Manoj vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard Sri. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Usha Kiran, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The appeal challenges the validity and correctness of the impugned judgment and order dated 20.9.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 14, Meerut in S.T. No. 519 of 2000, State v. Manoj, convicting and sentencing the appellant u/s 302, I.P.C. to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000 and in default to pay fine to further undergo six months'' imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The prosecution story in nutshell is that a written report on the dictation of Munish Johnson son of Sri. E.W. Johnson was penned down. It was submitted on 18.1.2000 by the first informant/complainant Colvin Singh son of Sri. Arthar Singh resident of 29 Ektapuram, Meerut to the SHO police station Civil Lines. Meerut inter alia that his daughter Doris was married to Manoj son of Sri. Ram Swaroop resident of Ektapuram, Meerut about 9 years back. She was being harassed by her husband, who was not providing her house-hold expenses and threatened many a times to drive her from the house. It was also averred that on 18.1.2000 he was informed that his daughter Doris has been found dead hanging from the ceiling fan in the house of Manoj. When he reached there he came to know that Manoj had killed her and then hanged her body from the ceiling fan.

Chik report was made at 14.50 p.m. and Case Crime No. 25 of 2000, u/s 302, I.P.C. on 18.1.2000 against Manoj was registered. The investigation of the crime was taken over by S.S.I. Sri. Prahlad Singh. The Investigating Officer inspected the spot on the same day, i.e., 18.1.2000 and prepared the inquest as well as the recovery memo of ''dupatta'' ''Bidi'' and ''Blade'' was made in presence of the witnesses.

The post-mortem examination on the cadaver of deceased Smt. Doris was conducted on 19.1.2000 at about 3.00 p.m. On examination her age was determined to be about 30 years, who had died about a day and half earlier. Her tongue protruded out with Lips, nails ecchymosised and eyes congested.

The post-mortem report showed position of the body and Injuries on it.

(1) One incised wound over the front part of the right wrist measuring 1.5 cm. x.3 cm. x skin deep. Stained with clotted blood.

(2) Both lungs congested and distended.

(3) Liver, spleen, brain, pancreas also congested.

(4) Hyoid bone fractured with ecchymosis In surrounding tissues.

(5) Spine and spinal chord normal.

(6) Tongue protruded out and ecchymosis Lips. Nails ecchymosised with congestion of eyes.

Post-mortem injuries.

(1) One ligature mark around the upper part of the neck 2.5 cm. in width and 3.1 cm. in length with interjection at left side of the neck 2.5 cm. below the left ear.

No ecchymosis present below the ligature mark.

In the opinion of the Doctor the death has occurred due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation.

After investigation the charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant, the case was then committed to the Court of Session where charge u/s 302, I.P.C. was framed against the accused-appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution examined 11 witnesses to prove its case, out of these Colvin Singh, P.W. 1. Nitisa, P.W. 2. Ahuti, P.W. 3, Smt. Manajri, P.W. 5 and Mohini. P.W. 9 were witnesses of fact, Orisan Michel, P.W. 4 was witness of inquest. Dr. M.C. Agarwal, P.W. 6 had conducted the post-mortem of the deceased and submitted report. Constable Vinod Kumar, P.W. 7, S.I. Sri. Subhash Chaudhary, P.W. 8, Head Constable Narendra Singh, P.W. 10 and Investigating Officer Sri. Prahlad Singh, P.W. 11 were the formal witnesses in the case.

Accused Manoj in his statement u/s 313, Cr.P.C. denied the charge and stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case due to enmity. The accused-appellant Manoj also examined himself as D.W. 1 in his defence.

Out of 11 witnesses produced by the prosecution P.W. 2 Nitisa, P.W. 3, Ahuti and P.W. 9 Mohini are child witnesses.

P.W. 2 is the niece of the deceased, aged about 8 years who lived with her ''Nani'' (maternal grand mother) in the same colony. She stated that Doris was her ''Mausi''. On 18.1.2000 in the morning she was playing in front of her ''Mausi''s house she was told by her ''Mausa'' that an injection had been given to her ''Mausi'' and she should not be disturbed. Thereafter, he locked the front gate. Her elder sister had come after some time to ask Doris for food. As the main gate was locked she went inside by jumping over the boundary wall and found Doris hanging dead from the ceiling fan in her room.

In her cross-examination she stated that there are about 40 houses in the colony between the house of her ''Mausi'' and the house of the maternal grand mother; that she normally visited her ''Mausi'' every day and also recognizes Manoj her ''Mausa'' the accused present in the Court. Relevant extract of her statement reads thus:

Statement of P.W. 3. Ahuti, the second child was recorded on 16.1.2000. She stated that she lives with her ''Nani'' in the colony; that on 18.1.2000 her mother was killed. She had gone on 18.1.2000 to her mother as usual. She used to meet her mother daily at about 8.30 a.m. before going to school, and had taken tea with her on the fateful day but her father had neither taken tea nor had talked to her properly on that date. After she had gone to school where she was informed by Nitisa that her mother had died and she came back with her to the house. Regarding strained relations with her mother and accused Manoj she stated that their relationship was not good and they used to fight as her father did not give expenses to her on time and that her father used to tell her mother that he will first remove her from his way and then remarry another woman. About two years earlier, her father had taken her mother to the roof and had pushed her down. In that incident her mother had received injuries on her head.

