Nigam Das S/o Vishesherdas vs State of M.P.

This appeal has been filed by the accused against the judgment dated 27.04.2007 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol (M.P.) in

Sessions Trial No.136/2006 whereby the trial Court held the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 of

Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence of life imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- and two years with fine of Rs.100/- respectively, with default

stipulations.

It is not in dispute that, the deceased was wife of the appellant. They were married 10 to 12 years before from the incident (dated 30.03.2006).

The deceased died at her matrimonial home due to unnatural death.

The short facts of the prosecution case are that the appellant is the husband of the deceased. They were residing together in the same house

situated at village Manjholi. The appellant suspected about the character of his deceased wife. On 30/3/2006 the appellant has beaten his wife.

Nirmal Das (brother of the appellant) has tried to stop him. The appellant locked his house. Nirmal Das reached there and found that the wife of

the appellant (Jalebiya Bai) was lying dead on the floor. She sustained injuries in her neck and chest. Nirmal Das lodged the FIR against the

appellant. After postmortem of the deceased, it was found that the deceased died due to throttling. She sustained some other injuries also. Hence

charge-sheet has been filed against the appellant.

The trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC against the appellant. He abjured guilt and pleaded innocence. It was

established by the prosecution evidence that the appellant murdered his wife. Hence, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned

above.

Impugned judgment has been challenged by the accused on the ground that the case is based on circumstantial evidence which is not sufficient to

complete the chain. Appellant had no motive to kill his wife. There is contradicting evidence on record. It is also alleged by the appellant that the

extra judicial confession of the appellant is weak type of evidence, hence is not reliable for conviction of the appellant. Thus the appellant prayed to

set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant.

We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The learned Govt. Advocate supported the findings of the

learned trial Court.

In this case conviction of the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence.

Shri R.K.Dwivedi (PW-14) has deposed that on 31.03.2006. Nirmal Das (brother of the appellant) lodged FIR that the appellant was beating

his wife Jalebiya Bai. He tried to stopped him, but failed. The appellant caused death of his wife by throttling her neck. Thereafter, the appellant

locked the outer door of his house and fled away from the spot. Accordingly, marg intimation (Ex.P/2) was registered on the same day. FIR Ex.

P-1 was lodged against the appellant. Statements of the witness Nirmal Das and other, were recorded promptly.

Ghundul @ Nirmal Das (PW/1) deposed that his brother Nigam Das and his wife Jalebiya Bai were missing from their house since two days.

Hence he lodged their missing report at Police Station. The testimony of Ghundul @ Nirmal Das (PW/1) and Shiv Murat Singh (PW/9), Ramsukh

Baiga (PW-3) are unchallenged. Their version is consistent and nothing has been elicited in cross examination to shake their testimony that, police

reached to the house of the appellant and found main door of the appellant was locked. Police broken it and entered in the room. They found, the

dead body of Jalebiya Bai inside of the room. She sustained injuries. It is important that the appellant was absconding. Dead body was handover

to his brother Viseshardas (PW-4).

Shri R.K.Dwivedi (PW/14) inspector also corroborated all the above facts. In para 9 of his cross examination which clearly shows that

Ghundul (PW/1) for saving the appellant by suppressing the fact of quarrel and beating of the deceased by the appellant prior to the incident.

Because both were real brothers. Hence we relied on the testimony of R.K. Diwedi (PW-14).

In case of Jamnadas Vs. State of MP, (2016) 13 SCC 12, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has broadly discussed as under:

In Kuldeep Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan, (2000) 5 SCC 7, in para 18 a three-Judge Bench of this Court has held that:

In a case of circumstantial evidence when the accused off ers an explanation and that explanation is found to be untrue, then the same offers an

additional link in the chain of circumstances, to complete the chain.

Similar view has been taken by this Court in Rumi Bora Dutta v. State of Assam, (2004) 12 SCC 77, wherein it has been accepted that a false

answer offered by the accused when his attention is drawn to the circumstances, it renders a circumstance to be of inculpating nature, i.e. in such a

situation a false answer can also be counted as providing a missing link for completing the chain.

