Sir Pal and Another vs State of U.P.

Dev Kant Trivedi, J.—This criminal appeal is directed against the conviction of the Appellants u/s 302/34 of the I.P.C. and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to them by Sri K,K. Verma, the then Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi on 06.12.1978 in Sessions Trial No. A-55 of 1978.

The facts giving rise to the Sessions Trial No. A-55 of 1978 is as follows:

Srimati Shanti, the deceased was the wife of Appellant No. 2 Ram Sanehi. The marriage had taken place in the year 1968. Immediately after the marriage when complainant Sarju Prasad Munim, father of Shanti went to the Sasural of Srimati Shanti, the mother-in-law and Ethane of the deceased threatened him that they will get Appellant Ram Sanehi married again. Appellant Ram Sanehi as well as his family members told the complainant that Shanti is ugly and is unable to do household chores. Complainant then accompanied by Srimati Shanti came back to his house. On being pressurized by birder people, Srimati Shanti was taken away to her Sasural, but subsequently Appellant Ram Sanehi again came with Shanti and left her at complainant''s house. The ornaments of Srimati Shanti were, however, not given to Srimati Shanti who then lodged a report at the police station. Again a Pantheist of the birder people was convened and Srimati Shanti in accordance with the decision of the Pantheist went to her Sasural. For some time Srimati Shanti lived with Appellant Ram Sanehi at Unnao. During this stay at Unnao, the landlord of Appellant Ram Sanehi informed the complainant telegraphically about an attempt having been made by the Appellant Ram Sanehi on the life of his wife Srimati Shanti. The complainant then went to Unnao and Srimati Shanti was taken back to his house by the complainant about layer prior to the incident. About three months prior to the incident, Appellant Sripal came to the house of the complainant and took Srimati Shanti to her Sasural giving the assurance that Srimati Shanti will not be ill-treated. On 16th of February, 1976, the complainant came to know that Srimati Shanti has been killed and her husband has run away. A written report was then lodged by complainant Sarju Prasad Munim, father of deceased at police station Mallawan, District Hardoi. A case was registered at Police Station Mallawan. Earlier on the same day at 8.30 a.m. Appellant Sripal made a written report at P.S. Mallawan that Srimati Shanti had committed suicide in the night intervening 15/16th February. 1976. On the basis of the said report, Panchayatnama was prepared by S.I. Mohkam Singh who found the dead body in the verandah of the house of the Appellants. A piece of Sutali was found around the neck of the dead body. A piece of Sutali was also found in an iron ring of the slab of the verandah. The father of the deceased who had reached at the house of the Appellants, however, told to S. I. Mohkam Singh that it was a case of murder. Post-mortem examination was conducted on 17th February, 1976 at 1 p.m. According to the post, mortem report, the cause of death was asphyxia as result of'' strangulation. After the conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the Appellants Sripal and Ram Sanehi and Srimati Maheshaw, mother of the Appellants and Srimati Usha Devi, wife of Appellant Sripal.

Charges were framed against the Appellants and the co-accused on 5th July, 1978 u/s 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. The Appellants and the co-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. It was admitted to the Appellant Sripal that marriage of Shanti, deceased had taken place with Appellant Ram Sanehi in the year 1968. He, however, denied the ill-treatment by Ram Sanehi and his family members with the deceased. It was also admitted by him that Srimati Shanti had gone along with Sarju Prasad. He also admitted that he lodged the report at police station on 16.02.1976 regarding the suicide of Shanti. Appellant Repeal claimed that the post mortem report was got incorrectly made by Dr. Maheshwari who is nephew of Champa Lal, employer of complainant Sarju Prasad.

Ram Sanehi, however, stated that the marriage had taken place in the year 1970. He denied that he ever ill-treated the deceased. He stated that he was not present at the time of Panchayatnama. He also stated that he does not know whether the cause of death was hanging or suicide. He pleaded alibi stating that he was/ton his duty at Unnao on the tube-well of Nagger Palikir between 4 to 12 noons. He also stated that Hawaii Prasad gave wrong information to the complainant. He further stated that the ornaments of his wife were embezzled by Sarju Prasad complainant. He stated that Srimati Shanti committed suicide.

There is thus no dispute that the death of Srimati Shanti Devi had taken place in the house of the Appellants which was the Sasural of the deceased. The only dispute raised by the Appellants is that the death occurred due to suicide committed by the deceased and no foul play was involved. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses including the complainant, the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination, and the Investigating Officer of the case.

On the other hand, Sri Rakesh Chandra Gupta and Sri Ram Deo Tewari were examined in defense.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the Appellants shared the common intention of murdering Srimati Shanti. He, therefore, held them guilty of the offence u/s 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C, convicted them and awarded life term imprisonment. He extended the benefit of doubt to co-accused, mother of the Appellants and the other co-accused Usha Devi, wife of Appellant No. 1.

The findings of conviction and the imposition of punishment have been challenged in the present appeal by the two Appellants who are real brothers.

