Indrani @ Indrawati vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Challenge in this appeal is judgment and order dated 12.01.2015, passed in Sessions Trial No.168 of 2004, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Indrani @ Indrawati and another, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun. By the impugned judgment and order the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and with a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine it has been ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. The appellant has also been convicted under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine it has further been ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.

Briefly stated, according to the prosecution on 14.06.2004, PW1 Khushi Ram, a watchman in Udiya Bagh Tea Estate, spotted a dead body in the Tea Estate. He gave a report of it to the police station Vikasnagar. Based on it, Crime No.70 of 2004 under Section 302 IPC was lodged at police station Vikasnagar at 05:30 p.m. on the same day. Inquest of the dead body was prepared on the same day. Injuries were noted on the dead body and according to the opinion of the Panch, the death was caused due to injuries. During investigation blood stained and plain soil were taken into custody by the Investigating Officer and sent for Forensic Science examination. According to the report, blood was detected on the soil. According to the prosecution, during investigation name of the appellant and others came into light. Appellant Indrani was arrested on 19.06.2004 and she confessed her guilt and said that with the help of co-accused, she killed deceased, her husband. The appellant and co-accused were traveling in a car on that day. The parts of the car were recovered by the Investigating Officer. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against appellant and three others, namely, Sanjay Sirohi, Tinku alias Pratap and Navin. Co-accused Navin was a Juvenile in conflict with law. His matter was enquired, in Inquiry No.34 of 2014, State Vs. Navin Kumar, by the Juvenile Justice Board, Dehradun and he has been acquitted by the judgment and order dated 13.09.2013 of the Juvenile Justice Board, Dehradun.

Co-accused Tinku alias Pratap died during trial and proceedings against him abated on 04.08.2006. The trial proceeded against the appellant Indrani and Sanjay Sirohi.

The prosecution examined 18 witnesses in support of the case, namely, PW1 Khushiram, PW2 Smt. Tanu, PW3 Rajendra Prasad, PW4 Ishwar Das, PW5 Mannu Bhatia, PW6 Sunil Rana, PW7 Dharmendra Kumar, PW8 Sooraj Pal, PW9 Rakesh, PW10 Yasin, PW11 Ram Singh, PW12 Dr. R.K. Singh, PW13 Babu Ram, PW14 Mela Ram, PW15 Ramkali, PW16 Hukum Singh, PW17 Omi Singh and PW18 Anil Kumar Malik.

Appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'). According to the appellant she has been falsely implicated. No witness was examined or evidence adduced by the appellant in defence.

After considering the material on record, the learned court below acquitted co-accused Sanjay Sirohi but convicted the appellant and sentenced her, as stated hereinbefore. Aggrieved, the instant appeal.

On behalf of the appellant it is argued that this case is based on circumstantial evidence but the chain of circumstances is not complete. There is no evidence against the appellant. Statement of PW2 Smt. Tanu and PW5 Mannu Bhatia cannot be made basis for conviction. Statement of PW3 Rajendra Prasad is also not reliable because it is not supported by the statement of PW16 Hukum Singh. There is no motive. According to PW15 Ramkali on the fateful night appellant was with her. It is argued that prosecution failed to prove the charges and appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges and appeal allowed.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would argue that by making a telephone from the shop of PW5 Mannu Bhatia, appellant had called the deceased, her husband at Herbertpur. PW3 Rajendra Prasad had a conversation with the deceased. Deceased had told it to PW3 Rajendra Prasad that his wife had called him there. Thereafter the dead body of the deceased was found. It is argued that the conduct of the appellant also supports prosecution case because she did not file any report of missing of her husband. Hence, it is argued that the prosecution has proved the charges against the appellant and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

This case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is settled principle of law that in such cases prosecution has to prove the chain of circumstances, which may draw an irrestible conclusion that it is accused and accused alone, who has committed the offence. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar (2018) 2 Supreme Court Cases 69, the Hon'ble Court held as hereunder:-

"9. Prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established and that those circumstances must be conclusive in nature unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Moreover all the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a complete chain and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstance must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence."

PW1 Khushiram is the person, who first spotted the dead body and reported it to the police. He has stated about it. The inquest of the dead body of the deceased was prepared on 14.06.2004. PW8 Sooraj Pal is a Panch witness. He proved inquest Ex. A-5. Similarly, PW9 Rakesh, PW13 Babu Ram and PW14 Mela Ram are also witnesses of the inquest.

PW7 Dharmendra Kumar is a Home Guard. He took into custody plain and blood stained soil from the place of occurrence. He proved Ex A-3 and Ex A-4. But PW17 Omi Singh, who is shown to be a witness of this recovery has not supported the prosecution case. According to him he had not witnessed recovery of soil from the place of occurrence. There is a forensic report, according to which, on the blood stained soil human blood was detected but, the prosecution has not adduced any evidence as to who took the samples and how they were transmitted to Forensic Science Laboratory. It would be convenient to appreciate the other evidence, if statement of PW18 the Investigating Officer, Anil Kumar Malik is evaluated first.

