Phool Singh vs State of M.P.

Arun Mishra, J.—appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant Phool Singh aggrieved by judgment dated 27.3.1998 passed by Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur, in S.T. No.116/97 whereby he has been convicted for offence u/s 302 of IPC for commission of murder of his wife Pyari Bai with the help of an axe on 21.6.97 at about 3:00 a.m. at village Ankhiwada, P.S. Gotegaon, District Narsinghpur. He has been sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-, in case of default of payment of fine accused has to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment.

The prosecution case, in short, is that the deceased Pyari Bai, Jugraj, father of accused, accused and his son Anni @ Anil (P.W.10) and the mother of accused used to live in the same house at village Ankhiwara. In the intervening night of 20th & 21st June, 1997 the accused along with his wife, his children and father Jugraj was sleeping in the courtyard of his house. A Panchayat had been convened owing to the dispute arose between the accused and the deceased prior to the date of incident in which Jugraj was also summoned, deceased had also taken a part. Deceased was residing for considerable period in the parental house along with her father. After lapse of considerable time, she came back to the house of accused- husband. Annu @ Anil, aged 7 years, was sleeping along with the deceased on the same cot, at about 3:00 a.m. when Jugraj heard hue and cry raised by Annu @ Anil (P.W.10), Jugraj woke up and found that accused was standing armed with the axe and was inflicting injury on Pyaribai. The injuries were inflicted on the neck. She died on the spot. Jugraj due to fear of accused took 3 grand children to village Kotwar Premlal and informed him of the incident. He also informed Ramcharan, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat and Lochan Singh Patel about the commission of the offence by his son Phool Singh. Jugraj went to the police station along with village Kotwar Premlal and lodged the report on which investigation was set in at marg no.31/97, thereafter the report (Ex.P.16) had been recorded at 6:45 a.m. It was mentioned that accused Phool Singh entertained a doubt as to the character of his wife due to that she was killed. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Inquest of dead body was prepared. Post-mortem was performed. Blood stained and control soil was seized and accused was arrested, on the basis of information furnished by him u/s 27 of Evidence Act, the axe was seized from a room in the house of accused, underwear of accused was also seized. In the post-mortem 5 incised wounds were found on the person of deceased. Injuries were inflicted by the sharp edged weapon. Injuries no.1,2 & 3 were on the neck, injury no.4 was near left mandible in the frontal portion of neck, injury no.5 was on lower 1/3rd of left forearm. Annu @ Anil (P.W.1) has also sustained injury in the incident. He was also medically examined, on his palm incised wound of 4cm x 1/2cm x muscle deep was found, it was also caused by a sharp edged weapon. Prosecution further submitted that accused doubted the character of his wife, consequently he used to beat her, he had doubted her of illicit relationship with the neighbour Chetram and brother-in-law Mahesh. 3-4 years before the incident Panchayat was convened in order to resolve the aforesaid dispute. Pyari Bai was sent back to her parental house. She resided for 2 years with her father, thereafter on writing a letter by Durg Singh, Upsarpanch, she came back to the house, consequently due to the aforesaid doubt Pyari Bai''s murder was committed by her husband.

Blood stained and control soil, axe and underwear of the accused were sent to FSL for chemical examination, except on control soil on the other articles presence of blood was found. After investigation accused was charge-sheeted.

The accused abjured the guilt and contended that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. Aggrieved by conviction and sentence u/s 302 of IPC the appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

It was submitted by Shri Geetesh Singh Thakur, learned Counsel for appellant, that Jugraj (P.W.2) has not supported the prosecution case. He has been declared hostile. Statement of Annu @ Anil (P.W.10), the child witness, has been relied upon. He has also given two sets of version. Thus, the evidence adduced by the prosecution falls short of proving the guilt of accused. He ought to have been given the benefit of doubt. It was possible for an outsider to come in the courtyard where the deceased was sleeping to commit the offence, consequently accused-appellant be acquitted of the charge.

Shri S.K. Rai, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent-state, has supported the conviction. Annu @ Anil, son of deceased has supported the prosecution case in entirety though initially his effort was to save his father but later on he has admitted the entire case that it was accused Phool Singh who had inflicted injuries on the person of deceased Pyari Bai and on his palm, thus, there was nothing to disbelieve the statement made by Annu @ Anil (P.W.10). He has stated that Jugraj has also stated that Phool Singh was standing armed with the axe on the spot and her daughter-in-law was lying dead, though he was declared hostile but considering the fact that it was a family affair, they were living together. It was not the case that someone else had committed the murder of Pyari Bai, as accused doubted the character of deceased Pyari Bai, he had committed the offence, with great difficulty after holding Panchayat Pyari Bai came to the house after 2 years, then she was killed by the accused, thus, accused had the motive also to commit the murder of Pyari Bai. The report was lodged promptly, that too by the father of deceased. Investigation was done promptly, that also lends support to the prosecution case. Durg Singh (P.W.9) has also stated that he had written the letter (Ex.P.12) in order to ensure that Pyari Bai was sent to the house of accused, he had handed over the letter to Jugraj. After 8 months of writing of letter deceased was sent to the in-law''s house, thus, there was altercation between husband and wife. There were statements of Lochan Singh (P.W.7), Ram Charan (P.W.8), it was clear that they were informed in the night by Jugraj that his son had committed murder of Pyari Bai, his daughter-in-law with the help of an axe, hence, no case for interference in this appeal was made out.

