Meenabai vs State of M.P

M.A. Siddiqui, J.—Appellant has filed this appeal from jail against the judgment dated 20.12.2001 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 712/99, convicting the appellant u/s 302 of IPC and sentencing her to rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for 31/2 months. It is admitted fact of the case that appellant Meena Bai admitted her guilt in her examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court.

In brief, the prosecution case is that appellant was married to Mulayam Singh Raghuvanshi, who had deserted her and she came to reside with her step grand-mother (maternal) Bhanganbai. Since before the incident Bhanganbai was residing with her son, daughter-in-law and their daughter Ragani aged about 2 years (since dead). On 18.9.1999 at about 7.30 a.m. Bhanganbai went to take water from out side the house, leaving her daughter-in-law Smt. Jogwati, who was suffering from serious illness T.B., Ku. Ragni and accused Meena Bai. Smt. Jogwati was sleeping in another room and accused Meena Bai and Ku. Ragni were lying in another room. At about 10.30 a.m. Bhangan Bai came back. She found accused Meena Bai and Ku. Ragni missing from room. She asked about them from Smt. Jogwati daughter-in-law. Smt. Jogwati answered that she had no knowledge about accused Meena bai and Ku. Ragni. Then Bhangan Bai and other members of the family made search of Ku. Ragni and accused Meena Bai in their locality but in vain. They were not traced. As there was raining Bhangan Bai got wet, so, in order to change her clothes she opened the box of clothes. In that box Ku. Ragni was found lying. She was taken to the clinic of Doctor Ghanshyam where she was found dead. The matter was reported to Police Station Gorakhpur, on which the police registered a marg intimation Ex. P/3 and inquest of the dead body was prepared vide Ex. P/4 and body was sent for post mortem. In postmortem, it was found that Ku. Ragani was done to death by strangulation. At that time the accused Meena Bai flew away. P.S. Gorakhpur registered Crime vide Ex. P/7. During investigation, the appellant was arrested and after investigation, charge sheet against her was filed in the Court. The case was then committed for trial, and Sessions Trial No. 712/99 was registered.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge u/s 302 of IPC against the accused/appellant. She abjured her guilt and pleaded for trial. It is pertinent to note that when questions u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were asked by the trial Court from the accused Meena bai, after recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses on 5.12.2001, she not only admitted her guilt but stated that she was residing with Bhangan Bai for about six months. She also admitted that Ku. Ragni was strangulated by her with the help of a rope and her body was kept in box and she ran away towards Itarsi side. She confessed that Ragni''s father Ajju and uncle were always teasing her that Mulayam Singh had kept her as wife. Mulayam committed murder of her four years'' daughter Neeloo and also raped her. She further stated that Mulayam Singh did it on the instigation of Ragani''s father and uncle. In order to take revenge, she strangulated Ragni with the help of a rope and her body was kept in box.

To substantiate its case the prosecution examined 9 witnesses in Court. Learned A.S.J. relying mainly on the evidence of witnesses namely Bhangan Bai @ Reva Bai (PW 1), Imarti Bai (PW 2), Jugawati Bai (PW 3), Mahesh Prasad Rajak (PW 4), Saleem Khan (PW 5), Rajkumar (PW 6) H.L. Yadav (PW 7) Assistant Sub Inspector, Dr. Mukesh Shrivastava and constable Radheshyam Dubey (PW 9) together with admission of appellant held the appellant guilty of commission of offence u/s 302 of IPC and sentenced her as mentioned above.

Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence appellant filed this appeal from jail.

we have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the impugned judgment and evidence on record carefully.

Bhangan Bai @ Reva Bai (PW 1) stated that accused Meena bai was her step daughter (maternal). She was married in village Baretha district Narsinghpur. She was residing with her. As she was angered with her in-laws she came to reside with her. Ku. Ragni was daughter of her son and Jogwati Bai she was about 2 years of age. In the morning at about 7.30 to 8.00 a.m. she went to take water. In a room Ragni and Meena, the accused were lying on bed. Her daughter-in-law Jogwati bai was lying in another room as she was suffering from T.B. When she was going outside she asked Jogwati that on awakening Ragni she will be given milk. When she came back she saw that both Ragni and accused Meena were not in the room. Both were missing. She asked from Jogwati who said that she had no knowledge about them then Ragni and Meena were searched in the houses of the locality but both were missing. At that time there was raining and her clothes had got wet so in order to change clothes when she opened box of clothes she saw a foot of Ragni and further said that Ragni was lying in the box. At that time Ramkumar, Mahesh, Jogwati Bai, Imarti Bai also came there who were also informed about that fact and body of Ragni was taken to Doctor who declared her to be dead. Mahesh reported the matter to police. Imarti Bai (P W2) and Jogwati Bai (PW 3) supported the version of Bhangan Bai @ Reva Bai (PW1) saying that in the room only Meena and Ragni were there and Ragni was found dead in box of clothes. Mahesh Prasad Rajak (PW 4) also corroborated the version of prosecution witnesses saying that there was noise in the locality that Meena had run away with Ragni so he went to house of Ragni''s grand-mother and he also made search upto 10.30 a.m. when he came back to his house. After taking bath when he was doing prayer he heard that Ragni was found. She was taken to Doctor as she was found in box of clothes. Dr. Declared her to be dead. He informed to police and police prepared inquest vide Ex. P/4. Saleem Khan (PW 5) incharge of PS Gorakhpur stated that police registered crime no. 529/1999 u/s 302 and 201 of IPC. He investigated the matter and recorded the statements of witnesses in investigation. He prepared the spot map Ex. P/5 on 22.10.99. On 24.10.99 he arrested Meena Bai vide arrest memo Ex P/6 and submitted charge sheet in the Court.