PW 8 Anil Kumar Malik is the Investigating Officer. He proved site plan. According to him after the name of the appellant came into light, he arrested her and she confessed. This witness has stated as to what the appellant told him about the sequel, which ultimately resulted in the killing of deceased Sumer Chand. According to PW18 Anil Kumar Malik, appellant had told it to him that she with the help of Ram Surat, Sanjay Sirohi, Tinku and Navin killed deceased Sumer Chand by throttling and they took him in a car and threw it near Tea Estate. He has also stated about recovery of parts of a car, at the instance of the appellant. Recovery of parts of the car is not stated by any other witness. PW10 Yasin and PW11 Ram Singh both have denied of witnessing any recovery, though they have admitted their signature on a document. The part of recovery is not proved.

PW4 Ishwar Das is a witness, who states that he has a shop with a telephone. Appellant used to visit his shop to telephone others. According to this witness appellant was not a woman of good character. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution. PW12 Dr. R.K. Singh conducted post mortem. According to him he noticed the following injuries on the dead body of the deceased:-

Abrasion on the right side on face, 2 cm x 3 cm.

Abrasion 7 cm x 4 cm on nose and right side face, 2 cm below right eye.

Abrasion 6 cm x 2 cm, in front of forehead just above root of nose.

Contusion 6 cm x 4 cm, around right eye.

Abrasion 3 cm x 2, cm in front of neck.

Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm, in front of right knee.

According to PW12 Dr. R.K. Singh, in the internal examination the brain was found crushed, which was the cause of death. Duration of death was 2 to 4 days prior to the time of post mortem.

The circumstances, which the prosecution tried to establish is that on 13.06.2004 a call was made by the appellant and she called her husband, the deceased Sumer Chand and killed him.

PW2 Smt. Tanu is a neighbour of the deceased. She states that on 13.06.2004 at about 08:00 p.m. she received a call from appellant.

Appellant used to call at her telephone number. She recognized her phone. According to this witness, the appellant called her husband at Herbertpur and PW2 Smt. Tanu conveyed it to Sumer Chand.

PW6 Sunil Rana is husband of PW2 Smt. Tanu. He also states that next day i.e. on 14.06.2004 his wife had told him about the telephonic call of the appellant.

PW5 Mannu Bhatia states that on 13.06.2004 the appellant had come to her Public Call Office at about 07:30 to 08:00 p.m. in his shop at Hello Mobile in Selaqui. The appellant had called from his PCO and called Vicky's father and told him that he could come to take her. Vicky is the name of the son of the deceased and appellant. It has been stated by PW2 Smt. Tanu also. Now if statement of PW2 Smt. Tanu and PW5 Mannu Bhatia are read together there is some discrepancy in it, as well. According to PW5 Mannu Bhatia, the appellant when telephoned introduced herself as the mother of Vicky and talked to the father of Vicky and called him to take her. Whereas, according to PW2 Smt. Tanu, she had conveyed it to the husband of the appellant that appellant had called him at Herbertpur. It means according to PW2 Smt. Tanu deceased did not talk, from her telephone to the appellant, on that day. Although in one line in her examination-in-chief PW2 Smt. Tanu says that she had called Vicky's father Sumer Chand on telephone. If Sumer Chand was called on telephone by PW2 Smt. Tanu then what was the need for her to visit the house of deceased Sumer Chand and tell him that appellant had called him at Herbertpur. This statement is not transpiring confidence. It has internal inconsistencies. This is first chain of circumstances, which is very weak.

The second chain of circumstances, according the prosecution is that PW3 Rajendra Prasad saw the deceased near Herbertpur on that day at about 08:00 p.m. According to PW3 Rajendra Prasad on 13.06.2004, when he was returning to his home after filling petrol alongwith Hukum Singh, he saw Sumer Chand waiting for his wife. When PW3 Rajendra Prasad asked the deceased as to what he was doing there, the deceased told him that since his wife Indrani had called him, therefore, he is waiting for her.

Hukum Singh has been examined as PW16. He has not supported the statement of PW3 Rajendra Prasad. He has been declared hostile. If the statement of PW3 Rajendra Prasad is examined independently, it also does not transpire any confidence. Why should a person tell someone that his wife had telephoned him, therefore he is waiting for her, as stated by PW3 Rajendra Prasad. Moreover, as stated this statement does not find support or corroboration from any other evidence. PW16 Hukum Singh has not supported it. The statement of PW3 Rajendra Prasad also does not support the prosecution case. It is very weak link, if any.

Prosecution has examined PW15 Ramkali, who is sister of the appellant. According to PW15 Ramkali on 13.06.2004 she had gone to matrimonial house of her daughter Guddi, who was married to Dara of Mohakampur. Appellant was also with her. They first visited their brother Sunder. In her cross-examination she has stated that on that day at about 06:00 in the evening the appellant joined her and on that night appellant also stayed with the daughter of this witness in Mohakampur, where they stayed together. They returned their village after hearing news of the death of Sumer Chand. This witness demolishes the prosecution story of deceased being called by the appellant somewhere in Herbertpur. There is no other evidence against the appellant.

In view of the forgoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the appellant and the appellant ought to have been acquitted of the charges. Learned court below committed an error in convicting and sentencing the appellant. Therefore, while setting aside the judgment and order, in so far as it convicts the appellant, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 12.01.2015, passed in Sessions Trial No.168 of 2004, State of Uttarakhand vs. Indrani @ Indrawati and another, in so far as it convicts appellant Indrani @ Indrawati, is set aside.

The appellant Indrani @ Indrawati is acquitted of the charges under Section 302 and 201 IPC.

Appellant is in jail, if she is not wanted in any other case, she be released, forthwith.