Rajkumar & Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Mohd. Fahim Anwar, J

The present appeal has been preferred by the accused/appellants under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the judgment and sentence

passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sehore in S.T. No.164/2007, whereby the appellants have been found guilty for commission of offence punishable

under Sections 498-A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I., for one year and under section 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for life.

The case of the prosecution in brief is that Bhagirath (PW-1), the father of deceased Ramdulari had lodged a Dehati Nalishi on 17.08.2007 at about

11 o'clock in Police Station Ahmadpur, in which it is alleged that his daughter Ramdulari was married with Rajkumar in the year 2003 and at the time

of marriage, sufficient dowry was given. It is further alleged that his daughter Ramdulari was subjected to cruelty, harassment and torture by the

accused persons in connection with demand of dowry and an information to that effect was given to him by his daughter and thereafter Bhagirath met

the accused persons and tried to pacify the matter by stating that he will pay the demanded money after harvest. Thereafter he came to Chhatarpur

and at about 4 P.M., he received information that his daughter was suffering from some disease whereupon he and one Shambu Gaur went to

Manpur, where he saw that his daughter was lying dead and found signs of axe injury on her head. It is alleged that his daughter was subjected to

cruelty and harassment by her husband and in-laws and due to this, they assaulted her with an axe. Ramdulari died within seven years of her

marriage.

Bhagirath (PW-1) had lodged a Dehati Nalishi on 17.08.2007 in Police Station Ahmadpur. The police registered the offence and conducted the

inquest. Panchnama of the dead body of deceased was also got prepared and body was sent for postmortem to District Hospital, Sehore. An axe was

recovered and seized at the instance of appellant Rajkumar. The statements of witnesses were recorded and after usual investigation, charge-sheet

has been filed before the Court.

The appellants have been charged under sections 498-A, 304-B and 302/34 of IPC. They abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence.

The trial Court on appreciation of evidence found the appellants not guilty under section 304-B of IPC and acquitted them of the charge of 304-B of

IPC, however found them guilty under Sections 498-A, and 302/34 of IPC and sentenced them as mentioned hereinabove.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned finding recorded by the trial Court suffers from perversity and non-application of mind

to the oral and documentary evidence on record, It is submitted that the prosecution had failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. It is

further submitted that the factum of cruelty soon before the death has not been established by the prosecution. There is no evidence on record, so as

to indicate that soon before the death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty in furtherance of a demand for dowry by the appellants. It is further

submitted that the learned trial Court has erred in placing reliance on the testimony of prosecution witnesses as the same is full of contradictions,

omissions, improvement and are inconsistent.

Learned counsel for State has submitted that the appellants were involved in commission of offence, therefore the trial Court has rightly convicted

the appellants.

Having considered the contention of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, in this case it is not controverted that the death of

deceased had taken place within 3-4 years of her marriage with the appellant no.1. It is also not disputed that the deceased Ramdulari was found dead

in her matrimonial house where she used to live with her husband-appellant no.1 Rajkumar and appellants nos.2 & 3 Balram and Smt.Dhopubai, who

are her father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively.

As mentioned above there is no eye witness of the incident, however the father of deceased Bhagirath (P.W.1), Uncle Ramsingh (P.W.2), mother

Kamlabai (P.W.3) and Aunt Ramkali (P.W.5) have been examined. They have categorically stated that after the marriage the appellants who are

husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased started to demand money from them. They have stated that appellant no.2 Balram, father-

in-law of the deceased used to demand money from the witnesses, who are the close relatives of deceased and to fulfill the demand Bhagirath

(P.W.1) has paid Rs.20,000/- after 1 ½ years of marriage and again paid Rs.10,000/-. On this point, the witnesses have been cross-examined at

length, but there seems to be no contradiction or omission of remarkable nature, which makes the version of witnesses dis-believable. Here it is

pertinent to mention that most of these witnesses have accepted that before the incident they have not complained or lodged any report in any Police

Station or before any competent authority, but in our opinion only on that ground the version of witnesses cannot be disbelieved, because usually after

marriage when the girl use to live in her matrimonial house, the parents or other close relatives keep themselves away from creating any situation by

which the married life of the girl may get possibly disturbed.

So from the evidence which have been produced from the side of prosecution, it is found proved that the accused/appellants used to demand

money from the deceased and her family members, particularly mother and father of the deceased. Some of the demands of the appellant were

fulfilled and again they used to make similar demand and on not getting the money they used to quarrel and harass her many a times. Therefore,

offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC is found proved against all the appellants and it is found that the trial Court has rightly held all the

appellants guilty for commission of offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC and sentenced them as mentioned above.

Now the question is that whether the aforesaid injuries sustained by the deceased Ramdulari were caused to her by all the appellants or by some

of them ?

Dr.A.K.Khare (P.W.7) has stated that he conducted the postmortem of the dead body of deceased Ramdulari at District Hospital, Sehore on

17.8.2007 at about 5.00 P.M. and found following injuries on her body as per postmortem report Exhibit P-22 :-

“1. Abrasion on neck left side near clavicle 4 x 4 cm.

Incised wound on scalp (3 in numbers :

(i) size 14 cm x 2 cm deep upto brain material, skull bone cut.

(ii) 7 cm x 2 cm bone cut.

