Rajendra Prasad vs State of Madhya Pradesh

The appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 26.10.1994 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sihora in Session Trial No.

444/1990 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life

imprisonment and R.I. for 3 years, respectively.

The prosecution story in brief is that the marriage of the deceased was performed with the appellant four years before. The appellant used to

beat the deceased. Two years before, the appellant had tried to ablaze the deceased. On the date of incident (27.04.1990), the appellant had

beaten the deceased due to which she died. Thereafter, in order to give colour of death of his wife, he had hanged the body of the deceased.

He had given a false information to the village kotwar that the deceased had died by hanging. Father of the deceased lodged a report at the

police station. Thereafter, investigation was conducted and charge-sheet filed. The appellant abjured guilt during trial. The Court held the appellant

guilty and awarded punishment.

It is an admitted fact that the deceased was the second wife of the appellant. His first wife died after consuming poison.

The trial Court relied on the evidence of Laxmi Prasad (PW-6). He is the brother of the deceased. He deposed that, I and my brother Lakhkhu

had gone to sister Subhadhra''s house (since deceased) to give putariya. When we reached the house at around 10 O''clock, the deceased was in

the house. She was weeping. We asked as to why there is swelling on her throat. She told us that the appellant had beaten her. I and my brother

stayed at the house. On the next day the appellant had taken the deceased in his room called ""jhoola wala"" room. My sister (since deceased) was

crying ""save me"". She cried twice. I had seen that the appellant had beaten the deceased. She fell down. The appellant also threatened me to beat

and thereafter, I and my brother came to my house and told the same facts to my father. In his cross-examination, the question arose was that in

his statement Exh. D/1, this fact has not been mentioned that the appellant had beaten the deceased and there are some omissions.

We perused the statement Exh. D/1 recorded on 30.04.1990. It is mentioned in his statement that around 8-9 am., when we prepared to go

back, at that time I had heard the sound ""brother save me"". The I went to the house and the appellant abused me and thereafter I had seen that the

appellant had been beating the deceased with a danda (wooden rod). Then, we returned back to our house. This fact has come in the statement

recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. This fact has been mentioned by the witness Laxmi (PW-6) that the appellant had been

beating the deceased.

Ramnath (PW-5) is the father of the deceased. He deposed that the marriage of the appellant with the deceased was performed 2-3 years

before. He had kept the deceased properly, however, subsequently he used to beat the deceased. I went to the house of the appellant to take the

deceased with me. At that time, she told me that the deceased used to beat her and one time he tried to ablaze her. Thereafter, I had taken back

the deceased and I went to the police station and lodged a report. The deceased was with me. Subsequently, the deceased was living with me.

Thereafter a period of two years, the appellant came to my house and assured me that he would behave with the deceased properly. Thereafter,

he had taken the deceased with him.

There was a festival of Akti a day before the incident. I had sent both my sons Laxmi and Lakhkhu to the house of the appellant to give

putariya. When they came back, they told me that the appellant had beaten the deceased before them and she fell down. On the same day, I

received information that the deceased had died. Thereafter, I reached village Bhanpura on the second day and I came to know that the dead

body of the deceased was taken to Sihora and thereafter to Manjhgawa. Thereafter, I lodged the report at the Police Station which is Exh. P/8

and I signed the same. Dhoti was seized vide seizure memo Exh. P/7 and I signed the same.

In his cross-examination, Ramnath (PW-5) had deposed that age of my son Laxmi is 13-14 years and Lakhkhu is 9-10 years. Both sons told

me that the appellant had beaten the deceased. He denied the fact that the appellant had kept the deceased properly.

Satyanarayan (PW-7) deposed that deceased was married to the appellant. Deceased complained that after 2-4 months of the marriage that

appellant used to beat her and even he tried to ablaze her. Father of the deceased came to the village to take the deceased with him and she told

him that the appellant used to beat the deceased and he tried to ablaze her. We informed the father of the deceased that he should take the

deceased with him.

Dhaniram (PW-3) village Kotwar deposed that at around 9:30 am in the morning, I came to know that wife of pyasi had died. I went to the

spot. Appellant was there. I asked him what had happened. He told me that deceased had died by hanging herself and he had cut the cord by

saroti. When I went at the place, I found deceased was dead. Report (Exh. P/6) was lodged. I signed the same.

Nathu Singh (PW-2) deposed that I was at khalihan. I received information that deceased had died due to hanging. I reached the spot. When

the police came there and prepared Panchnama (Exh. P/2). I signed the same. Police prepared a spot map (Exh. P/3) and lash panchanam (Exh.

P/4) and I signed the same. A sarota and rope was seized vide seizure memo Exh. P/5) and I signed the same.

Dr. R.K.Tiwari (PW-1) performed the post-mortem of the deceased. He deposed that he noticed a 5""x2"" injury on the right temporal region

on the person of the deceased. There was blood clot and the bone had broken into three parts of the right temporal region. A scar of strangulation

was present on the neck. The injury which was found on the right temporal region was ante-mortem in nature. However, the scar on the neck was

of after death. The temporal bone of skull had broken into three parts. The deceased died due to injury suffered by her on the right side of

temporal region due to fracture of the bone. In his cross-examination, he further deposed that he did not notice that saliva had come from the

mouth of the deceased, hence, the deceased had not died due to hanging. If the death was due to hanging, saliva must had come from the mouth.

He has given detailed reasons that the injury which was on the neck was subsequent to death.

Appellant also produced one defence witness. He deposed that he received information on the khalihan that deceased died due to hanging.

Ramnath (PW-5) and Laxmi Prasad (PW-6) are the interested witnesses. Ramnath (PW-5) is the father of the deceased and Laxmi Prasad

(PW-6) is the brother of the deceased.

The principle of law is that the evidence of interested witnesses could be relied upon if it inspires confidence of the Court. Ramnath (PW-5)

father of the deceased specifically deposed that the deceased told him that the appellant used to beat her. He also tried to ablaze her. This fact has

been proved from the evidence of independent witness Satyanarayan (PW-7). Laxmi Prasad (PW-6) was present in the house prior to death of

the deceased. He specifically deposed that the appellant had beaten the deceased by a wooden rod (danda). He told this fact to his father. His

statement under Section 161 was recorded after two days and he stated the same facts. The evidence of Laxmi (PW-6) finds corroboration from

the evidence of Dr. R.K.Tiwari (PW-1) who performed autopsy of the deceased and deposed that he had noticed one injury on the temporal side

of the deceased and temporal bone of the head was broken in three parts. The scar on the neck was subsequent to the death of the deceased. This

fact causes serious doubt on the version put forth by the appellant. He, in his accused statement before the Court stated that the deceased died due

to hanging. Same facts he had told to the village Kotwar. Village Kotwar verified the fact the appellant was in the house. The appellant tried to

conceal the real cause of death of the deceased. He put a false story. He himself stated that he had cut the cord. It means that he tried to conceal

the cause of death.

In view of the aforesaid evidence, in our opinion the trial Court has rightly held the appellant guilty for commission of offence under Section

302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Court has appreciated the evidence properly and awarded proper sentence. We do not find any merit in

this appeal. It is hereby dismissed.

Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are canceled and he is directed to surrender immediately before the concerned trial Court to undergo the

remaining part of jail sentence as awarded by the trial Court, failing which the trial Court shall take appropriate action under intimation to the

registry.

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