We have heard the learned Counsel of the Appellants and the learned A.G.A. at some length.

We have also gone through the record of the case.

As has been observed earlier, the death of Srimati Shanti Devi, the deceased, wife of Appellant Ram Sanehi took place in her Sasural and the dead body was found in the verandah of the Appellants. The information in this regard was given by Appellant Sripal to the police at Mallawan police station at 8.30 a.m. on 16th February, 1976. There is no dispute that Sarju Prasad, father of deceased had reached the house of Appellants when the inquest report was being prepared. At that very time, he had told the police Sub-Inspector that it was a case of murder and not that of suicide.

In order to prove that the death of Srimati Shanti Devi was the result of strangulation and it was not a suicide, the post-mortem examination report, Ext. Ka-9 and the statement of Dr. Yashpal Singh have been relied on by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

In the post-mortem examination report prepared by Dr. Yash Pal Singh, Deputy Chief Medical Officer of Hardoi he found the following ante-mortem injury on the body of Srimati Shanti Devi:

"Ligature mark 30 cm. x 1.5 cm. situated below the Thyroidcartilague on the front and encircling the neck Horizontally almost completely except a part of 5 cm. length on the left half of the back of the neck where there was presence of abrasion 4.5 cm. x 0.75 cm."

The cause of death according to the post-mortem report was asphyxia as result of strangulation.

Dr. Yash Pal Singh was examined by the prosecution as P.W. 10. According to Dr. Yash Pal Singh, the deceased was approximately 25 years old. He stated that Ligature mark as referred to above along with abrasion was found by him on the dead body. He stated that on further dissection, the base of the groove was found to be pale with raised ecchymosed margins and muscles on both sides of the neck were found lacerated. There was also laceration of the sheath on the left carotid artery and corona of the thyroid bone was found fractured. The membrane of larynx and trachea were found congested. The liver, spleen and kidney were also found congested. He deposed that the death had taken place sometimes between 15and16th February, 1976. He stated that the cause of the death of Srimati Shanti Devi was strangulation. The Doctor specifically opined that it was not a case of suicide. He stated that the body of Srimati Shanti was quite thin. He has been cross-examined at considerable length but nothing could be made out which may cause any shadow of doubt whatsoever on the testimony of Dr. Yashpal Singh.

There seems to be no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the statement of Dr. Yashpal Singh. It is worth noting that not a word was .put to this witness to show that he was approached by Dr. Maheshwari or by anyone else when he conducted the post-mortem examination and prepared the report.

It has been urged on behalf of the Appellants that it was a case of suicide. Looking into the nature and location of the Ligature mark, the death by tying a noose by Sutali is ruled out. We find no justification whatsoever to disbelieve the opinion of Dr. Yashpal Singh when he stated that the death was a result of strangulation and ruled out the death by suicide or by tying a noose around the neck with a Sutali.

Sri Mohamed Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police who made the inquest report, stated in so many words that there was no such article available at the spot where the dead body was lying by climbing on which Srimati Shanti could have tied the rope in the iron ring of the slab. None of the two Appellants have also stated in their statements that Srimati Shanti had committed suicide by tying a noose around her neck and hanging herself.

The other co-accused who have been acquitted, namely, Srimati Mahesh a and Srimati Usha, mother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively of the deceased, also did not say a word u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure that Srimati Shanti Devil had committed suicide by hanging herself. Srimati Mahesh has stated in her statement in reply to question No. 4 that when the Sub-Inspector had reached the place of occurrence, the dead body was hanging from iron ring of verandah. However, S. I. Mohan Singh has specifically stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, he found the dead body lying in the verandah. Dr. Yashpal Singh has specifically stated in his cross-examination when the rope was shown to him that more than two folds of that rope were required to cause ligature mark. He specifically said that either in sitting or standing position the death could not have been caused by tying the rope around the neck.

We are, therefore, of the firm view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly came to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was the result of strangulation and not the result of suicide.

Since the death of Srimati Shanti Devi was on account of strangulation, it is to be seen whether the strangulation was the handy work of the Appellants.

There is no dispute that no witness was present at the time of the incident and only circumstantial evidence will have to be weighed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the chain of circumstances is complete as against the two Appellants. Let us now examine this aspect of the matter.

The dead body of the deceased was in the verandah in her Sasural which is the house of the two Appellants. Only four persons were present in the said house, two of whom are then present Appellants, while the two family inmates of the said house were also present but have been extended the benefit of doubt. It was for the Appellants, one of whom is the husband of the deceased and the other is the brother of the husband of the deceased, to show as to how the death of the deceased took place; Appellant Sripal came up with a definite allegation that the death of the deceased was the result of suicide. This case of suicide has begun wholly ruled out from the medical evidence, and, therefore, the theory set-up by Sripal Appellant falls to the ground. There remains no explanation about the unnatural death of Srimati Shanti Devi when the theory regarding suicide is found to be false. It was for the Appellant Sripal to show as to how the death occurred. In the present case, since the strangulation was the cause of death and since the Appellants claimed that Appellant Ram Sanehi was not present in the house, the blame squarely goes firstly to Appellant Sripal.