In her cross-examination she was given a suggestion that she is daughter of Ashok with whom her mother had married prior to her marriage with Manoj. The suggestion was denied by her saying that she has neither heard that Sri. Ashok was her father nor had seen him. Rather she knows Manoj as her father and recognised him as such. She also stated in her cross-examination that she lives with her maternal grand mother and mother and that in the school where she studies name of Manoj has been written as her father. She also denied the suggestion that her mother Doris was not the wife of Manoj her father. Relevant extract of her testimony reads thus:

The third child witness P.W. 9. Mohini, daughter of Sri. Ramesh aged about 13 years stated that the name of her ''Mausi'' was Doris and that on 18.1.2000 she had gone to her house in the morning to prepare tea for her as she was ill. Doris had taken the tea prepared by her but it was not taken by her ''Mausa'' accused Manoj as he was very angry. She had remained with them up to about 10 to 10.30 a.m. and thereafter had returned to her ''Nani''s house. When she returned to her ''Mausi''s house at about 12.30 to give her food, she found the main gate locked from out side, therefore, she jumped over the small boundary wall and went in where she saw that door of room was partly closed and curtain was hanging. When she had opened the curtain she saw the dead body of Doris hanging from the ceiling fan. On this she immediately ran back and told this to her ''Bua'' and other members in the house. In her cross-examination she has stated that she had come to live with her ''Nani'' during Christmas vacations. P.W. 4 to P.W. 10 except P.W. 5 are formal witnesses.

Smt. Manajri, P.W. 5 is the sister of deceased Doris. She in her testimony stated that relations of accused Manoj with her sister deceased Doris were strained and they used to quarrel; that accused Manoj used to beat, torture and harass her. She also stated that accused Manoj had pushed Doris from the roof about two years before this incident, in which she had received injuries on head and other parts of her body on falling down to the ground. She further stated that Manoj the accused came to her house on the day of incident and told that he was fed-up with his wife; that he would kill her. She alongwith her husband used to visit their house. Since Doris was not keeping well therefore, she had told Manoj to get Doris checked up and treated by doctors. In the evening of 21.1.2000 a telephone call was received from police station that Manoj wanted to talk to her and her husband then she went to police station on 22.1.2000. Manoj confessed to her that he had killed Doris by mistake and requested to save him.

P.W. 4, Orisan Michel is the witness of inquest who testified that he recognises Doris the deceased who lived in the same locality; that inquest was made in his presence and he had signed on it as a witness.

Dr. M.C. Agarwal, P.W. 6 had conducted the post-mortem examination of deceased Doris. This witness proved the injuries found in the external and internal examination on the cadaver of the deceased. He opined that the ligature mark injury on the neck shows that the deceased was hanged after strangulating and evidence of some resistances were also found on her body and that her death was possible between 9.00 to 10.00 a.m. on 18.1.2000.

P.W. 7 registered a criminal case in the police station against the accused and that he has prepared the inquest report as well as that of ''dupatta'' ''half burnt bidi'' and a ''blade'' recovered from the place of occurrence, P.W. 10. Head constable Narendra Kumar was carrier of the dead body who stated that he had taken the dead body of Doris for postmortem examination and had handed it over to the Doctor with seals intact, P.W. 11 Sri. Prahlad Singh is the Investigating Officer, who in his testimony stated that the deceased was found hanging from the ceiling fan by a ''dupatta''. He had taken photographs of the dead body from various angles and proved the photographs as Ext. Ka-13 to Ext. Ka-23 on record. He also stated that the inquest report was prepared under his supervision and he had sent the dead body alongwith documents etc. for post-mortem examination and that the charge-sheet against the accused was submitted by him.

Accused Manoj also entered the witness box as D.W. 1 and examined himself on 5.9.2002 stating that he was not present in the house on 18.1.2000, i.e., the day of incident and that deceased Doris was not his wife but a maid who was working for last about one and half years in his house who had been given a duplicate key for ingress and egress in the house for work. In his cross-examination he stated that Doris was a woman of easy virtue and was having illicit relations with many a persons whose name he does not know.

Counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings recorded by the trial court on the ground that the conviction and sentencing of the appellant is against the weight of evidence on record and is bad in law. The findings are also challenged on the ground that they have no basis having been given on surmises and conjectures and in any case, the sentence passed against the appellant is too severe. It is argued that the F.I.R. is ante-timed and there is no motive at all for the accused-appellant to have done-away with Doris, who was only a maid engaged for doing chores in the house.

He has further argued that the prosecution has failed to establish that the deceased was wife of the appellant and submits that the prosecution witnesses have made improvements in their statements before the trial court from the statements given by them u/s 161. Cr.P.C., therefore, all the prosecution witnesses of fact are unreliable.

It is then argued that there are material contradictions in the statements of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 5 and P.W. 9 and that the appellant has discharged his onus u/s 166 of the Evidence Act by proving that he was not present at the time of incident having gone out for work before the sun-rise.

