This appeal has been filed against the order dated 2.8.2013, passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Kishangarhbas, Alwar in Sessions Case No.
62/2011, whereby, the accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sections 302 and 309 IPC. He has been sentenced
to Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC and one year Simple Imprisonment for the offence under
Section 309 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to further undergo one years R.I. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence thus prosecution was under an obligation to bring chain of
circumstances to connect appellant with the crime. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, yet the trial court has convicted
and sentenced the appellant for the offence under Sections 302 and 309 IPC.
It is not only that presence of the appellant could not be proved by the prosecution at the place of occurrence but the story for his attempt to commit
suicide after causing death of his wife.
Learned trial Court has yet convicted and sentenced the appellant.
Learned trial court even ignored the evidence led by the prosecution to show that there were more than one accused of the offence. If there were
more than one accused then how appellant alone has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
The trial Court has otherwise considered Ex.P/10, a letter written by the appellant to show his intention to cause the occurrence and even to commit
suicide. The said letter was not sent to FSL or Hand Writing Expert yet relied by the trial court. It is even after ignoring the statement of accused
appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He has denied his writing on Ex.P/10 thus should not have been relied upon by the trial court for conviction of the
accused for the offence under Sections 302 and 309 IPC.
Coming to the facts of the case, it is stated that on 1.4.2011, the appellant was at his old house while the occurrence took place in new house where
his wife Sumitra was found dead. PW/10 Khamosh and PW/16 Lalitadevi have admitted that the accused was at his old house while the occurrence
took place in new house at a distance. The trial Court ignored the aforesaid aspect
The prosecution even failed to prove motive to cause occurrence. The relations of husband and wife were cordial, thus there was no reason for the
appellant to cause death of his wife. The prosecution could not otherwise prove that after commission of offence, the accused tried to commit suicide.
The recovery of iron chain and a plastic rope was made but no hook in the room was found so as to commit suicide. The reference of the length of
rope has also been given to show that there was no possibility to commit suicide by it. The aforesaid has also been ignored by the trial court. In view
of the above, there was no reason for the trial court to convict the appellant for the offence under Sections 302 and 309 IPC.
The reference of the judgment of this Court in Arjun Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2018 (1) RJT 792 and of the Supreme Court in the case of Shantabai
& ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, Appeal (Crl.) No. 372/2006 decided on 3.3.2008 has been given to support the arguments.
This Court in Arjun Lal (supra) gave benefit of doubt finding material contradiction in the evidence of witnesses and in absence of direct evidence to
connect the accused with the crime.
In Shantabai (supra), the Supreme Court decided the case where conviction was made on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The Apex Court found
that no reliable evidence was produced to connect the accused with the crime, accordingly, passed the order of acquittal. The prayer, is accordingly, to
set aside the order of the trial court and acquit the appellant of the offence under Sections 302 and 309 IPC.
The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant has been contested by the learned Public Prosecutor. He submits that prosecution could bring
evidence to prove their case beyond doubt. It is despite a case of circumstantial evidence.
Referring to the facts of the case, it is stated that as per the written report given by deceased’s brother PW/3 Balwansingh, the accused has
caused the occurrence. It is with the use of an axe. He caused many injuries to deceased Sumitra. It is while she was at the new house.
The prosecution case has been supported by PW/6 Mohanlal and PW/10 Khamosh though they are not eye-witnesses. It is stated that deceased
Sumitra had gone to new house for taking bath. The accused was in the old house at that time but, thereafter, left the house. They have not seen the
occurrence but stated about past history. The witnesses have stated about consumption of liquor by the accused and thereafter beating the deceased.
The statement of PW/6 Mohanlal and PW/10 Khamosh have been corroborated by other witnesses. It is even by recovery of a letter Ex.P/10 where
the appellant has stated about relation of deceased with his brother. That is said to be the cause of occurrence. Ex.P/10 has been proved by PW/6
Mohanlal, in whose presence, it was recovered. The recovery of Ex. P/10, a letter written by the accused, was made from his wallet at the time of
arrest, thus believed by the trial court. The document aforesaid is sufficient to connect the accused with the crime.