(iii) 7 cm x 2 cm bone cut.â€​

He further stated that the above stated three injuries, which were found on the skull of the deceased were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient

in ordinary course to cause the death of a person who has sustained the injuries. He also deposed that the death of the deceased has occurred due to

these injuries and the death was homicidal in nature. During the course of cross-examination he has not denied the possibility that these injuries might

be caused due to falling on the ground on sharp and pointed stones, as suggested by the defence counsel, but at the same time he himself has said that,

in that condition the person concerned will sustain other injuries on his body. He has also accepted that at the time of autopsy the rigor mortis in the

person of deceased was not present. It denotes that the deceased has died 16 to 36 hours before the autopsy. In that report itself the Doctor has

prepared diagram showing the place of injuries on the organ i.e. skull, on which the injuries were found. It is on page 3 of the report Exhibit P-22.

If we consider the statement and opinion of Dr.A.K.Khare (P.W.7) as it is, one thing is very clear that the death of deceased has occurred due to

injuries sustained particularly on her skull, which were inflicted by hard and sharp cutting object.

It is clear from the circumstances of the offence that the deceased Ramdulari has died in her matrimonial house. Her death is supposed to have

occurred in the late night, so there is no eye witness of the incident. The learned trial Court has considered the circumstances of the offence and on

this ground has held all the accused persons to be guilty for causing her death by inflicting the aforesaid injuries by hard and sharp object.

Here it will be pertinent to mention that on the information (Exhibit P-11) given by the appellant Rajkumar an axe has been seized vide seizure

Memo (Exhibit P-12). On the sharp edge side of the axe some blood stains were found. In the course of investigation the blood stained clothes of the

accused persons and deceased were also recovered, which have been sent for chemical examination. A report Exhibit P-32 has been received from

the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Bhopal, which clearly shows that not only the blood stains which were found on the sharp edge of the axe

were of human blood, but also of 'O' group which was found on the clothes of deceased due to injuries on her body. It will also be pertinent to mention

here that blood stained clothes of accused Rajkumar, were also recovered during the course of investigation and that blood was also found to be

human blood and 'O' group, which was the group of deceased Ramdulari. It is not the defence of accused Rajkumar that he was also injured at that

point of time and the stains were of his blood. It is also not his case that his blood group is also 'O'.

It is also important to mention that the clothes of accused appellant no.2 Balram and appellant no.3 Dhopubai have also been seized, but no blood

stains were found on those clothes, so there is no question of it being a human blood and of the blood group of deceased.

As far as the death of deceased is concerned, the circumstances do not show any involvement of the appellant no.2 Balram and appellant no.3

Dhopubai, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the deceased. It would be pertinent to mention that on the body of deceased

Ramdulari mainly three incised wounds were found on her skull. All these three injuries seem to have been inflicted by same weapon. She has

sustained these injuries when she was in her matrimonial house, particularly when she was alone with her husband. Although there is no eye witness

of the incident, in whose presence these injuries were inflicted to the deceased, deceased was in the room only with her husband and the dead body of

the wife is found in her matrimonial house in the early morning and the death is established to have occurred in the previous mid-night, then the burden

shifts on the husband to show the circumstances in which the death of wife has happened, otherwise the conclusion of the commission of offence will

have to be drawn against the husband.

The husband/appellant has given explanation that his wife deceased Ramdulari was disabled by one leg and in the night she had fallen from the

ladder of the house when she had gone to answer the call of the nature. As mentioned before, the injuries which were found on the person of the

deceased were not of the nature, which can occur due to falling from the ladder. The concerned Doctor who conducted the postmortem also denied

such possibility by saying that in such situation the person concerned will have some more injuries on his person. Any other explanation of the injuries

has not been given from the accused side. It is settled law that the explanation assumes much significance, because it is for the accused to come

forward with an acceptable and plausible explanation explaining the circumstances under which the deceased had met with her end since the accused

was only one who was in the company of his wife on the previous night and thereafter she was found dead in the early morning, as has been held by

the Supreme Court in the case of State of Utter Pradesh Vs. Dr.Ravindra Prakash Mittal [(1992) 3 SCC 300].

In view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is sufficient reason to hold that all the appellants are found guilty for

commission of offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC, therefore their conviction for offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC deserves

to be upheld.

So far as the appellant no.1 Rajkumar is concerned there is sufficient evidence to prove that he has committed the murder of his wife, therefore

his conviction under section 302 IPC deserves to be maintained.

So far as appellant nos.2 Balram and appellant no.3 Dhopubai are concerned, the prosecution has failed to prove that they have committed murder

or have taken any active part in committing the murder of deceased Ramdulari. Therefore their conviction and sentence for offence punishable under

section 302 read with section 34 of IPC deserves to be set aside.

Accordingly, allowing the appeal partly, the conviction and sentence of all the appellants, so far as offence punishable under section 498-A is

concerned, is hereby upheld. So far as appellant no.1 Rajkumar is concerned, we hold him guilty for commission of offence punishable under section

302 of IPC and his sentence and conviction under section 302 of IPC awarded by the trial Court is upheld. As far as appellant no.2 Balram and

appellant no.3 Dhopubai are concerned, their conviction and sentence under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC are set aside.

From the perusal of record it is evident that appellant no.1 Rajkumar is in jail and he has to suffer the remaining part of his jail sentence. As far as

appellant no.2 Balram and appellant no.3 Dhopubai are concerned, they have already suffered the period of sentence, which is more than their

sentence. They are already on bail, therefore they shall be discharged of their bail bonds and shall be set at liberty forthwith.

With the aforesaid observation, this appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.