R.K. Dwivedi (PW-14) sent the dead body for postmortem. Dr. Smt. S. Kori (PW-11) conducted autopsy of the deceased Jalebia Bai. She

found the following injuries on the neck of the deceased :

(i) An abrasion below infra-mandibular of size 1 cmx1/4 cm dry on the left side of the neck.

(ii) An abrasion over anterior of neck 1 cm x 1/4 cm dry.

(iii) An abrasion of 2 cm on right side of the midline of size 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm dry parchment.

(iv) An abrasion of size 1.5 cm next to injury No. 3 1/2 cm x linear.

(v) An abrasion of size 1.5 cm next to injury no. 4 of size 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm on the right side.

(vi) An abrasion 3 cm above injury No. 3 of size 1/2 cm x Linear dry on the right side.

(vii) Two abrasions found over suprasternal region at midline of size 1/4x1/4 cms.

Doctor opined that the all the above injuries caused by nails and were antimortem in nature. The tongue of the deceased was stuck in the teeth,

blood came out from her mouth and nose. Therefore, Dr. Kori (PW-11) opined that deceased died due to asphyxia because throttling of her neck

withing 24 to 36 hours. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the opinion of Doctor Kori.

M.L.Singh (PW-6) deposed that the appellant came to his petrol pump and stated that police searching him for murder of his wife. M.L.Singh

(PW-6) also deposed that the appellant requested to him that ""galti ho gai hai"" told the police not to beat him. Then he telephonically called the

police. Thereafter, Police came to his petrol pump and took the appellant to the police station.

We find that these circumstances clearly connect the appellant with crime, where the dead body of wife was lying inside her matrimonial home.

She sustained injuries, which indicates that she was killed in her matrimonial home. Secondly her matrimonial house was locked from outside and

her husband was missing. As per FIR Ex.P1 and evidence shows that shortly before commission of crime they were (husband and wife) seen

together, both were residing there. It is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime. It was therefore,

incumbent upon the appellant to have tendered some explanation in order to avoid any suspicion as to his guilt.

In accused statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. or otherwise the appellant had not set up a case that offence was committed by somebody

else or that there was a possibility of an outsider committing the offence. In such circumstances in case of Dhaneshwar Vs. State of Maharashtra [

(2007) SCC 445] it was held that, it is for the husband to explain the grounds for the unnatural death of his wife.

The law is quite well settled that the burden of proving the guilt of an accused is on the prosecution, but there may be certain facts pertaining to

a crime that can be known only to the accused, or are virtually impossible for the prosecution to prove. These facts need to explained by the

accused. See also Gyanchand Vs. State of Haryana [ (2013) 14 SCC 420] and State of Rajasthan Vs. Thakur Singh [(2014) 12 SCC 211],

Shambhu Nath Mehra Vs. State of Ajmer [ AIR 1956 SC 404], Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra [ (2006) 10 SCC 681].

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has no motive to kill his wife. Mother-Kachrniya Bai (PW10), father

Shivcharan (PW8) and brother of deceased clearly deposed that usually the appellant was used to beat his wife(deceased). The appellant

suspected her character hence such submission cannot be accepted that the appellant had no motive.

The appellant tried to establish the plea of alibi in form that at the time of incident, he went to his uncle''s (mama) house. In this regard no

suggestion was given to his father Vishveshwar Das (PW4) and brother Gundul (PW1). They are the best witnesses. Vishveshwar Das (PW4)

deposed that he had taken the body of the deceased after postmortem. It is unnatural that in such happening the husband not reached at his village

to take the dead body of his wife. All these facts establish that the appellant took a false plea to save himself.

On the above discussions, we are of the considered view that the complete chain of circumstances is duly established by the prosecution

evidence. The learned trial Court has duly appreciated entire evidence on record and held the appellant guilty for committing murder of his wife.

Hence, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

Copy of this judgment be sent to the Court below for information and compliance alongwith its record.