady was lying

there who worn a green colour sari and blood was oozing from her head and face then he informed about this to the village chowkidar as well as

Shreepal and Shyamlal. He reported the matter to the Police. On the basis of his information, the Police registered a merg No.16/04 under Section 174

of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter Sub-Inspector Rajesh visited the spot. He prepared lash panchnama of the deceased, who is identified as Munnibai, w/o

Dakaria resident of Dhaniafalya, Junabilwa. Her dead body was sent for postmortem. Sub-Inspector Rajesh also prepared spot map (Ex.P/9) and

recovered one blood stained stone, blood stained soil, simple soil and one flower garland (gajra) from the place of occurrence and prepared seizure

memo (Ex.P/7). After merg enquiry, Police registered FIR at crime No.012/04 for offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. against an

unknown person and the FIR was sent to the Police station-Bhagwanpura for registration of its original number.

Dr. Daulat Singh Badole (P.W.3) conducted the postmortem of dead body of Munnibai and he opined that Munnibai has died due to head injury

sustained by her. During the investigation, the Police recorded the statements of the witnesses, in which, it appeared that appellant Dakaria ill-treated

his wife Munnibai, due to which, she left her matrimonial home and started residing in the house of her parents. After compromise, appellant Dakaria

brought her to his house. On the date of the incident, appellant Dakaria was going with his wife as well as their female baby to his matrimonial home

at village Aagarbai. However, on the way a quarrel was taken place between them and appellant Dakaria gave a stone blow on her head, due to

which, she sustained injuries and succumbed on the spot. The Police arrested accused Dakaria and recovered his blood stained clothes, which he was

worn at the time of the incident. The seized properties were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for its chemical analysis. After completion of the

investigation, charge sheet was filed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khargone, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions

Judge and ultimately it was transferred to First Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone.

The appellant abjured his guilt. He took a plea that he is innocent. Prosecution witness Ramesh (P.W.8) is his elder brother and he wanted to marry

with his niece, but they turned down the proposal and due to this enmity, he falsely implicated the appellant in the present crime. In defence, the

appellant has not examined any witness.

The trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned hereinabove.

Hence, the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no direct evidence available on record to connect the appellant with the present crime.

Only on the basis of circumstantial evidence of last seen with the deceased, no interference about the guilt of the appellant can be drawn. It is further

submitted that, the aforesaid circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution is not trustworthy. Hence, he prayed that the impugned judgment

passed by the lower Court be set aside and the appeal be allowed.

Per Contra, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State supported the finding recorded by the trial Court and prayed for dismissal of

the criminal appeal.

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

It is not disputed that deceased Munnibai was the wife of appellant Dakaria. Her dead body was found nearby the field of Sitaram on 27.9.2009.

The dead body was identified by Rajaan (P.W.6). After inquest, dead body was sent for postmortem. Dr. Daulat Singh Badole (P.W.3) conducted the

postmortem and vide his report (Ex.P/3) the following injuries were found on the body of the deceased :-

(1) Lacerated wound : 1 ½†x ½†x 1 ½†bone deep on above left eyebrow and frontal region of scalp bone. Corresponding bone is

fractured.

(2) Lacerated wound : 1 ½â€​ x ½â€​ x ½â€​ bone deep on right side above eyebrow and frontal region scalp bone. Corresponding bone fractured.

(3) Lacerated wound and contusion over left cheek.

(4) Contusion 2â€​ x 1â€​ over right cheek.

On opening the dead body, fracture was found on the skull bone. As per the opinion of Dr. Daulat Singh Badole (P.W.3), the cause of death was

cardiac respiratory failure, due to the head injury. There is no evidence on record to show that the injuries sustained by the deceased Munnibai were

caused by herself or it could be sustained by her in any accident and therefore, it is concluded that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.

Admittedly, there was no eye-witness to the occurrence. The entire prosecution case is rest upon circumstantial evidence. The learned First

Additional Sessions Judge, Khargon found following circumstances to arrive at its conclusion with regard to the guilt of the appellant:-

(1) The deceased was the last seen in his company on 26.9.2004 and after that she was not seen anybody in the company.

(2) On the basis of the disclosure statement (Ex.P/16) of the appellant, blood stained bu-shirt was recovered and as per Forensic Science Laboratory

report, human blood spread on the aforesaid shirt.

(3) The appellant made an extra-judicial confession before Ramesh (P.W. 8) that some altercation occurred between him and his wife.

Rajaan (P.W.6) deposed that, deceased Munnibai was his daughter and 12 years back she was married to appellant Dakaria. After the

marriage, Dakaria ill-treated Munnibai and about this, a report was lodged at Police station Bhagwanpura. However, on the intervention of the Police,

a compromise was taken place between Munnibai and Dakaria and he sent Munnibai to her matrimonial home. Mother Pidabai and Soorta younger

sister of Munnibai also visited her matrimonial home. At that time appellant Dakaria requested his mother-in-law that after three days some guests are

coming to his house and therefore, she takes his children along with her. On Monday, appellant's brother Jadla and uncle Dhaniya came to his house

and asked that whether Munnibai has come to his house? Then he replied that she has not come and thereafter they returned back. On the same day,

at about 3.00 p.m., some people came there and intimated him that one dead body was lying nearby the field of Sitaram at village Chandrawad and

then he reached there and found that dead body of his daughter Munnibai was lying. She sustained injuries on her skull.

