Manoj Kumar vs State of Bihar

P.N. Yadav, J.—The sole Appellant brought the instant appeal against the judgment and order dated 2.9.1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge XII, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 599 of 1996 whereby and where under he was convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under the first count and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under the second count, the sentences having been ordered to run concurrently. In case of failure on the part of the Appellant to deposit the amount of fine, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

Deceased Minta Devi, sister of Arjun Rajak, the informant P.W.1 of village Kothia under the jurisdiction of Didarganj Police Station of Patna district was married to the Appellant, a resident of Kaimasikoh, Patna City, Patna about three years prior to the institution of the instant case. She led happy life in her matrimonial home for sometime. Later on the trouble started and she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the Appellant, his father Munni Lal Rajak, mother Mina Devi and brother Mantu Rajak. Her in-laws used to say that she was sterile and barren woman and she could not give birth to any child and there was no use keeping her and she could no longer be permitted to live in their house.

The Appellant, his parents and his brother intensified cruelty, ill treatment and torture meted out to the deceased, assaulted her and turned her out of her matrimonial home two years after her marriage. She took shelter in her maternal house. Subsequently a Panchayat was held with intent that the deceased might get rid of cruelty ana ili treatment meted out to her at the instance of her in-laws and good relation and feelings might be restored between the deceased and her in-laws particularly her husband. The Appellant on being persuaded by the Panches and certain local people took his wife, the deceased to his house. However, expectation of restoration of good relations and feelings between the deceased and the Appellant was belied. Whatever happiness and pleasure might have been restored between them as a result of Panchayati was short-lived and the life of the ill fated wife of the Appellant was soon cut short.

Informant Arjun Rajak (P.W. 1) in the morning on 18.8.1994 learnt that the deceased was murdered and her dead body disposed of by her in-laws. Soon he rushed to the matrimonial house of his sister, the deceased, where to his utter dismay and surprise found the deceased and her in-laws absent and the house locked from outside. Certain villagers disclosed to the informant that the deceased had been killed and her dead body disposed of by her in-laws in the night intervening between 17th and 18th August, 1994.

While Arjun Rajak was talking to the villagers in regard to the incident leading to commission of murder of his sister Minta Devi, Kali Indiwar, Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.7) arrived there. He recorded the Fardbeyan of Arjun Rajak at about 11.30 a.m. on 18.8.1994 on the basis of which Chowk P.S. Case No. 128/94 was registered u/s 302 besides some other sections of the Code against the Appellant and his parents and brother.

P.W. 7 Kali Indiwar took up investigation, inspected the place of occurrence recovered and seized certain clothes said to be belonging to the deceased from the place of occurrence as well as from the bushes near Guru Gobind Ghat on the river Ganges, prepared seizure list in (sic) spect thereof, recovered the dead bo(sic) which was identified to be that of deceased Minta Devi, prepared inquest report, sent the dead body for autopsy and after receiving the post mortem examination report and completing investigation submitted chargesheet against the Appellant, his parents lints and brother referred to above.

The prosecution examined Dina Nath Chaudhary (P.W.2), Annapurna Devi P.W.3), Bal Mukund Rai (P.W. 4), Md. Kamruddin (P.W.5) and Dr. Nand Kishore Singh (P.W.6) besides the informant Arjun Rajak (P.W.1) and Kali Indiwar, the Investigating Officer (P.W.7) referred to above.P.Ws. 1 and 2 are material witnesses. P.W.3 turned hostile. P.W.4 was a witness to the seizure of clothes but he did not support the factum of seizure in his presence. P.W.6 conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. P.W.5 was a tendered witness.

The court below after taking the facts, circumstances and evidence brought on record into account found and held the Appellant guilty and it convicted and sentenced him as stated above acquitting the other accused persons, namely, Munni Lai Rajak, Meena Devi and Mantu Kumar vide the impugned judgment and order.

