Govind Yadav vs The State of Bihar

Honourable Mr. Justice, Amaresh Kumar Lal

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 29.10.2004 and the order of sentence dated 1.11.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.III, Munger in Sessions Case of100/2004 by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/- u/s 302 of the I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for six months. The prosecution case as disclosed in the fardbeyan (Ext.1/2) is that the informant Nageshwar (P.W.1) got information on 12.09.2003 at about 12.30 P.M. that his niece Indu Devi (deceased) was killed by his son-in-law Govind Yadav (appellant) by hanging. Thereafter, he went to the house of his niece Indu Devi and found that her dead body was lying in the courtyard and the appellant has fled away. It has been further alleged that prior to the occurrence, Indu Devi (deceased) was tortured by the appellant. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, Muffasil P.S. Case of291/2003 dated 12.09.2003 was instituted against the sole appellant for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the I.P.C. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the court of sessions. The charge was framed u/s 302 of the I.P.C. against the appellant to which he denied and claimed to be tried.

The defence of the appellant is that he has been falsely implicated in this case. There was good relationship between the deceased and her husband (appellant). The appellant had not misbehaved or tortured the deceased.

After the trial, the appellant has been found guilty and he has been sentenced, as aforesaid.

The learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. There was god relationship between the appellant and the deceased. There is no eye witness to the occurrence. It has wrongly been held that there are strong circumstances and the circumstances are well interlinked to show that the appellant has committed the occurrence.

The learned counsel for the State has submitted that the learned trial court has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution as well as the appellant and the learned trial court has found and held that the appellant is addicted to liquor and the deceased was subjected to cruelty by him. The death has been caused by asphyxia. The ocular evidence stands corroborated by the medical evidence and the learned trial court has rightly found the appellant guilty and on the question of sentence, the learned trial court has already taken a lenient view and there is no occasion to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence by this Court.

This Court is required to reappraise the evidence and to see as to whether the prosecution has been able to substantiate its case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts against the appellant.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined six witnesses. They are namely, P.W.1 Nageshwar Yadav, informant and uncle of the deceased, P.W.2 Singho Yadav, brother of the appellant, P.W.3 Heera Yadav, cousin brother of the appellant, P.W.4 Tara Devi, P.W.5 Dr. Prithwi Raj, who conducted the postmortem examination and P.W.6 Baijnath Choudhary, Investigating officer.

D.W.1 Pankaj Kumar Singh has been examined on behalf of the defence.

P.W.1 has stated that on 12.09.2003 at about 12.30 P.M., he got information that his niece Indu Devi (deceased) was killed by hanging by Govind Yadav. Govind Yadav was married to his niece Indu Devi (deceased) in the year 1984. After getting this information, he went to the village-Kataria where the deceased was living. He went there and saw that Indu Devi was lying dead in the courtyard. Rohit Kumar, minor son and Sonu Kumari, minor daughter of the deceased (not examined) were weeping. Both of them told him that their father (appellant) killed their mother (deceased) by tying rope in her neck. In the meantime, the officer-in-charge of Muffasil police station came there. He has further stated that prior to the occurrence, the appellant used to assault and torture the deceased whenever any demand for medicine etc. was made by her. He has further stated that whenever he (P.W.1) and others went for Vidai of the deceased, the appellant used to tell that she was her wife and he would keep her in the manner as he desired and refused to give Vidai of the deceased. The deceased had been brought to the informant''s house in a function. After ten days, the appellant took her back to his house then killed her. He has further stated that the appellant was addicted to liquor and was also indulging in gambling. He has stated that fardbeyan was recorded by the police officer and he has identified and has identified his signature (Ext.1). In his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not see any one assaulting Indu Devi (deceased) nor saw any one hanging her. The information regarding the death was given by someone by telephone. When he went to the place of occurrence only Rohit and Sonu, minor son and daughter of the deceased and the appellant were present. No other members of family were present there. He has further stated that the police prepared the inquest report and took the dead body in his presence. He has denied the suggestion of the accused that no occurrence took place as narrated by him as he has lodged the false case.

P.W.2 is the brother of the appellant and hearsay witness and he has stated that after hearing that he was rushed at his house. He went to his house and saw that the wife of Govind Yadav (appellant) was lying dead and he heard that she was killed by her husband Govind Yadav. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he cannot say as to who had killed the wife of Govind Yadav (appellant). The police has taken the dead body in his presence.

P.W.3 is the cousin brother of the appellant. He has stated that he cannot say as to when the occurrence did take place. He has been declared hostile. He has denied the suggestion of the prosecution that he has stated before the police that Govind Yadav hanged his wife and saw that there was stained of hanging in the neck of the deceased. He has also denied to have stated before the police that Govind Yadav was a drug addict and he was not doing any job for which whenever his wife did tell anything, he used to assault her. On the date of occurrence also, she was assaulted and hang to death by her husband Govind Yadav. In his cross-examination, he has stated that Govind Yadav is his cousin brother and he has deposed according to his choice.