Before we proceed further in this regard, it would be just and necessary to find out whether the claim set-up by the Appellants that Ram Sanehi was not present in the house in the night intervening 15/16th February, 1976, has to be taken into consideration. Appellant Ram Sanehi is a tube-well operator, Nagger Palikir, Unnao. He claimed that he was on duty between 4 to 12 in the night. D.W. 1 Rajesh Chandra Gupta,. Inspector, Nagger Palikir, Unnao, however, declined to say as to whether the Appellant Ram Sanehi was present on the tube-well in the night of 15/16th February, 1976. He rather stated that no such record is maintained in the office. He also stated that the accused remained absent from 17th February onwards. The sole statement of Appellant that his duty at the tube-well in those days was 4 to 12 in the night, is unworthy of belief. Even he himself has not stated that in the night of incident, he was present at the tube-well when his wife had died. Hence the theory setup on behalf of the Appellants and strongly relied on by the defence falls and it cannot be said that Appellant Ram Sanehi was present at the tube-well in the night intervening 15/16th February, 1976.

The death of Srimati Shanti Devi took place in her Sasural on account of strangulation and there were only two male members in the household, and. therefore, the circumstances will go to show that she was strangulated by either of the two Appellants in absence of any explanation coming from any of them.

In this light, it has to be seen the further chain of evidence. Srimati Shanti Devi was married in the year 1968 according to the complainant and in the year 1970 according to the husband of the deceased. P.W. 1, father of the deceased has specifically stated that his daughter was being cruelly treated and beaten by her husband who wanted to marry again and found his wife as ugly and incompetent. There were repeated panchayats in this regard and Srimati Shanti Devi had lodged a report against her husband. An attempt on her life was made earlier by Ram Sanehi and a telegram in this regard was given by the landlord of the Appellant Ram Sanehi to the complainant. Srimati Shanti Devi was again taken back to her Maika by her father and only 3 or 4 months prior to the date of incident the Appellant Sripal had taken along with him Srimati Shanti Devi after giving an assurance of good treatment. These circumstances would go to show that both the Appellants had the motive to do away with Srimati Shanti Devi. These circumstances would further fasten the liability of the murder on the two Appellants.

The statement of the complainant has rightly been relied on by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and from the said statement of the complainant, it is established that the Appellants were unhappy with the deceased and that there was every motive to the Appellants to commit the murder of Srimati Shanti Devi.

It has been urged on behalf of the Appellants that Sripal had no Motive to kill Srimati Shanti Devi. It may be seen that Srimati Shanti Devi had made complaint that it was he who had gone to the house of the complainant and had brought Srimati Shanti Devi with him only 3 to 4 months before the incident. He stated that he had given an application at the police station saying that Srimati Shanti Devi had committed suicide and in his report, Ext. Ka-21, he stated that the reason for the suicide was some quarrel between Srimati Mahesh and the deceased. Though this case subsequently seems to have been given up by the Appellants.

In view of the above discussion, we find that Srimati Shanti Devi was murdered in the night intervening 15/16th of February, 1976 by strangulation and that she did not commit suicide. The prosecution has fully established that the dead body of Srimati Shanti Devi had been found in the house of the Appellants who had the motive in liquidating Srimati Shanti Devi. The Appellants failed to indicate any circumstance which may even be slightly or remotely inconsistent with the guilt of the Appellants as they were the only persons who could have strangulated Srimati Shanti Devi. At any rate, both of them shared common intention to commit the murder of Srimati Shanti Devi and the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly reached the conclusion that the chain of the circumstantial evidence is complete and the prosecution evidence leads only to one conclusion that Srimati Shanti Devi was murdered with the prearranged plan, and, therefore, both the Appellants were rightly held guilty of committing the murder of Srimati Shanti Devi. No doubt, the direct evidence is not available, but all the circumstances lead to only one conclusion that both the Appellants shared the common intention with each other to commit the murder of Srimati Shanti Devi and Appellant Sripal went to the extent of making false report to the police in order to escape from the consequences of the said murder. The two Appellants tried their best to save each other from the consequences of the crime committed by them, or one of them in furtherance of their common intention. There is no circumstance which may go against the prosecution, or which may even slightly indicate the innocence of the accused persons particularly when both the Appellants have come up with a plea which is known to them to be false.

In view of the above, we find no reason to differ from the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and we are of the confirmed view that the Appellants are guietly of committing the murder of Srimati Shanti Devi and that both of them had the common intention to commit the said crime. Hence the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the Appellants u/s 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Appellants were thus rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

There is no substance in the present appeal which deserves dismissal.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The conviction of the Appellants and consequent sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the Appellants is hereby confirmed. The Appellants are on bail. The bail granted to the Appellants is hereby cancelled. The Appellants will be arrested and sent to jail to serve out the sentence awarded to them. The Chief Judicial Magistrate shall comply this order and send the compliance report within a period of six weeks.