Deceased Minta Devi was married to the Appellant on 3.5.1992. Victim Minta Devi led happy conjugal life in her matrimonial home for quite sometime. However, Appellant on trouble started. As per statement of P.W.1 Arjun Rajak, the informant, the Appellant, his parents and brother started subjecting her to curelty and harassment by calling her sterile and barren woman, not in a position to give birth to any child, Gradually ill treatment, torture and cruelty meted out to her got intensified and ultimately she was turned out of her matrimonial home about a year prior to the institution of the case by her in-laws and thereafter she started living in her maternal house. Subsequently there was held a Panchayat and the Appellant on being persuaded by the Panches and other local people took the deceased to his house, however, happiness and pleasure which she might have expected or even experienced on her reentry in her matrimonial house was shortlived, for she was done away with and her dead body thrown into the river Ganges. After P.W.1 came to know of this he along with P.W.2 and others rushed to the house of his sister, Minta Devi at Mohalla Kaimashikoh. They found the deceased and her in-laws including the Appellant absent and the house locked from outside. They were told by the residents of the locality that she was murdered and her dead body disposed of by her in-laws. While P.W.1 and others were making enquiry, the Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.7) arrived there and he recorded the Fardbeyan of P.W.1 Arjun Rajak, informant. P.W.2 corroborated P.W.1 in all material particulars. In course of investigation P.W.7 recovered the dead body of the deceased from Pirdamaria, Gareria Ghat of the river Ganges on 20.8.1994. P.W.1 in his evidence stated that the dead body was recovered on 19.8.1994. This discrepancy in the statements of P.Ws. 1 and 7 might have occurred on account of faulty and weak memory of P.W.1 and it is of no consequence.

Dr. Nand Kishore Singh (P.W.6) conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Minta Devi on 21.8.1994 in presence of Special Executive Magistrate. He found ligature like mark present over front of neck on both sides above trachea and below chin. Burn like appearance was present over both upper and lower limbs. Presence of sharp cut like appearance was found on both ears and nose, nasal bone bearing sharply cut like appearance, fra(sic)ture of mandible on right side and sternum. On dissection all viscera were found congested, soft tissues over neck decomposed. There was fracture of mandible and sternum. The injuries found on the person of the deceased were ante mortem while burns were post mortem in nature. In the opinion of the doctor the death was due to violent asphyxia and injuries on neck and chest mentioned above. The doctor''s evidence would reveal that the deceased was brutally assaulted with some sharp cutting weapon, she was strangulated with the aid of some rope like substance and she was also set on fire for, burns on her body were post mortem in nature and her dead body thrown into the river.

The medical evidence considered together with the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 abundantly established that Minta Devi, wife of the Appellant died homicidal death. Also the fact that the deceased died while she was living with her in-laws including her husband, the Appellant, and her death was homicidal was not disputed and assailed at the time of hearing.

P.W. 7 Kali Indiwar after recording the Fardbeyan of the informant (P.W.1) at Kaimashikoh took up investigation. He visited and inspected the place of occurrence. He found the house of the Appellant locked. He got the house unlocked in presence of P.W.4 Bal Mukund Rai and one Raju (not examined). He felt smell of smoke from a room of the Appellant''s house. There was also sign of burning in the said room. P.W.7 found certain goods and articles scattered in the adjacent room. He recovered and seized a school bag containing partly burnt Sari and Petticoat from the place of occurrence. In course of investigation he proceeded to Guru Govind Singh Ghat of the river Ganges and from the bushes situated there he recovered a sari, a petticoat and a blouse in presence of P.W.4 and the said Raju. it is in the evidence of P.W.7 that P.W.1 identified the aforesaid Saris, petticoats and blouse to be those of his sister Minta Devi. On 20.8.1994 at About 1:10 p.m. P.W.7 recovered the dead body of the deceased from Peeradamaria, Gareria Ghat of the river Ganges. RW.1 Arjun Rajak P.W.2 Dina Nath Choudhary, P.W.(sic) Annapurna Devi and one Raju (not examined) in presence of P.W.7 identified the dead body to be that of Minta Devi, wife of the Appellant.

P.W.4 though proved his signatures on the seizure lists in regard to seizure of Sari and Petticoat from the house of the Appellant and Sari, Petticoat and blouse from Guru Govind Singh Ghat disowned the factum of recovery of the aforesaid clothes in his presence. Similarly P.W.3 Annapurna Devi disowned her previous statement that she had inspected the body of the deceased and she had found that she was a complete and full woman and she could give birth to a child and she was confident that deceased Minta was done away with and her dead body disposed or by her in-laws. P.W.7 contradicted both P.W.(sic)3 and 4. They appeared to have bade a good bye to their previous statements with intent to extending help to the culprits.