Pidabai (P.W.4) deposed that, seven months' ago at about 2-3 p.m. Jadla and Dhaniya came to her house and asked about Dakaria, Munnibai and

their children. She replied that they did not come to her house then they told her that Dakaria was proceeded from his house along with his wife

Munnibai and his daughter saying that he is going to his matrimonial home. After knowing the aforesaid fact Jadla and Dhaniya returned back.

Monday was the market day of the village. On Monday, some people, who were coming to the market of her village informed her that near the

village-Chandrawad, a dead body of a lady is lying then on suspicion, she reached there and found that her daughter Munnibai was lying. She

sustained injury on her head and face and blood was oozing from the body. Blood stained stone was also found near the dead body.

From the statements of Rajaan (P.W.6) and Pidabai (P.W.4), it is established that the dead body of their daughter was found nearby the field of

Sitaram at village Chandrawad, but they did not know how their daughter has died.

Ramesh (P.W.8) deposed that, 8 months' ago at evening appellant Dakaria came to his house and told him that on the way a quarrel took place

between him and his wife and some wrong has happened. At that time, one female baby was also with the appellant Dakaria. Then he take him back

to his village -Ghutti.

Pratap (P.W.9) deposed that, 7-8 months' ago at about 6.30 p.m. when he was going towards his house then the appellant Dakaria met him on the

way at that time a lady and a small kid were also with him. Dakaria was drunkard.

The lady, who was accompanied with appellant Dakaria, was worn a green colour sari. Near village-Chandrawad, they were sit there and eating

gram, after seeing them he left his house. On the next day, one female dead body was recovered nearby the field of Sitaram, but, he did not go to see

the dead body. After sometime, he learnt that the dead body is identified as the wife of appellant Dakaria.

Dhaniya (P.W. 13) testified that, Munnibai was the wife of Dakaria.Munnibai made a report against appellant Dakaria. Then one meeting of the

members of the society was convened and after that Munnibai was started living with Dakaria. 4-5 months’ ago in the morning, Dakaria along

with his wife and one female baby was proceeded to his matrimonial home. Dakaria returned back with his daughter at 9 p.m. and told him that his

matrimonial home was deserted, so that he returned back, however, Munnibai was not with him. Ramesh (P.W.8) has also supported the statement of

Dhaniya (P.W.13). On the next day, he along with Jadla went to the matrimonial home of Dakaria and asked the parents of Munnibai that Munnibai

come there so they told him that Munnibai has not come their house.

The statement of this witness is intact and has not been shattered in the cross examination. Therefore, from the statement of Dhaniya, it is

established that, Munnibai had gone with appellant Dakaria to her parental house. However, neither she reached her parental home nor she come

back to her matrimonial home.

From the evidence of Rajaan (P.W.6) and Pidabai (P.W.4), it has been proved that the dead body of Munnibai was found nearby the field of

Sitaram at village-Chandrawad.

In the above circumstances, the burden of proof lies on the appellant to give a reasonable explanation as to how his wife met with homicidal death

after leaving the house accompanied with him.

In the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681, the Apex Court observed that “in a case based

on circumstantial evidence where no eyewitness account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that

when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to

be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete.†This view has been taken in catena of this

Court in the cases of State of Tamil Nadu vs. Rajendran :(1999) 8 SCC 679; State of U.P. vs. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal: (1992) 3 SCC 300 or

equivalent to AIR 1992 SC 2045; State of Maharashtra vs. Suresh: (2002) 1 SCC 471; Ganesh Lal vs. State of Rajasthan:(2002) 1 SCC 731;

Gulabchand vs. State of M.P.:(1995) 3 SCC 574. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution

succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling

home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received

injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the

crime.

On examining the facts of the present case in the light of the above reasoned legal position, we find that the appellant did not offer any explanation

about the homicidal death of his wife. It has been established from the record that the appellant was seen together with his wife before the

occurrence. The appellant also made an extra -judicial confession before Ramesh (P.W.8) that, on the way, a quarrel occurred with his wife. It has

also been proved that the relation of the appellant was not cordial with his wife and she made report against the appellant regarding harassment. The

Police recovered stained bu-shirt of the appellant in which human blood was found and the appellant has not offered any explanation about the

presence of human blood on his shirt. After the incident, the appellant was absconded and he was arrested on 30.9.2004 and this subsequent conduct

of the appellant is relevant to drawn adverse inference against him. These circumstances point to the guilt of the appellant.

After taking into consideration of the entire evidence, we have no reason to defer with the findings of the learned trial Judge that the appellant has

committed the murder of his wife Munnibai and the trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the accused appellant for offence under

Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentencing him thereunder. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal and it is hereby dismissed.

Appellant Dakaria is in jail. A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned jail Superintendent for information.

A copy of this judgment along with the records be also sent to the concerned trial Court for information.