In view of the above and taking into consideration other connecting evidence, trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for the
offence under Sections 302 and 309 IPC. In view thereof, this Court may not cause interference in the order of the trial court.
We have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record carefully.
It is a case where FIR was registered by the Police Station Mundawar on a written report given by PW/3 Balwansingh on 1.4.2011. The FIR
Ex.P/8A was registered on it. After the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the appellant for the offence under Sections 302 and 309
IPC before the Court of Magistrate Class-I, Mundawar. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 5.7.2011. Learned trial
court, thereupon, framed charges for the offence under Sections 302 and 309 IPC. It was explained to the appellant, who denied the charges and
claimed trial, thus it commenced. The prosecution produced twenty three witnesses apart from twenty four documents to prove their case. While, in
defence, seven documents were produced. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
In the written report given by PW/3 Balwansingh, Ex.P/7, it was stated that he received a telephonic call at around 11.30 AM on 1.4.2011 stating that
his sister Sumitra has been killed by brother-in-law Anil with use of an axe. The complainant reached the place of occurrence at around 3.30 PM. His
sister Sumitra was given many injuries by an axe and it was found in the neck. The death was caused by accused, who otherwise used to beat
deceased Sumitra after consuming liquor. It was also stated that his younger sister is married to accused’s brother and was present at the time of
occurrence. Learned trial court, after marshaling the evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence under Sections 302 and 309
IPC. The order has been questioned by the appellant on many grounds, which would be considered in the light of evidence led by the parties.
Learned counsel for the appellant states that at the time of occurrence, the appellant was present in his old house. He has not caused the occurrence
took place in the new house at a distance of around 500 meters. Reference of statements of PW/10 Khamosh and PW/16 Lalitadevi has been given
to prove the aforesaid.
To appreciate the arguments, we have gone through the statements of PW/10 Khamosh and PW/16-Lalitadevi.
PW/10 Khamosh, has admitted that she is not an eyewitness to the incident but her husband asked her to go and collect Palli from Guwada. Her
sister-in-law Lalita asked her to call Sumitra who has gone to take bath in new house. When she reached the new house, saw deceased Sumitra dead.
An axe was found in her neck. She has not stated that accused was in the old house at the time of occurrence.
The reference of statement of PW/16 Lalitadevi has also been given for the aforesaid. In the cross-examination, said witness has stated about
presence of accused in the old house but, he left it after some time. She has not shown presence of accused throughout in the old house. According to
her statement, accused went out from the old house thus it cannot be said that the accused was in the old house at the time of occurrence. The first
argument raised by the appellant thus cannot be accepted.
Learned counsel for the appellant has questioned reliance on the letter Ex.P/10 to connect appellant with the crime. The reference of statement of the
accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C for the aforesaid has been given. The letter Ex.P/10 is very relevant and crucial for this case. It is a letter written
by the appellant and virtually shows his motive and connects him with the crime. It was not sent to the Hand Writing Expert or for FSL. The recovery
Ex.P/10 was from the wallet of the accused at the time of arrest.
The recovery has been proved by PW/6 Mohanlal. The recovery of the letter was on the same day, thus believed by the trial Court. We do not find
any illegality in the order passed by the trial court on this count. The letter Ex. P/10 has been quoted by the trial court and, for ready reference, it is
quoted hereunder also:-
‘‘
Anil ...................................................... ,
Anil
Anil -
‘‘
The perusal of the letter shows the motive of the appellant. He was having suspicion about the relationship of his wife with his brother Sumit. That
was the cause of occurrence thus prosecution could prove motive for the occurrence. The accused, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, has
denied writing on the said letter. It is said to have been written by the police. The perusal of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. does not deny
recovery of letter Ex.P/10 from the wallet of the accused. It is not stated he was not having wallet in his pocket thus could not have been recovered,
rather it has been planted by the police. In absence of the aforesaid, trial court has rightly believed recovery of Ex.P/10 and the said letter has been
relied to connect the accused with the crime. We are unable to accept the second argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant in reference to
Ex.P/10.