Peerdamaria Gareria Ghat of the river from where the dead body was recovered situated under the jurisdiction of Malsalami police station which is situated adjacent to Chowk Police Station. Non (sic) amination of some Police Officer of Malsalami Police Station and non production of any chit of paper to show this permission was obtained from Malsalami police station for recovery and taking a(sic) of the dead body from the aforesaid ghat the river is of no consequence and it must be ignored.

The dead body was in deco(sic) posed condition and hence its identification is a crucial point for consideration. It is be noted at the very outset that identification of the dead body was virtually ged in the court below inasmuch as main witnesses (P.Ws. 1 and 7) on int of identification were not even ited that it was not the dead body of Devi though on that account the ints cannot be precluded from raised agitating this point in this Court ley can well argue that in view of iposition of the dead body and scat-peeling of skin it could not have been ied. The following discussions would ten us on the point of identity of the body and would establish that it was lead body of the deceased Minta Devi none else. The prosecution claimed it was the dead body of deceased (sic) Devi, wife of the Appellant. P.W.1 (sic)d in unequivocal and unambiguous (sic)s that soon after the dead body of the (sic)e was recovered by the police, he tiffed it to be that of his sister Minta Devi As already stated the Investigating per (P.W.7) said that the dead body was tiffed to be that of Minta Devi by Arjun Rajak (P.W.1), Annapurna Devi (P.W.3), Dina Nath Choudhary (P.W.2) and one Ranu (sic)(not examined), though P.W.2 did not (sic)s evidence speak of identification of dead body, probably because no questions was put to the simple and rustic witness and P.W.3 did not support the case she was declared hostile by the pros(sic)on. The name of deceased Minta Devi, of Manoj Kumar, the Appellant, finds (sic)oned in the inquest report (Ext. 6). Doctor P.W.6 stated that he conducted easy on the dead body of Minta Devi, of the Appellant Manoj Kumar. He (sic)ned her name in post mortem examination report (Ext. 7). None of the witnesses (P.Ws. 1, 6 and 7) was put suggestion that the dead body was decomposed and identification and it could not have bed it been identified by any of the (sic)ses including P.W.1 and the dead was said to be that of Appellant''s wife Minta Devi on presumption and hypothesis on account of her disappearance from her matrimonial house and as a corollary to that her name was mentioned in the inquest report and the post mortem examination report. The evidence adduced by the prosecution on identification of the dead body of Minta Devi was unimpeachable and it remained un-challenged and unassailed. Under such circumstance it cannot be said that as there was peeling of skin scattered over the dead body which was highly decomposed its identity could not have been established and the dead body was not that of Minta Devi. The contention vehemently put forward on behalf of the Appellant that the dead body recovered from Peerdamaria, Gareria Ghat of the river Ganges was in too decomposed condition to be identified by the witnesses including P.W.1 is devoid of merit and force and the same must be discarded out right.

Having been established that the death of deceased Minta Devi was homicidal and her dead body was recovered from Peerdamaria Gareria Ghat, the next important question for consideration is whether the Appellant is responsible and liable for commission of her murder. None witnessed the commission of murder of the deceased. The prosecution case hinges on circumstantial evidence. The settled principle of law is that for basing conviction on circumstantial evidence, there must not be missing link in the chain of events which must be complete in such a way so as to point to the guilt of the accused and to none else and if it is found that the chain of circumstance is complete, there shall be no difficulty and impediment in rendering the verdict of guilt on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

