Devi Lal vs State of Rajasthan

Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.—The instant cr. appeal has been filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. by the appellant Devi Lal @ Deep Chand to challenge the judgment dated 26.4.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Sessions Case No. 164/2005 whereby the said court convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and imposed punishment of life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months RI.

As per the facts of the case on 17.10.2005 at 3.20 pm the complainant Pappu Choudhary (PW-13) lodged written report at police Station Arnod alleging therein that today at about 1.30 when he was in his shop situated at village Mowai, his aunt Debubai came and informed that a telephone call of the mother of Suresh Choudhary is received from Narwali and it is said by her that husband of her daughter Devi Lal has lit fire upon the body of her daughter Guddi Bai after pouring kerosene. Upon receiving such information, the complainant, his uncle Unkar, heera Lal, Radheshyam Luhar, Debubai, mother Mohan Bai went village Narwali in jeep and saw that Guddi Bai was lying in the house in burnt condition, therefore, Guddi Bai was admitted to the hospital. As per facts stated in the FIR the marriage of Guddi Bai was solemnized with appellant 17-18 years back and out of said wedlock 2 sons and one daughter was born. After marriage Devi Lal used to beat his daughter Guddi Bai and harassing like anything and now he has killed her. Upon aforesaid information, FIR No. 259/2005 was registered under Section 307 IPC by the SHO, Police Station, Arnod, District Chittorgarh. During the course of treatment, Guddi Bai died, therefore, offence under Section 302 IPC was added. The SHO, Police Station, Arnod conducted thorough investigation and in the investigation the medical jurist was given letter to know condition of Guddi Bai for recording her statement, but the doctor gave its opinion that she is not in a position to even speak. After the death in the hospital, the post mortem was conducted by PW-12 Dr. Hitesh Joshi and after that the body was handed over to the family members for cremation. In the investigation, site plan (Ex. P/3) was prepared and vide Ex. P/4 the mud from the site having kerosene and sample of mud were taken and vide Ex. P/5 one container of kerosene oil was seized. Vide Ex. P/6 the burnt skin of deceased was taken from the place of occurrence. Likewise vide Ex. P/7 the pieces of Rajai were recovered from the place of occurrence and after usual investigation and obtaining post mortem report and injury report, the statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation challan was filed in the court of Civil Judge (JD)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pratapgarh. The said court committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial.

The District & Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh framed charge after hearing arguments under Section 302 IPC and granted opportunity to lead evidence to the prosecution.

In support of prosecution case, the statements of 22 witnesses were recorded in the trial and 55 documents were exhibited.

After recording evidence of prosecution, the statement of accused appellant were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which the accused appellant denied all the charges levelled against him.

The learned trial court after hearing the arguments, framed following questions for adjudication of the case which reads as under:--

After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court held the accused appellant guilty for offence under Section 302 IPC and passed sentence for live imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 5,000/- vide judgment dated 26.4.2006 in Sessions Case NO.164/2005.

In this appeal, the accused appellant is challenging the validity of the impugned judgment.

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned trial court has committed a serious error of law in convicting the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC because prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. As per prosecution case, the FIR was lodged by PW-13 Pappu Choudhary, who was not eye witness of the incident. More so, the FIR has been field on hear say evidence, therefore, the statement of Pappu Choudhary cannot be relied upon so as to held the accused appellant guilty for offence of murder. While inviting attention towards the statements of neighbors PW-3 Tara Chand, PW-6 Smt. Hullash Bai and PW-7 Smt. Lalita and other witnesses it is argued that none of the person was present when occurrence took place, therefore, they cannot be treated as eye witnesses of the incident so as to held accused appellant guilty of the alleged offence of murder.

As per arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence to complete the chain of circumstances so as to connect the accused appellant with the crime, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that marriage of accused appellant was solemnized 17-18 years back and from the wedlock of accused appellant with deceased Guddi Bai two sons and one daughter born but nature of deceased was so quarrelsome and she was having doubt in his mind that accused appellant is having relation with other lady, therefore, in fact, she committed suicide by pouring kerosene upon her body and as per the circumstances mentioned in the site plan the appellant tried to save the deceased when she burnt at her own, therefore, the allegation against the accused appellant for committing offence under Section 302 IPC is not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, therefore, it is a case in which accused appellant is entitled to be acquitted from the charges levelled against him.