The main question for consideration is whether the evidence on record is sufficient to fasten the guilt on the accused Phool Singh. Jugraj (P.W.2), father of accused was living along with him in the same house. He has also stated that Pyari Bai was sent to the parental house as accused used to beat her. She remained for one year in the parental house, thereafter she came back. Khubelal (P.W.4), father of deceased Pyari Bai, has stated that in the year 1993 a dispute arose between accused and his daughter. She was brought back to the house. She remained with him for 1,1/2 years along with the child, thereafter with great difficulty, she was sent back to the accused, due to intervention made by elderly persons 1 year after that incident has taken place, thus, it is apparent that there was dispute between the husband and wife, it appears that accused doubted the character of his wife, that appears to be a reason for commission of offence.

The incident has taken place in the courtyard of the house of accused. The entire family was sleeping in the courtyard. Jugraj (P.W.2), Annu @ Anil (P.W.10), accused and deceased were sleeping in the same courtyard. At 3 0'' clock in the night incident had taken place. No outsider could have witnessed the incident. In the circumstances, statements of family members assumes significant when the incident has taken place in the close vicinity of the house in which the family was living, as husband has allegedly committed the murder of wife. Jugraj (P.W.2), father of accused, has stated that he was sleeping in the courtyard, on the date of incident his son, the accused Phool Singh and daughter-in-law Pyari Bai were also sleeping in the same courtyard, Annu @ Anil (P.W.10) was sleeping on the same cot on which Pyari Bai was sleeping, he woke up on hearing hue & cry raised by children, then he saw that accused Phool Singh was standing in the courtyard with the axe and daughter-in-law was lying, there was injury on her neck. He went to the village Kotwar Paramlal along with 3 grand sons in the night itself and informed him that his daughter-in-law has died. He has also stated that he also informed to the Kotwar that Phool Singh was standing along with axe on the spot. This fact he had also informed to Ramcharan, Sarpanch of village and Lochan Singh in the night, thereafter he went to lodge the report (Ex.P.4) at police station and had put a thumb mark on it, when he was sleeping he heard hue & cry raised by Annu @ Anil, then he woke up. Annu @ Anil also suffered injury on his palm. His son Phool Singh used to get anger very soon, for that he was treated also, earlier also he used to beat Pyari Bai, however, he has stated that he had not seen the accused Phool Singh inflicting injury on Pyari Bai but he had seen the axe in his hand, thereafter he was declared hostile; as he has not supported the earlier statement made in the report and police statement that he had seen the accused Phool Singh inflicting the injury on Pyari Bai, it appears that though Jugraj has supported his earlier version substantially but has stated that he had not seen accused inflicting the injury. May may lie but the circumstances do not. Circumstances point out that it could only be the accused Phool Singh who had inflicted fatal blows as many as five in numbers on the vital parts, that was the cause of death of Pyari Bai. When we consider the statement of Annu @ Anil (P.W.10), son of deceased, aged 8 years, initially he has stated that his mother died due to the neck injury, he was not aware who had inflicted the aforesaid injury. While answering question no.17 he has admitted that injury was caused in his palm by his father. While answering question no.18 he has admitted that it was right that his father had inflicted injury on the neck of his mother Pyari Bai. He has stated that one injury was inflicted by his father on Pyari Bai. While answering question no.20 he has stated that his father wanted to inflict injury on his mother, at that time he had sustained injury. As this witness was sleeping on the same cot on which Pyari Bai was sleeping, the aforesaid version of witness was clearly reliable. It appears that he has initially tried to save his father, thereafter has stated the correct facts. Apart from that Jugraj has supported the case by his conduct that he had taken the children out of the house in the night itself due to fear of accused and went to the village Kotwar to inform the fact of commission of offence. Premlal (P.W.3), the village Kotwar, has stated that he went to lodge the report along with Jugraj at P.S. Gotegaon. Ramcharan (P.W.8), Sarpanch of the village, has also stated that he was informed by Jugraj in the night as to death of Pyari Bai and Phool Singh was standing along with the axe.

The spot map (Ex.P.15) has been proved by Patwari Gangaram (P.W.6) and other part of investigation has been proved by Dinesh Kumar Dixit (P.W.11). On the underwear of accused and the axe presence of blood was found, that also lends support to the prosecution case. The axe was seized at the instant of accused as per information furnished by him.

Thus, in our opinion, the commission of offence committed by accused Phool Singh has been established beyond periphery of doubt and he has been rightly convicted for offence u/s 302 of IPC. Consequently, sentence imposed does not call for interference in this appeal.

Resultantly, appeal being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.