Adverting to the facts, circumstances and evidence in the case, we are in seisin of, it is to be observed that deceased Minta Devi was married to the Appellant three years before her death, she led conjugal life with the Appellant in her matrimonial house for about two years, she did not give birth to any child, her in-laws including the Appellant subjected her to cruelty and harassment calling her sterile and barren woman who could not give birth to any child, intensifying cruelty, ill treatment and torture meted out to her, the Appellant and the members of his family ultimately assaulted her and turned her out of her matrimonial house about one year before her death. Later on being persuaded by the Panches and the local people, her in-laws took her back to her matrimonial house, however, it was all transitory and short-lived and deceased Minta Devi was brutally assaulted, murdered and burnt in her matrimonial house and her dead body in the naked condition was thrown in the river Ganges and the same was recovered from Peerdamaria Gareria Ghat of the river situated 21/2-3 Kms. away from the house of the Appellant. A burnt Sari and a petticoat kept in a school bag were recovered and seized by P.W.7 from a room of the house of the Appellant. P.W.7 detected smell of smoke and sign of burn in one of the rooms of the house. He also recovered and seized a Sari, a Petticoat and a blouse from the bushes at Guru Govind Singh Ghat of the river Ganges. The dead body of the deceased appears to have, in all probability, been thrown into the river Ganges at Guru Govind Singh Ghat and it was flown by the current to Peerdamaria, Gareria Ghat where from it was recovered. The seized clothes were identified by P.W.1 Arjun Rajak to be that of his sister Minta Devi though P.W.12 did not say in his evidence about the identification of clothes by him. The statement of P.W. 7 that the clothes were identified to be those of the deceased Minta Devi by P.W.1 and his mother Meena Devi can not be doubted. As observed by the trial court RW.1 was a simple and rustic man. He could not speak of identification of clothes probably because no question was put to him on this point.

P.Ws. 1 and 2 on getting information regarding the death of the deceased rushed to her matrimonial house at Kaimasikoh on 18.8.1994. They found the deceased and her in-laws including the Appellant absent and the house locked from outside. P.W. 7 happened to reach Kaimashikoh and he also found the house of the Appellant locked and he visited and inspected the place of occurrence after getting the house/room unlocked. He found smell of smoke and sign of burning in one of the rooms of the house. Burnt clothes of the deceased as already stated above, were recovered by P.W.7 from the adjacent room. As already observed the findings of the doctor gave rise to the irresistible conclusion that some rope like material was wrapped around the neck of the deceased and she was assaulted with some sharp cutting weapon, strangulated and was also set on fire and all this was done in he husband''s home. No explanation is coming forth from the Appellant (husband of the deceased) as to how she died and his dead body was recovered from the aforesaid Peerdamaria Gareria Ghat of the (sic) Ganges. Even if it is assumed for the sale of argument, though there is no scope ground for such assumption, that the (sic) ceased fled away from her matrimonial house and she was murdered by so(sic) miscreants, the fact remains that the Appellant did not lodge information with the police lice about her missing nor did he or any(sic) of his family intimate her brother (informant ant) or any member of his family rather (sic) along with the members of his family his house after locking the same it within special knowledge of the Appellant and it was incumbent upon his part explain as to how his wife disappeared (sic) murdered but nothing of the sort was one by him.

The contention that P.W.1 in his cross examination stated that in the night (sic) about 2.00 a.m. on 18.8.1994 a Sub inspector of Police along with Mina Devi, another of the Appellant had gone to his house to ask him as to whether the Appellant and his wife Minta Devi had gone there which was indicative of disappearance of both the Appellant and the deceased without knowledge to the inmates of their house and it is just possible that the deceased was killed by some unknown miscreants (sic)d the Appellant made good escape and (sic)nce the probability of the Appellant murdering his wife is gone and all this considered together with the recovery of the dead body from Pirdamaria Gareria ghat, situated 21/2-3 Kms. away from the house of she Appellant and not from Guru Govind Singh Ghat situated in the vicinity of his house (distance of 500 meters) instills se(sic)ouse doubt in the prosecution version that the Appellant killed his wife in his house and threw her dead body in river Ganges is non-meritorious and the same cannot be accepted. Even if the Appellant and the deceased had left their house together and be deceased was caught and killed by pertain miscreants, it was obligatory on the part of the Appellant to explain the situation and to lodge information as it was within (sic) special knowledge. From the evidence (sic) P.Ws. 1 and 2 it would be crystal clear (sic) the Appellant and the members of his identify called the deceased sterile and bar(sic) woman who could not give birth to any (sic)d and they ill treated and tortured her (sic) that account. That the deceased was (sic)rile and barren was a matter of great (sic)ncern to her husband, the Appellant. He and thus motive as well to eliminate his (sic)

The circumstances noticed above, if read with the evidence of P.Ws. 1,2, 6 and 7 as to ill treatment, cruelty and torture meted out to the deceased on account of her being sterile and barren woman at the instance of her in-laws, the manner in which she was assaulted, and murdered and set on fire and her dead body thrown into the river Ganges from where it was recovered, recovery of her clothes from the house and Gurugovind Singh ghat, disappearance of the Appellant and other members of his house after locking the same from outside, the motive impelling the Appellant to do, away with the deceased considered together with no explanation coming forth from the Appellant would form a complete chain without there being any snap. Chain of events is so complete and definite as not to leave any doubt that the Appellant had been planning to get rid of his wife and homicidal crime was committed by him.