The learned counsel for the appellant lastly argued that marriage was solemnized 17-18 years back and accused appellant was having 3 children, therefore, there was no occasion or reason left for the accused appellant to commit murder of his own wife. More so, it is a case in which the accused appellant made his efforts to save his wife when she herself poured kerosene upon her body.

The crux of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that even through prosecution has proved the occurrence of burn of lady Guddi Bai but there is no direct evidence to connect the accused appellant with the crime or the incident, which took place on 17.10.2005, therefore, in absence of any reliable or trustworthy evidence, no person can be convicted as per basic principle of law. Therefore, it is prayed that the judgment impugned dated 26.4.2004 may kindly be quashed and set aside and accused appellant may be acquitted from the charge under Section 302 IPC.

Per contra learned Public Prosecutor submits that it is a case in which the accused appellant is guilty for committing heinous offence of murder by pouring kerosene upon the body of the deceased Guddi Bai. In support of his contention, it is submitted that PW-4 Unkar Lal, father of the deceased has categorically said in his statement that after marriage so many times the accused appellant Devi Lal beat his daughter and before 2 years of incident, after beating she was sent out from the house by the accused appellant and after the said incident, one meeting was held in the presence of reputed members of the society and Sarpanch Ram lal in which the proceedings (Ex. P/8) was drawn in which the accused appellant himself agreed that in future he will not beat his wife and live peacefully with her wife. Meaning thereby, the relations of deceased Guddi Bai and appellant were not cordial. As per the statement of father PW-4 Unkar Lal, cousin brother PW-13 Pappu Choudhary, PW-8 Smt. Mohan Bai, elder mother, PW-9 Smt. Deubai, mother of the deceased and PW-10 Heera lal, brother of the deceased this fact is established that accused appellant was regularly harassing the deceased after her marriage before 17-18 years and deceased Guddi Bai as and when come to the parents house made complaint with regard to conduct and harassment of accused appellant.

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the learned trial court has relied upon the statement of all the witnesses in lawful manner so as to convict the accused appellant for the alleged crime of murder of his own wife deceased Guddi Bai because witness PW-3 Tara Chand, PW-6 Smt. Hullash Bai and PW-7 Smt. Lalita categorically stated before the Court that on the relevant date Devi Lal ran away from his house and his shirt was burning. The witness PW-6 Smt. Hullash Bai stated in her statement that she heard huge cry of the deceased in the night and when she came out from her house, saw that Devi Lal accused appellant was running on the stray from his home and back side of the shirt was burning. At that time, when she entered in the house Guddi Bai deceased was lying in burnt condition. Her whole body was burnt, upon which some cloths (Gudari) was put, thereafter, the Gudari was removed and water was poured upon the body of the deceased and information was given to the mother of the deceased upon which they came on spot alongwith other family members. According to the learned Public Prosecutor there is ample evidence on record to prove the fact that accused appellant is guilty for committing offence under Section 302 IPC.

Learned Public Prosecutor lastly argued that post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted by PW-12 Dr. Hitesh Joshi and found that body was 100% burned and give post mortem report (Ex. P/11) with the opinion that cause of death is hypovolemic shock due to burn. Therefore, it is a case in which the learned trial court has rightly assessed the evidentiary value of the prosecution witnesses including the investigating officer Nand Kishore who was working as SHO, Police Station, Arnod on the relevant date. The said witness categorically stated in his statement that whole investigation was conducted by him in fair and impartial manner and in his investigation it is found that offence has been committed by the accused appellant, therefore, charge-sheet was filed by him. In view of the above submission, it is submitted that the learned trial court has rightly arrived at with the finding that the accused appellant is guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the statement of prosecution witnesses and considered the case in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

As per prosecution evidence, the FIR was submitted by PW -13 Pappu Choudhary, cousin brother of late Guddi Bai resident of village Movai. The author of FIR stated in his statement that on the relevant date of incident at about 3.00 pm when he was in his house, his elder mother came there and informed that a phone call is received by her from Hullash Bai resident of Narwali in which she said that Devi Lal, the husband of his sister Guddi Bai lit fire upon her body due to that she burnt.

