Mahendra Kumar Mehra vs State Of Rajasthan

Appellant had faced trial in FIR No. 141 dated 1.3.2015 registered at Police Station Pratap Nagar, Jaipur (East) under Section 302 Indian Penal

Code, 1860.

Prosecution case was set in motion by complainant Rakesh Mehra, brother of deceased. As per complaint Exhibit-P/1, it was case of the

complainant that his sister Sagari Devi had got married to the appellant and she was residing in her matrimonial home in the area of Police Station

Pratap Nagar. On 27.2.2015, his sister had been murdered by appellant and his lover Anita Devi. When he reached the spot, he saw that his sister had

died on account of knife injuries.

On the basis of the statement of complainant, formal FIR was registered.

After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant under Section 306 IPC. Trial Court framed

charges against the appellant under Section 306 IPC and in alternative Section 302 IPC. Appellant did not plead guilty to the charges framed against

him and claimed trial.

In order to prove its case, prosecution examined twenty-four witnesses during trial. After close of prosecution evidence, appellant was examined

under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he prayed that he did not have any second wife and had only one wife. He was living peacefully with his family

and had no dispute with his wife.

Appellant did not examine any witness in his defence.

Trial court vide impugned judgment/order dated 3.4.2018 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC. Hence, the

present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that material witnesses had not supported the prosecution case during trial. Children of the

deceased had also stated during trial that when the incident occurred, appellant was in the kitchen. Son of the deceased had deposed that their mother

had gone to collect clothes and he did not know how she had fallen from above. On hearing the noise, he had gone out and had seen that his mother

had fallen from the above. Children of the deceased have also stated that there was no dispute between their parents.

Learned State Counsel has opposed the appeal.

Present case relates to murder of Sagari Devi. Appellant is the husband of deceased. Although, it was the case of the complainant that his sister

had been murdered by the appellant and his lover, but after thorough investigation of the case, challan was presented against the appellant under

Section 306 IPC. Thus, the allegation made by the complainant that deceased had been murdered by the appellant was not established during

investigation.

P.W.1 to P.W.4 have proved the Post Mortem Examination Report of deceased, i.e. Exhibit-P/1.

Complainant Rakesh Mehra while appearing in the witness box as P.W.5 has deposed as per contents of the complaint. In his cross-examination,

he deposed that he did not know whether Anita Devi was residing with the appellant, but his sister had told him on phone about the said fact. They had

never lodged any report with the police regarding beatings given by the appellant to his sister.

Rakesh Gurjar P.W.6 deposed that on the day of incident he was going to fill up water and on hearing noise he came to know that a girl had fallen

from the roof, but he did not know who was that girl.

Lalit Kumar Mahajan P.W.7 deposed that he knew the appellant because he was working as a Cook in his hostel. Appellant was residing on the

topmost floor of the hostel alongwith his children. He enquired from the son of the appellant as to how his mother had died and he had told him that he

was reading in his room and his mother had fallen from roof and his father had taken her to the hospital. In his cross-examination by the public

prosecutor, he denied the suggestion that the appellant had murdered his wife.

Om Prakash P.W.8 deposed that appellant was residing on the topmost floor of the hostel. He was sleeping in his room and was told by the

appellant that his wife had fallen from the roof and asked him to open the gate. He stated in his cross-examination that appellant was peacefully

residing with his family.

Poonam Chand Meena P.W.10 deposed that he knew the appellant, who was residing on the topmost floor of the building. He did not know as to

under what circumstances wife of the appellant had died.

Dilip Singh P.W.11 deposed that appellant was residing on the top floor of the building. He did not know as to under what circumstances wife of

the appellant had died. He had not seen the dead body.

Mangi Lal P.W.12 deposed that he was residing in the Ashray Second Boy's Hostel. On the day of incident, he was present in his room and heard

noise of somebody falling. Then he ran to the spot and saw that wife of the appellant had fallen down.

Manoj Mehra P.W.13 deposed that they were residing on the fourth floor of the building. His father used to prepare meals in the Mess. His father

had never treated Anita Devi, who used to work as a Sweeper in the building, as his wife. At about 9:00 / 10:00 PM, his mother had gone to collect

clothes and suddenly he heard a noise and went out and saw that his mother had fallen. At that time, his father was eating meals in the kitchen. In his

cross-examination by the public prosecutor, he denied the suggestion that his father used to ill-treat his mother as he had maintained a second wife.

Annu Mehra P.W.14 has corroborated the statement of P.W.13 Manoj Mehra.

Rampal P.W.17 deposed that he was residing in Ashray Second Boy's Hostel. He did not know under what circumstances wife of the appellant

had died.

Pappu Mehra P.W.18 has corroborated the statement of the complainant.

Maliram P.W.19 deposed that Sagari Devi had got married to the appellant about twenty years ago. He did not know under what circumstances,

wife of the appellant had died.

Suryaveer Singh P.W.24 deposed that he had investigated the case and after thorough investigation of the case, he had presented challan against

the appellant under Section 306 IPC.

Thus, in the present case, material witnesses have not supported the prosecution case during trial. Children of the deceased while appearing in the

witness box as P.W.13 and P.W.14 have also deposed that their mother had fallen while she had gone to collect clothes and at that time their father

was present in the kitchen. Presence of the children at the spot, aged 16 and 12 years, cannot be doubted, as their presence in the house was natural.

Both the children have not supported the prosecution case to the effect that the appellant had murdered their mother. The other witnesses who were

residing in the hostel have also not supported the prosecution case with regard to the involvement of appellant in the crime. The employer as well as

gate-keeper of the hostel have also not supported the prosecution case to the effect that the appellant had committed the murder of his wife. Although,

doctors P.W.1 to P.W.3 who had conducted post-mortem examination of the deceased, in their cross-examination have deposed that deceased could

not have suffered injuries by fall but the prosecution case itself is that deceased had committed suicide by jumping from the roof. Dr. Anuradha

Nirwan P.W.4 in her cross-examination has deposed that injuries suffered by the deceased could be result of fall.

As per site plan Exhibit-P/7, the witnesses had disclosed that the deceased had fallen from the roof of ninth floor on the ground floor/roof of the

basement.

Since, medical opinion is not corroborated by any other evidence on record, it would not be safe to base the conviction of the appellant only on the

basis of medical opinion of P.W.1 to P.W.3 which is contradicted by P.W.4. Rather, the children of the deceased have categorically deposed that at

the time of incident, their father was sitting in the kitchen. They have also deposed that their mother had fallen while she had gone to collect the

clothes. There is also no evidence on record to establish that the appellant had instigated or abetted the deceased to have committed suicide. It is

evident from the testimony of the children of the deceased that their parents had no dispute. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the present

case, the prosecution case is rendered doubtful.

It is a settled proposition of law that prosecution is required to establish its case by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Whenever doubt

occurs in the prosecution story, benefit of said doubt has to be extended to the accused. In the present case, the prosecution story is rendered doubtful

and the appellant is liable to be acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt.

Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant as ordered by the trial court are set

aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. Appellant who is in custody, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other

case.

Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant Mahendra Kumar Mehra is directed to forthwith

furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-, and surety bond of the like amount, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be

effective for a period of six months with the stipulation that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave,

appellant Mahendra Kumar Mehra on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.