Vijay Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh

S.K. Palo, J.—Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.09.2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhind in Sessions Trial No. 148/1999 by which the learned Trial Court convicted the accused/appellant Vijay Kori for the offence u/s 302 of IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/-, the accused/appellant has filed this jail appeal u/s 374 of Cr.P.C. challenging the legality and validity of the conviction and sentence.

It is not disputed that the deceased Geeta Bai was the daughter of Maya Devi (PW-7) and Moongaram (PW-8). The marriage of Geeta Bai was solemnised with the appellant Vijay Singh in the year 1997. Accused No. 2 Chandrabhan and No. 3 Sukhdevi are the parents of the appellant. Accused No. 4 Ganga Singh, No. 5 Bona @ Jayasiram and No. 6 Rajendra are the brothers-in-law of the deceased. It would be appropriate to mention here that accused No. 2 to 6, Chandrabhan, Sukhdevi, Ganga Singh, Bona @ Jayasiram and Rajendra respectively have been acquitted by the learned Trial Court in all the charges. It would be also relevant to mention here that the appellant/accused was also levelled charges for offence u/s 498(A) and 304(B) of IPC but he has been acquitted for these charges.

Before the learned Trial Court the prosecution case transpired that on 25.03.1999, Moongaram lodged report at Police Station Dehat Bhind that his daughter Geeta was married to Vijay Singh two years ago. In the intervening night of 24.03.1999 and 25.03.2014, Moongaram received a message from Tej Singh Kori that his daughter Geeta Bai is dead. He rushed to the place of Geeta Bai''s in-laws at Bhind. He found Geeta Bai dead and saw marks in the neck and stomach of deceased. Geeta Bai died due to hanging. On his report, Merg was registered. The dead body was sent for postmortem and statement were recorded. It was found that deceased Geeta Bai was being treated cruelly and was harassed for demand of dowry. Therefore, case u/s 304(b) read with Section 34 of IPC was registered. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

On committal, the learned Session Court levelled charge against all the accused persons under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) of IPC and in alternatively u/s 302 of IPC against Vijay Singh and u/s 498(A) and Section 304(B) and in alternative u/s 302 read with Section 34 of IPC against all other accused persons. The accused persons abjured guilt. The accused persons pleaded that Raghvendra @ Pinakiya (younger brother of deceased Geeta Bai) took a loan of Rs.20,000/- from appellant Vijay. When it was demanded, he did not return the money. After the death of Geeta Bai, the accused persons are falsely implicated. The witnesses are relatives of the complainant party. Therefore, they have given the false statements against the accused persons.

After adducing the evidence, the learned Trial Court acquitted all the other accused persons u/s 498(A) and 304(B) alternatively u/s 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced appellant as stated above.

The appellant was released on bail vide order dated 18.11.2002. The appellant filed this jail appeal.

We have gone through the record of the Trial Court and heard arguments advanced by the learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.

H.D. Gupta (PW-3), Medical Officer, who performed the postmortem and submitted report (Ex. P-7) has stated that the deceased died due to asphyxia which might have caused due to hanging. He found the ligature mark around the neck which was well defined as narrow deep groove. The ligature mark was situated above thyroid cartilage starting from back of ramus of mandible, right side obliquely downwards following angle of mandible to the left side of neck and back of neck and no mark was found present below right ear. Besides, there were four contusions, which are as under:-

(i) 7cm x 3cm on the lateral aspect of right shoulder reddish in colour

(ii) 4cm x 2cm on posterior aspect of right arm reddish in colour

(iii) 6cm x 3cm on lateral aspect of left arm reddish in colour (iv) 5cm x 2cm on lateral aspect of left arm in middle reddish in colour.

It is also worth noting here that branding mark 4cm x � cm was found on the right side of chest anteriorly. Six branding marks 3cm x � cm present on the lateral aspect of right thigh lower side. An abrasion 1cm x 1cm was found on the right forearm. Eight branding marks were also found on the left gluteal region of lateral aspect. Blisters are present in four marks. According to the Medical Officer, all these injuries are ante-mortem in nature. Second and third cervical vertebra was broken. Trachea was fractured. Contusions are caused by hard and blunt object, whereas the branding might being caused by some hot object. The number of contusions are less then the number of branding injuries in the body of the deceased.

The deceased had taken food 2 to 3 hours before her death which means that after taking food by the deceased in the night of 24.03.1999, death has occurred. This death is homicidal according to the Dr. H.D. Gupta and Dr. Mayank Jain.

Kusuma (PW-1), Mansharam (PW-2) have not supported the prosecution story. Krishna Murarilal is the witnesses of memorandum (Ex. P-9). According to him Police had arrested Vijay Singh by preparing Panchnama (Ex. P-8). Vijay Singh admitted for keeping the rod made up of Coconut (Nariyal Ki Rassi) and stick made up of Babool (Babool ka Danda) in the room. These items were seized from the accused Vijay Singh vide Seizure Memo (Ex. P-5).

According to Moongaram (PW-8) (father of the deceased), his brother Prakash asked Shailendra (PW-6) to go to house of the accused to bring Geeta Bai. But Shailendra was not aware about the location of Geeta Bai. Therefore, Shambhu Dayal (PW-11), who knew the address of Vijay Singh, accompanied Shailendra (PW-6) have stated that they went to bring Geeta along on 24.03.1999 at about 06:00 PM. When they reached the house of the accused, they heard shrieking and shouting. They tried to see through the gape of doors. They saw accused/appellant Vijay Singh, holding a ''Kaiya'' (an instrument by which soldering is done) was branding on the body of the deceased Geeta. She was shouting and shrieking. They also say that they stayed there for about 10-15 minutes and then returned back. Shailendra (PW-6) also states that he saw the accused persons tried to hang Geeta. But this part of the statement seems to be exaggerated. This statement is corroborated by the statement of Moongaram (PW-8) and father of Shailendra, Prakash Chandra (PW-5).

As regarding the demand of dowry, the statement recorded by the police was recorded after a lapse of three months. Therefore, the learned Trial Court did not believe the story of demand of dowry. The learned Trial Court further relying on Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and Others, held that by mere conjectures and implications such accusations are made against the other accused persons whereas they overt act is not attributed. Following the law laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, that the positions of witness have a natural tendency to exaggerate or add facts which may not have been stated to them at all and sometimes the witness''s speak a part of the truth or perhaps the whole of it, they would be guided by the spirit of revenge, name the whole family of the accused as culprits. The learned Trial Court, therefore, acquitted the all other accused persons. The deceased died in her matrimonial home in the intervening night of 24th and 25th March, 1999.

The accused did not offer any explanation. At the other hand, the accused alleged that the brother of the deceased had obtained a loan of Rs.20,000/- which he did not return and at the other hand after the death of Geeta, her family members implicated him in this case. This explanation does not create any confidence. Therefore, learned Trial Court did not believe the same. The accused did not plead that he was not present at the house at the time of incident.

Bringing all these together, there has been sufficient evidence in the record which would entail the conviction of the accused/appellant Vijay Singh.

Therefore, we are in conformity with the learned Trial Court and hold that this appeal has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed.

Bail bond and surety bond of the appellant stands discharged.