After receiving such information, the said witness went on well and called his elder father and brother Heera Lal. Thereafter, they called jeep from Patel Babrooji and went alongwith his elder father, elder mother, his mother and Heera Lal proceeded for Narwali and before proceeding for Narwali, they also informed the said incident to the police Station Movai by telephone. When they reached in the house of her sister at Narwali they saw that his sister was lying there completely burned and more than 100-200 persons were standing. It is also stated by him that near the body of deceased Guddi Bai one container of oil and some burned cloths were lying fro where they took the body of his daughter to the Pratapgarh Hospital but near village Chupana the police officials of Police Station Arnod met and they said that immediately take his sister to the hospital. In the night she died.

As per the complainant, the marriage of late Guddi Bai was solemnized with the accused appellant before 17-18 years and Devi Lal is originally resident of Achalpur but from 7-8 years he was residing at village Narwali, the behavior of accused appellant with his sister was very bad after the marriage. He used to consume liquor and regularly demanding money. Further, it is stated that accused appellant Devi Lal is having two sons and one daughter but out of them one son and daughter are residing in village Movai with the parents of the deceased. As per statement of PW-13 Pappu Chudhary before one year, the accused appellant Devi Lal assaulted Guddi Bai and due to the said incident of quarrel, they took Guddi Bai in the village Movai with them. After some time, the compromise arrived in between the family members in presence of some respected members of the society for which proceedings (Ex. P/8) was drawn. The accused appellant assured that he will not make any quarrel in future nor he will assault Guddi Bai but he was having illicit relation with one Nandudi. The witness stated on oath that in the hospital he made report (Ex. P/14) to the police in which his signatures are appearing. It is very strange that no relevant question was put in the cross-examination by the accused appellant.

The PW-1 Nanu Ram is the witness who put his signature upon the Panchnama of dead body which is Ex. P/1, so also proved the memo Ex. P/2 whereby dead body of deceased was handed over to the father of the deceased in the hospital.

The PW-2 Bhanwar Lal proved the Panchanama of dead body Ex. P/1 and P/2 whereby the body of the deceased was handed over.

Likewise PW-3 Tara Chand, PW-6 Smt. Hullash Bai and PW-7 Smt. Lalita all the three are neighbourers of the accused appellant categorically stated in their statement in the trial that at about 1.00 pm on the date of incident they heard noise of cry of the deceased and after hearing the said cry they come out from the house and saw that accused appellant was running away from his house at that time, his shirt was burning. The witness PW-6 Smt. Hullash Bai specifically said to the accused appellant that "what have you done", thereafter, all the witnesses entered in the house of Devi Lal accused appellant and saw that upon the body of Guddi Bail some old pillow (Gudari) were put and her whole body was burning, they poured water upon the body and informed immediately to the parents of the deceased.

The PW-9 Deubai mother of the deceased received Phone call in which information with regard to the incident was given, upon which the family members including father and mother of deceased came on spot and admitted Guddi Bai to Pratapgarh hospital.

We have perused the statements of PW-6 Smt. Hullash Bai PW-7 Smt. Lalita and PW-8 Smt. Mohan Bai. All these witnesses categorically stated that they were on spot when occurrence took place and found that Guddi Bai burning and she was in serious condition because her whole body was burnt. Te prosecution by leading evidence of above eye witnesses neighbourers proved the case. In the cross-examination from them no relevant questions were put to the witnesses so as to prove the innocence of the accused appellant. we have perused the statement of PW-8 Mohan Bai, elder mother of the deceased, who has proved the fact of receiving the information and said that she went in jeep to the house of deceased Guddi Bai, further stated that behavior of accused appellant with Guddi Bai was not good. So also, stated that accused appellant Devi Lal was having illicit relation with one Nandudi and deceased was objecting, therefore, accused appellant Devi Lal regularly beating the deceased Guddi Bai.

In the statement of PW-9 Smt. Deubai, mother of the deceased it is categorically stated by her that she received telephonic call of PW-6 Smt. Hullash Bai on the date of incident and it was informed that Devi La later litting fire upon the body of the deceased ran away from the house. The said witness corroborated the fact that after receiving information on telephone from PW-6 Smt. Hullash Bai she went on spot and saw that deceased Guddi Bai was lying in the house in burnt condition. No cross-examination is made to the said witness.