Per contra, Ms. Usha Kiran, learned A.G.A., submits that the Doctor has opined that the incident could have taken place between 9.00 and 10.00 a.m. and there could be a variation of 2 hours on either side. She has drawn attention of the Court to the statement of P.W. 9, Mohini, who in her testimony stated that she was with Doris till about 10.30 a.m. Therefore, the occurrence could have taken place immediately after she left and between 12.30 p.m. when her body was discovered.

According to learned A.G.A., the F.I.R. was lodged promptly and a reading of the F.I.R. as well as statement of P.W. 1 Colvin Singh would show that Doris was married to accused Manoj about 9-10 years back. The evidence is also on record to the effect that prior to her marriage with accused she had married to Ashok; that her marriage with the accused is testified by the evidence of P.W. 5 Smt. Manjri who stated that Manoj was her brother-in-law, P.W. 2 and P.W. 9 used to address the accused as ''Mausa'' and Doris as ''Mausi'' and the accused never objected to this relationship. P.W. 3, Ahuti also says that accused Manoj is her father and Doris her mother. Even in the school records the name of accused Manoj is recorded as father of Ahuti.

After hearing the counsel for the parties and from perusal of records it appears to be undisputed fact that Doris was found dead hanging by ''Dupatta'' from the ceiling fan in the room of Manoj, the accused in his house. According to the postmortem report collar-bone of the deceased was fractured and blood had oozed out from the broken muscle around it. The tongue was sticking out from the mouth which were clear symptoms of asphyxia. It is clear from the post-mortem report that there was an injury on the wrist of the deceased. The time of death according to the Doctor could be 2-4 hours on either side of the estimated time of death between 9.00 to 10.00 a.m.

It is not in dispute that the feets of the deceased were resting on the ground, therefore, death could not have been caused either by hanging by some one as ligature mark on her neck proved that she had been hanged after being done away with by strangulation. The trial court on consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case came to a conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in bringing home the guilt to the accused in committing of the murder of Doris.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of record we find that the incident has taken place on 18.1.2000. Sri. Colvin Singh father of Doris on receipt of information had promptly lodged the F.I.R. after going to the house of Doris and verifying that she died. He is witness to quarrels amongst accused Manoj and deceased Doris. Three child witnesses of fact have been examined by the prosecution before the trial court after satisfying itself to their understanding relied upon their evidence to hold accused Manoj as guilty of offence punishable u/s 302, I.P.C. P.W. 2 has specifically stated that while she was playing outside the house of her ''Mausa'' he had asked her not to go inside the house to disturb her ''Mausi'' as she had been given an injection. He had locked the main gate from outside and had then went away. P.W. 3 Ahuti in her cross-examination has stated that she used to meet her mother every day before going to school and on the fateful day also as usual she had gone at about 8.30 a.m. and had taken tea with her and had noted that her father Manoj was not in good mood at that time. He had neither taken tea nor had talked to her properly. The testimony of all the three witnesses aforesaid is consistent. They have also come out with the fact that accused Manoj and deceased were having troubled relationship and he had pushed Doris from the roof about two years back due to which Doris had received injuries on her head.

It is apparent from the reading of evidence that:

(1) Doris had married accused Manoj and they were living as husband and wife for the last about 9-10 years;

(2) Their relationship had deteriorated and the witnesses have stated that many a times Manoj used to say that he would remove her from his way and remarry another woman;

(3) The conduct of accused Manoj was not good, it was offensive and violent;

(4) Prior to the fateful incident, Manoj about 2 years before had pushed Doris from the roof in which she had received head injuries on falling down to the ground;

(5) Name of Manoj is registered as father of Ahuti in the School Register:

(6) He suspected his wife of having illicit relationship with other persons and had tried to pass her off as maid working in the house but only for the first time in his statement he had denied the relationship;

(7) His behaviour was tense on the day of incident, i.e., 18.1.2000 and he was angry; and

(8) He was the last person seen with the deceased Doris and had confided to Manjari that he had committed a mistake by doing away with Doris.

From the facts narrated above it is clear that accused Manoj had decided to do away with Doris. He had in a planned manner firstly strangulated her and then had hung her with ''dupatta'' from the ceiling fan which is evident from post-mortem injury of ligature mark found on her neck.

Thus, it is conclusively proved by the circumstantial evidence that he was the person and no other person who had strangulated Doris to death. This conclusion is also supported by the fact that he was with her and last man seen going out of the house by P.W. 2 Nitisa and P.W. 3. Ahuti, who were playing in front of the house. He had locked the door and had asked Nitisha not to enter the house as Doris has been given an injection. His statement that he had gone before sun-rise for work, therefore, does not inspire confidence as his presence in the house is proved from the evidence on record up to about 10.30 a.m. For all the reasons stated above, the chain of circumstantial evidence against Manoj the accused is complete to prove his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial court has rightly found him guilty for the offence u/s 302, I.P.C. We, therefore, uphold the order of conviction and the sentence passed by the trial court. As a result of the conclusions arrived at by us the appeal is dismissed.

Let a certified copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned Court for its compliance forthwith which should be reported to this Court within a period of one month.