Suresh Kumar Shrivas vs State of M.P.

This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.05.2003 passed by the Sessions Judge, Balaghat in S.T.

No. 176/2002 by which the trial court has held the appellant guilty of an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and

sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.

The prosecution case, in brief, against the appellant is that the appellant in the after noon on 27.02.2002 committed the murder of his wife by

strangulating her with a rope. It is alleged by the prosecution that PW-1 Chunnilal, father of the deceased was informed in the night of 27.02.2002

by one Santosh and another young boy who was a barber in village Badgaon that his daughter, the deceased Uma Bai was sick whereupon he

went to Badgaon but when he reached there he saw that people had gathered in the house of the deceased and that she had died on account of

strangulation. PW-1, Chuunilal thereafter lodged a report before the police authorities in the morning on 28.02.2008 whereupon the criminal law

was set in motion. The appellant was arrested on 20.08.2002 on the allegations of Chunnilal PW-1

The prosecution has examined PW-1 Chunnilal, father-inlaw of the accused/appellant, Makhan PW-2, Mathribai PW-3, Satyanarayan Srivas

PW-4, Pramod Kumar PW-5, Hansulal PW- 6, Ajay Dongre PW-7, Domanlal PW-8, Dr. P.L. Lilhare PW-11 and Rajesh Sharma, PW-13, the

investigating officer in support of the prosecution case. Out of the aforesaid witnesses, Mathribai PW-3, Hansulal PW-6 and PW-5 Pramod

Kumar who a child witness and used to reside in the same house along with the appellant and the deceased, have been declared hostile as they

have not supported the prosecution case and have infact made statements in favour of the appellant.

The trial court relying upon the statement of PW-1 Chunnilal who has stated that on receiving information from Santosh and one barber at

around 11 PM that the deceased was sick, he rushed to the house of the deceased whereupon he found that she had been strangulated; on the

statement of PW-4 Satya Narayan Shrivas, the co-brother of the deceased who has stated that the deceased reached his house at 9 PM

whereafter he accompanied the appellant at around 11 PM in the night and they reached the house of the appellant at about 3 AM; the statement

of Dr. P.L. Lilhare (PW-11) who has stated that the deceased died on account of strangulation by a rope, has recorded a finding of guilt against

the appellant.The conclusions recorded by the trial Court are contained in paragraph 31 of the judgment.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the record, it is apparent that the prosecution has failed to adduce any witness

and has also failed to bring on record any document to indicate that the appellant was present in the house when the incident occured. Infact the

statement of Chunnilal (PW-1) who reached the house at 11 PM as well as the statement of Satya Narayan Shrivas (PW-4) itself indicates that the

appellant was not in the house where the incident occured when Chunnilal (PW-1) reached the house at 11 PM and that the appellant reached the

house of Satya Narayan (PW-4) at 9 PM and thereafter started for his house alongwith him at around 11 PM, whereupon he reached the house of

the appellant only at around 3 AM in the morning.

Pramod Kumar (PW-5), a child witness who resides in the house where the incident occured has also not stated that the appellant was in the

house. He has also clearly stated that there was no altercation between the deceased and the appellant and that the appellant had never beaten up

or assaulted the deceased. This fact has also been reiterated by Satya Narayan Shrivas (PW-4).

It is also evident from the record that though Chunnilal (PW-1) in his statement has stated that he was informed about the incident by Santosh

and one barbar but both these witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution. The record also indicates that Chunnilal (PW-1) in his

statement has stated that when he reached the house, Keshav, uncle of the appellant informed him that the appellant must have committed the

crime and run away and in the same breath has also denied this fact and has stated that in case the appellant has gone to the house of Satya

Narayan Shrivas (PW-4) then has not committed the crime. Surprisingly, Keshav, uncle of the appellant has also not been examined by the

prosecution to prove the aforesaid fact.

Satya Narayan Shrivas (PW-4) in his statement has stated that the Sarpanch of his village Heman Lal received a telephonic call to the effect that

the deceased had died but Heman Lal has also not been examined by the prosecution to indicate as to when the phone call was received and what

information was actually received by Heman Lal.

In such circumstances, it is apparent that there is no witness or evidence on record to indicate that the appellant was infact in his house alongwith

the deceased when the incident occured, specially when the plea taken by the appellant is that he had left the house in the day time itself for going

to the house of Satya Narayan Shrivas (PW-4) to return One thousand rupees that he had borrowed from him.

It is also evident from the record that though it is alleged that the appellant has strangulated the deceased with a rope, no such rope has either

been seized, nor the remains thereof have been seized by the prosecution. Infact there is no evidence brought on record by the prosecution to

connect the appellant with the commission of the crime.

As the present case is one of circumstantial evidence alone as there is no direct witness to the incident, the prosecution was bound to prove

such facts which would have made a complete chain of circumstances leading to the sole and only conclusion of guilt against the appellant. In the

absence of such a complete chain of circumstances being established by the prosecution, law does not contemplate or permit recording of a finding

of guilt merely on the basis of assumption or presumption.

From a perusal of paragraph 31 of the judgment of the trial Court, it is evident that the trial Court has assumed several facts in respect of which

there is no oral or documentary evidence on record namely; that the appellant was present in the house when the incident occured; that the

appellant had been constantly beating up and harassing the deceased by demanding dowry; that the appellant strangulated the deceased and

thereafter to hide his guilt hung her with a view to give an impression that she had committed suicide; whereas the oral and documentary evidence

on record clearly indicates that there is no oral or documentary evidence on record whatsoever in respect of all these three circumstances which

have been assumed and presumed by the trial Court.

In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment of the trial Court and the conclusion recorded by it being

contrary to the oral and documentary evidence on record is perverse and cannot be sustained as it is based on assumptions and presumptions and

is consequently set aside. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is also set aside.

The appeal filed by the appellant is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment dated 16.05.2003 passed by the Sessions Judge Balaghat, in

S.T. No. 176/2002 is set aside and the conviction of appellant Suresh Kumar Shrivas under Section 302 of the IPC is also set aside. It is stated

that the appellant is in jail. He shall accordingly be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other case.