Daya Shankar Singh vs State of Bihar

B.N.P. Singh, J.—Only after two months of celebration of marriage Appellant-husband liquidated his wife Suchitra Devi by executing her killing with sharp edged weapon for which the lone witness is his brother.

The facts of the case are tell-e-tell as it is alleged that though for about one and half months after the marriage the couple had been spending their days happily, only 15 days preceding the incident the marital relationship between them became strained as the husband was usually beating her in the house on resistance by the wife and brother to sell their household commodities. It was on 8th September, 1994 at about 8 a.m. when Sanjay Kumar Singh (P.W. 8), who happens to be the brother of the Appellant came to his house after playing musical instruments noticed his brother holding spade who shortly there-after threw the spade in the courtyard and made good his escape. There was copious blood below the cot and Suchitra Devi was lying in pool of blood with incised wound on her neck. The alarm raised by Sanjay Kumar Singh attracted the villagers to whom he allegedly narrated the incident witnessed by him. After the prosecution was launched on behest of the brother of the Appellant pursuant to the fardbeyan that was recorded at 6.15 hours on 9th September, 1994, investigation commenced during which the Police Officer entrusted with the task of carrying out investigation visited the place of occurrence, recorded statement of witnesses, seized blood stained spade and also blood stained earth from the Court yard noticed copies blood below the cot, prepared inquest report over the dead body of Suchitra Devi sent the dead body for post mortem examination and on its receipt, having concluded investigation laid charge sheet before the Court. In the eventual trial that commenced the State examined altogether 9 witnesses who were Sanjay Kumar maker of the fardbeyan the doctor the Police Officer and host of other witnesses.

The defense of the Appellant was plain denial of the entire allegations and he ascribed false implication. It seems from the findings recorded by the Court below that even feeble attempt was made at trial about insanity of the Appellant. However, the trial court on consideration of probative value of the evidences that were placed on the record negative contentions raised about innocence of the Appellant recorded verdict of guilt, finding the Appellant guilty u/s 302 Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

Contentions raised at Bar on behalf of the Appellant to assail the findings recorded by the trial Court was that though in his early version Sanjay Kumar was narrating before the Court about the Appellant having celebrated his marriage at Calcutta, at trial discrepant statement was sought to be made in which it was stated that the villagers had arranged the marriage of the Appellant. Unable to make any meaningful criticism, it is sought to be urged that Sanjay Kumar Singh stated to have gained access in his house by pushing the door planks, but the objective finding recorded by the Police Officer would unmistakably show that there was no door plank. While commenting on the positive finding recorded by the doctor, it is sought to be urged that since the details about the rigor mortis was not record in his finding, one is left to speculate about the time of death of the deceased. Learned Counsel for the State, strongly resisting the contentions raised on behalf of the Appellant urged that the solitary eye witness who happened to be the brother of the Appellant deserves all credence as no animosity was attributed to him by the Appellant.

While evaluating the testimony of the witnesses, we have noticed that though a good number of witnesses were examined at trial, many of them turned volte face to the State lending no assurance to the prosecution allegation suggesting complicity of the Appellant. Chandeshwar Singh (PW. 1) stated to have rushed to the house of the Appellant where he noticed the dead body of his wife in pool of blood with cut" injury on her neck. He came to know about the incident and also complicity of the Appellant. Bal Ram Prasad Singh (PW. 2), Rak Ekbal Singh (PW. 4) and Ram Shankar Singh (PW. 6) were tendered by the State and there was nothing material in their evidences to merit consideration. Virendra Singh (PW. 3) and Lakshmikant Singh (PW. 5) expressed their ignorance about the incident and their attentions had been drawn towards their early versions which they rendered before the Police. Virendra Singh (PW. 3) even disowned his signature In the inquest report and his attention too had been drawn by the State towards early version which he rendered before the Police. Sanjay Kumar Singh (PW. 8), the brother of the Appellant, who also appears to be the person who set the Police in motion, would reiterate his early version which he rendered before the Police about witnessing the Appellant in his Court and with spade who shortly on his arrival, made good his escape. The witness would reiterate that he noticed his elder brother''s wife lying dead on the cot with cut injuries on her neck. The blood had rolled below the cot and even the hairs of the deceased were smeared with blood. About strained relationship of the deceased with the Appellant the witness would state that (sic) days preceding the incident the Appellant had been beating the lady for resistant made by her to sell the household commodities in the market. He stated to haw rendered his fardbeyan before the police with all these accusations.

The doctor who held autopsy over the dead body noticed one sharp cut injury through left side of the neck left cheek upper part of nose upto middle of right cheekbone deep and muscle, large vessels, mandibular bone, maxilla, trachea and oesophagus were cut. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death was hemorrhage and shock as a result of the injuries sustained by the deceased which were produced by sharp cutting instrument such as ''kudal'' having sharp edge and the injuries in the estimation of the doctor were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Police Officer, who carried out investigation of the instant case happened to be PW. 7. He stated to have recorded fardbeyan of Sanjay Kumar Singh at 6.15 hours on 9th September, 1994 in village Pipara Bishanpur, which followed drawl of the first information report and also commencing of investigation. The Police Officer stated to have found the dead body of Suchitra Devi in the courtyard of her house on a cot, where he prepared inquest report over her dead body. The police officer would state about seizure of blood stained spade and also earth from the place of occurrence. This is all the evidence that has been adduced on behalf of the State.

As has been stated in the preceding pages though a number of witnesses were examined by the State most of them have either turned volte face to the State or were tendered. Now the prosecution is left with the testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 8. The narration made by Sanjay Kumar Singh (PW. 8) was reiteration of his early version without making any significant embellishment or improvement suggesting the Appellant to be the killer of his wife with sharp edged weapon. He noticed his brother holding spade in the courtyard and shortly thereafter, he made good his escape. The narration made by Sanjay Kumar Singh would receive ample corroboration from the positive endings recorded by the Doctor who noticed corresponding injuries on the body of the deceased which were cut injuries on the neck. The omission on the part of the doctor to record a finding about the rigor mortis, was not a circumstance to negate the finding recorded by him, once we find that the time when post mortem examination was carried out by him since the death had been well spelt out in his finding. The doctor would state that time of death in his opinion was within 24 hours. The Police Officer, who visited the place of occurrence, found copies blood at the place of occurrence for which there was also seizure of blood stained earth and spade. True it is that no evidence was placed on the record about the finding of any chemical expert about the origin of blood, but these are matters of petty details which do not befog the real issue and for which we have noticed clinching evidence of the brother of the Appellant. Yet, there is evidence of PW. 1 who would corroborate the prosecution version about the dead body of Suchitra Devi having been noticed on the cot kept in the courtyard with bleeding injuries on her person and there being cut injuries on the neck. Apart from these incriminating evidences that have been placed on the record, yet, we find that since Suchitra Devi died in her in-laws house, onus was on the husband to explain about her death for which there was no good evidence on the part of the Appellant and in this view of the matter also, he must be held answerable for killing of Suchitra Devi in his house.

Having bestowed our deepest and anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the evidences placed on the record, we find that the findings recorded by the Court below was based on meticulous appreciation which did not require interference. There being no merit, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Mr. Dhirendra Kumar (Munna), Advocate, who was appointed to appear in this case as amicus curiae, shall receive his remuneration from the Patna High Court Legal Aid Committee.

P.K. Sinha, J.

I agree.