We have perused the statement of PW-10 Heera Lal, brother of the deceased. The said witness completely corroborated the allegations levelled against the accused appellant with regard to his behavior, conduct and harassment with the deceased Guddi Bai.

Ms. Papita, 13 years old daughter of the accused appellant Devi Lal produced as witness. It is stated by her that she is residing with the parents of her mother in Movai and on the relevant date of incident she sent to see the incident with her maternal mother, uncle at village Narwali in jeep and saw that her mother was in the house in burnt condition, her whole body was burning. Meaning thereby, the said witness proved the place of occurrence. Although there is evidence of extra judicial confession of accused appellant, but witness PW-15 Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar and PW-19 Narayan Lal turned hostile and did not support the fact of extra judicial confession, but there is ample evidence on record to prove the case that accused appellant lit fire upon the body of the deceased Guddi Bai in the house and run away from the house and said fact is proved by the witness PW-6 Smt. Hullash Ba, PW-7 Smt. Lalita and PW- 8 Smt. Mohan Bai neighbourers.

The post mortem was conducted by PW-11 Dr. Hitesh Joshi and the said witness stated before the Court on oath that on 17.10.2005 when he was posted as Medical Jurist in the District Hospital, Pratapgarh, Smt. Guddi W/o Devi Lal was admitted in the hospital in burned condition and he gave opinion to the investigating officer that she is not in position to give statement because 100% body has burnt. After death PW-11 Dr. Hitesh Joshi conducted post mortem of the deceased upon requisition received from Police Station, Arnod vide Ex. P/10 and after post mortem gave report Ex. P/11. The post mortem was conducted by the Medical Board and upon report the PW-11 Dr. Hitesh Joshi put his signatures as medical jurist, so also, two doctors Dr. OP Dayma and Dr. Neelam Gupta other members of the Board put their signatures upon the post mortem report (Ex. P/11) and gave opinion that 100% body of late deceased Guddi Devi is burned, her head, legs and private part of body were also burned and give following statements. The relevant part of the statement of PW-11 Dr. Hitesh Joshi reads as under:--

Upon perusal of above statements it is revealed that deceased was pregnant of 8 weeks and due to burn, fetus of 8 weeks also destroyed. Meaning thereby, it is case in which due to litting fire by the accused appellant not only his wife deceased Guddi Bai died but her pregnancy was also completely damaged.

In our opinion, it is a case in which no lenient view is to be taken because accused appellant is guilty of committing heinous offence.

We have perused the statement of investigating officer PW -20 Nand Kishore yadav, who has thoroughly conducted investigation. The said witness stated on oath that the investigation was conducted in accordance with law and proved whole of the investigation proceeding conducted by him in which it is found that accused appellant has committed an offence under Section 302 IPC by way of litting fire upon his own wife in the house due to that his wife Guddi Bai died.

In view of the above discussion and assessment of evidence, we are of the opinion that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner is guilty of committing offence under Section 302 IPC because right from the date of marriage, the conduct of accused was bad and on 13.3.2004 the accused appellant himself went to the house of his in-laws when his wife deceased Guddi Bai was residing there and upon interference of the respected members of the society, he gave assurance in writing vide Ex. P/8 that in future he will not make any quarrel and provide all means of living to his wife but unfortunately the accused appellant not only failed to provide relief to the deceased but committed her murder by litting fire upon her body and this allegation is corroborated in the evidence of the witness PW-6 Smt. Hullash Bai, PW-7 Smt. Lalita and PW-8 Mohan Bai neighbours. It is true that accused appellant was also medically examined by PW-17 Dr. Ratan Kumar Meena and found that there was only one old injury upon left side of his knee and no other injury was found upon his body.

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that prosecution has proved its case beyond doubt against the accused appellant by leading trustworthy and reliable evidence, upon which the learned trial court give finding that accused appellant is guilty for offence under Section 302 IPC.

In view of the above, there is no force in this appeal. Therefore, this appeal is hereby dismissed.