Learned counsel for the appellant also stated that as per the statements of witnesses, there are more than one accused. The counsel has relied on the
statement of witnesses but failed to show that any one has named other accused than appellant himself. In view of the above, we do not find any
substance even in the said argument raised by counsel for the appellant.
The counsel for the appellant has even stated that no hook was found in the room so to hang himself. He has also questioned the recovery of iron
chain and the plastic rope. It is in reference to length of the rope. The appellant was not seen by anyone to hang himself, thus, the story cooked by the
prosecution should not have been believed by the trial court.
We find that the witnesses produced by the prosecution have proved that when they reached to the place of occurrence, saw accused Anil with a
rope. The accused entered in a room and closed it from inside. It is stated by PW/16 Lalitadevi in her crossexamination that when she reached to the
place of occurrence, saw Anil in the room. He was trying to commit suicide by hanging. This fact was disclosed to the police but why it has not been
mentioned in Ex.P/6, she does not know the reason thereof.
The aforesaid issue is to be seen even in reference to the injuries sustained by the appellant. As per the statement of PW/14 Dr. Jitendra Singh, the
accused has received three injuries. The aforesaid injuries have not been explained by the accused in his statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
The reference of MLR Ex.P/16 is relevant. The duration of the injuries was four hours and matching to the time of occurrence, as stated in Ex.P/8. It
has not been stated by the witness that no hook was lying in the room so as to prepare for commission of suicide. The statement of PW/16 Lalitadevi
has been corroborated by PW/13 Sarjeet and PW/23 Omprakash Dayma, who had even recovered Ex.P/10 from the pocket of accused at the time of
arrest.
Ex.P/2 is the recovery of iron chain and plastic rope which were with the accused to commit suicide. The prosecution could bring the evidence to
prove Ex.P/10, the letter written by the accused showing his agony on the relationship of the deceased with his brother and, for that, to commit suicide
after killing his wife.
The prosecution even produced Ex.P/11 by which shirt of the accused was recovered having blood on it. PW/23 Omprakash Dayma has proved it.
The said shirt was sent for FSL report apart from blood smeared soil recovered from the place of occurrence. Ex.P/11 shows blood on the pocket of
shirt apart from calf. How the blood came on the shirt has not been explained by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The FSL
report did not come before conclusion of the trial, however, it was received while the appeal was pending. An application was filed by the prosecution
to take FSL report on record. Order was also passed on it.
In view of the facts mentioned above, we do not find that any argument raised by the counsel for the appellant can be accepted so as to cause
interference in the order passed by the trial court.
PW/23 Omprakash Dayma has even stated about the relationship of the husband and wife. The accused was having suspicion about illicit relationship
of his wife and that was the cause of occurrence.
PW/9 Maan Singh has stated that deceased was addict of liquor and used to beat deceased under its influence. It is also stated that deceased had left
the place of in-laws and it was with great efforts and settlement that she came back. The statement of aforesaid witness has been corroborated by
PW/16 Lalitadevi.
The prosecution has thus proved the conduct of the appellant, who, under the influence of liquor, used to beat the deceased. The injuries to the
deceased have been proved by PW/14 Dr. Jitendra Singh. She has received six injuries and all injuries were out of sharp edged weapon. The nature
of injuries have been mentioned by the trial Court and otherwise post mortem report Ex.P/15 has been proved by PW/14 Dr. Jitendra Singh. This also
supports the prosecution case.
In view of the above, we do not find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond doubt, rather, in our opinion, the prosecution remained
successful in proving the case against the accused beyond doubt. We do not find any contradiction in the statements of witnesses so as to acquit the
appellant on that ground. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Arjun Lal (supra) does not provide any assistance so
also the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shantabai (supra) because, in this case, the prosecution could bring evidence to prove its case
beyond doubt.
Accordingly, no case is made out to cause interference in the order of the trial Court. The appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