In the case of Deonandan Mishra Vs. The State of Bihar, it was held that in a case of circumstantial evidence not only should the various links in the chain of evidence be clearly established but the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of innocence of the accused. There is no dispute in regard to the principle of law enunciated in the case of Deo Nandan Mishra (supra). In that case also the Appellant was convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence and his conviction was upheld by the apex Court.

In the the case of Dukharan Singh Vs. The State of Bihar, there was no legal evidence except hearsay evidence which could not be taken as substantive evidence and the same could be used only for corroboration of substantive evidence. In the case at hanc the completed chain of events gave rise to the inevitable and irresistible conclusion that it was the Appellant who was responsible and liable for causing the death of his wife. This case is not based on hearsay evidence. The case of Dukhharan Singh (supra) has got no application to the present case

(sic) contention that the court below convicted the Appellant acquitting three other accused poisons though the same set ol evidence was against them all and under such circumstance conviction of the Appellant cannot be said to be just and proper and the same is fit to be set aside, is non-meritorious. Merely because some of the accused persons have been acquitted, though evidence against all of them, so far as circumstantial evidence went, was the same does not lead as a corollary that the Appellant who has been convicted must also be acquitted. It is always open to the court to differentiate the accused who had been acquitted from those who were convicted vide the case of Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. State of Orissa 2003 SCC (Cri.) 32. The Appellant before us is the husband of the deceased and he took the deceased to his house in pursuance of verdict of Panchayat and despite her disappearance or death, he did not lodge information with the police nor did he inform her parents and brother. His conduct destroyed presumption of innocence. His conviction cannot be said to be unjust and illegal simply because three other accused persons were acquitted by the court below.

It has been submitted that the Appellant while being examined u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure was asked to explain the situation in which he along with his wife (deceased) on 18.8.1997 went out of his house whereafter she never returned nor was she found alive, however, there was absolutely no evidence that the deceased was last seen in the company of the Appellant nor was such case set up by the prosecution. The question in regard to the Appellant and the deceased leaving the house together on 18.8.1997 was misconceived one. This question was not at all required to be put to the Appellant. It was not the prosecution case that the deceased was taken away somewhere by the Appellant and thereafter she never returned and her dead body was recovered rather the case of the prosecution was that the deceased while living in her matrimonial house with her in-laws including the Appellant killed and her dead body thrown into the river Ganges wherefrom it was recovered The theory of the deceased being (sic) seen with the Appellant is not applicant here. In the case of Rabindra Pra(sic) and Anr. v. State of Haryana 2002 S.C. 3494 the evidence in the accused and the deceased being (sic) together, lodging of complaint about (sic) missing of the deceased on a date pri(sic) recovery of the dead body and also d(sic)fication of the dead body was not re(sic) Chain of circumstantial evidence was| complete. The dead body was totally composed. Identification from nose, (sic) and clothes was not reliable. The heigh missing person mentioned by the pro(sic)tion witness was not consistent with height of the dead body as measured the Doctor. The facts of the case, referred to above, are entirely different from the of the case before us and hence that (sic) is not applicable here.

Lastly, it has been submitted behalf of the Appellant that autopsy dead body of the deceased was the presence of Special Executive Manager (sic) whose evidence would have also (sic) light on the narratives of the posses case but surprisingly enough he (sic) pressed and not examined. In this c(sic) tion it is to be observed that non-(sic)tion of the Magistrate is not at all (sic) and the same is of no consequ(sic)

To conclude, the circumstances established and the chain of evidence furnished by these circumstances do not leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the Appellant. The circumstantial evidence did establish that the Appellant committed murder of his wife and he threw her dead body in the river wherefrom it was recovered. There is no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the court below on the guilt of the Appellant.

In the result, it is to be held that there is no merit in the appeal which must fail and the same is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the Appellant stood maintained and confirmed. The Appellant is already in jail custody. He shall serve the remaining period of sentence.

Sachchidanand Jha, J.

I agree.