P.W.4 is the mother of the appellant and has stated that Govind Yadav (appellant) is her son and she did not see as to who had assaulted his wife. She saw that her daughter-in-law (deceased) was lying dead in the courtyard. She did not see any strained in her neck. The deceased was alive when she was going from the house at 11.00 A.M. She has also stated that one month prior to the occurrence, the accused had assaulted his wife (deceased). When she returned after bringing grass found that Rohit Yadav was weeping near the dead body of the deceased.

P.W.5 Dr. Prithwi Raj, Civil Assistant Surgeon in the Sadar Hospital, Munger has stated that on 12.09.2003, the dead body of the deceased Indu Devi, wife of Govind Yadav (appellant) was brought by the Chaukidar Brijnandan Paswan and Chhabu Paswan. He examined the dead body and found the following ante-mortem injuries on her dead body.

(I). A black ligature mark on and around the front of neck covering back of the neck (nape) the ligature mark with interrupted line.

(II). Nasal discharge from dribbling from mouth, eye protruded tongue protruded. Fracture of survical vertebrae on and above the trachea, fracture of trachea.

On dissection of ligature mark white glistering delicate tissues under the line of ligature mark. Internal viscera congested. Heart contained dark colour.

In the opinion of the doctor, death was caused due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. Time elapsed since death within 24 hours.

The post-mortem examination report has been marked as Ext.2.

In his cross-examination, he has denied that he has not properly done the post-mortem examination.

P.W.6 is the Investigating officer. He has stated that on 12.09.2003, Muffasil P.S. Case of291/2003 was instituted. He took the investigation of this case and went to the place of occurrence and took the restatement of the informant, who supported the prosecution case as mentioned in the FIR. He investigated the place of occurrence. The entrance of the house is from the north. There was house built under the Indira Awas. There was a tiled built Varandah. On this Varandah, it was told that the accused/appellant hanged his wife. In the northern side of place of occurrence, there is house of Tara Devi, P.W.4, mother-in-law of the deceased. In the eastern side, there is house of Singho Yadav (P.W.2), Hira Yadav (P.W.3) and in the western side, thee is orchard. He took the statement of the witnesses. After investigation, he found the case true against the accused Govind Yadav and submitted the charge-sheet against him. He has further stated that the accused surrendered in the court. As such, he could not get the opportunity to take his statement. He has identified the writing of endorsement (Ext.1/1) and the fardbeyan (Ext.1/2). In his cross-examination, he has stated that when he went to the place of occurrence, he did not find the dead body. He did not find any articles pertaining to hang on the place of occurrence.

D.W.1 has stated that the accused is his neighbour and he is well acquainted with his conduct. He has further stated that according to information, the accused did not abuse or assault anyone after taking liquor. The relationship between the wife, husband and children was cordial. He did not assault his wife. In his cross-examination, he has stated that there is Nala between the house of D.W.1 and the accused. The hose of Govind is at a distance of 20-25 feet from the Nala (drain) and his house is also at a distance of 20-25 feet from that Nala. There is distance of 60 feet between the house of the accused and the D.W.1. He has accepted that Govind Yadav is his friend.

It appears that he is an interested witness and his evidence does not inspire confidence. As such, it cannot be accepted.

After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that contention of the learned counsel for the state is correct.

It further appears that there is no eye witness to the occurrence. It is admitted fact that the appellant is the husband of the deceased Indu Devi. After getting the information that Indu Devi (deceased) has been killed, the informant (P.W.1) went to the house of Indu Devi (deceased) where he was living with her husband and children. The informant found that the dead body of the deceased was lying in the courtyard. Rohit Kumar and Sonu Kumari, minor children of the appellant and deceased told the informant that the appellant killed their mother by throttling and hanging with the help of rope. It also appears from the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 that the appellant was addicted to liquor and he was a man of bad character. The deceased was usually subjected to cruelty by the appellant. P.W.4, mother of the appellant has also stated that prior to the occurrence also; the deceased was assaulted by the appellant. The doctor (P.W.5) has also found marks on and around the neck. The manner of occurrence has been fully corroborated by the medical evidence. The cause of death has been fully supported by the medical evidence. The reputation of the accused was also bad as it appears from the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4, brother and mother of the appellant respectively. The mother has clearly stated that the appellant used to torture his wife (deceased). P.W.6 has also stated that the witnesses have supported the case during investigation.

It further appears that there is chain of circumstantial evidence which proves the guilt of the appellant. After the occurrence, the appellant has also not been found in the house. The prosecution has been able to prove that it is the appellant, who has committed the murder of his wife.

Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court.

In the result, this appeal is dismissed. Let a copy of the first page and the last page of the judgment be given to Mr. Neeraj Kumar @ Sanidh, the learned Amicus Curiae so that he may be able to get the prescribed fee from the Patna High Court Legal Service Committee.