Ramkumar (PW 6) supported the version of prosecution saying that Bhangan Bai told him that accused Meena Bai had taken Ragni. They were searching them for about 2 hrs. There was raining so their clothes were wet. In order to change clothes when Bhangan Bai opened box of clothes body of Ragni was found lying in box of clothes and Meena bai was found missing,

H.L. Yadav (PW 7) Assistant Sub Inspector Gorakhpur says that when he was posted S.I. Gorakhpur then he registered marg No. 79/99 on the report of Mahesh for death of Ku Ragni daughter of Ajay Raghuvanshi aged about 4 years and he sent body for post mortem through constable Rajesh Kumar. On receiving P.M. Report he registered crime No. 529/99 u/s 302 and 201 of IPC on 22.10.1999 and handed over the case to incharge police station for investigation FIR is Ex. P/7.

Dr. Mukesh Shrivastava (PW 8) stated that on 18.9.99 when he was posted at Medical College Jabalpur as Medical Officer, Rajesh Kumar Constable brought body of Ku. Ragni daughter of Ajay Raghuvanshi aged about 2 years for post mortem. He found that she was a female child up to 2 years of age. Rigor mortis was established all over her body. Peripheral cyanosis (blues) in lips and nails was present. Liner abrasions vertically placed length 1 cm x 21/2 cm over both side of neck were present. Petechnial hemorrhage was present over face and conjunctiva. He found that trachea was congested and compressed. Both lungs were filled with blood and they were congested. Both chambers of heart were filled with dark color blood. Death was ante-mortem. PM report is Ex. P/8 nature of death was homicidal. Radheshyam Dubey (pw 9) constable stated that he delivered a copy of FIR to Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to the Court of CJM, Jabalpur on 25.10.99 at srl. no. 1769 vide Ex. P/9, P-9C and P/10 and P/10C.

Trial Court after recording the prosecution evidence prepared the questions in order to seek explanation u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Accused/appellant Meena Bai instead of refusing, accepted the guilt. She stated that she was very much present with Ragni. She caused her death by strangulation and she put the body in box of clothes. She did it to take revenge from father of Ragni. According to her, Ragni''s father instigated Mulayam Singh who kept appellant to rape and murder her daughter Neeloo, aged about four years. Her daughter was murdered on the instigation of Ajay father of Ragni.

Trial Court after appreciating the evidence of prosecution witnesses together with the fact that appellant accused admitted her guilt, came to the conclusion that not only prosecution evidence established her guilt but admission of appellant/accused Meena bai supplied extra link to the chain of circumstances of prosecution story and held her guilty for committing murder of Ragni and punished her accordingly.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was insane, she was treated during trial and according to Section 84 of the IPC, no offence had been committed. Section 84 of IPC is reproduced as under:

Act of a person of unsound mind. -Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.

Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker Vs. State of Gujarat, where in it has been held that:

When a plea of legal insanity is set up, the Court has to consider whether at the time of commission of the offence the accused, by reason of unsoundness of mind, as incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. The crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of the accused is the time when the offence was committed. Whether the accused was in such a state of mind as to be entitled to the benefit of S.84 of the Penal Code can only be established from the circumstances which proceeded, attended and followed the crime.

He further placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Sheralli Wali Mohammed Vs. The State of Maharashtra, wherein it has been held that:

In order to see whether the accused was insane at the time of the commission of the offence, the state of his mind before and after the commission of the offence is relevant. The law presumes every person of the age of discretion to be sane unless the contrary is proved. It would be most dangerous to admit the defence of insanity upon arguments derived merely from the character of the crime.

Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ahmadullah, where in it has been held that:

The burden of proof that the mental condition of the accused was, at the crucial point of time, such as is described by S.84 lies on the accused who claims the benefit of this exemption. The crucial point of time at which the unsoundness of mind as defined in S.84 has to be established is when the act was committed.

He further placed reliance on the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, and argued that all the circumstances should be proved in chain and no link should be left; onus on prosecution to prove that chain is complete- Infirmity or lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea and he further argued that learned trial Court has punished the appellant on her admission u/s 313 Cr.P.C.

On perusal of the above cited case law, it is very much clear that the burden to prove insanity was on the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant took us to the order sheets of the trial Court to show that the appellant was treated in mental hospital Gwalior during trial from 25.1.2000 to 25.5.2001, so it may be presumed that she was insane.

Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer representing the respondent /State argued that from the bare reading of the report which was sent by Mental Hospital Gwalior, it is very much clear that the appellant became sane and as per above authorities, though not with the same rigour as required from prosecution, it was obligatory upon the appellant to prove that when the act was done she was insane. The circumstances of the case are that the appellant was abandoned and deserted by her husband so she came to live with maternal grand-mother. She was residing there. There was no instance for insanity. She committed murder and she kept the body of deceased in hidden place i.e. box of clothes. She silently flew away. At the time of examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in trial Court when questions were asked to her, she admitted her guilt and she narrated whole story. She also narrated the motive from which it was clear that at the time of incident the appellant was not insane and she was knowing the consequence of her act., hence no question arose for extending or giving benefit to her of Section 84 IPC.

Learned trial Court has very well appreciated and marshaled the prosecution evidence and held her guilty finding that prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt by completing full chain, more over appellant Meena Bai had also accepted her guilt when examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. to provide an extra link of the crime. From the above discussion we find that the trial Court committed no mistake in holding appellant guilty. This appeal being devoid of merit, hence is dismissed.