Indrakumar & Ors. v. RESPQNDENT

Hon'ble Shri Yatindra Sinah. C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. Criminal Appeal No. 976 of 1997 APPELLANTS Indrakumar & Others. Versus RESPQNDENT State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) (Appeal under Section 374 (2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure) Appearance: Mr. Yogeshwar Sharma, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Govt. Advocate for the State. JUDGMENT (23.01.2013) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25 of April, 1. 1997 pai-.sed ih Sessions Trial No. 114/93 by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. By the impugned judgment, all the Appellants have been convicted under Section 201 !FC and sentenced to undergo R.l. for 3 years and to pay fine of ? 300/- 'vith default sentence of S.l. for 3 months; Appellant-2 Ramnath (A-3) and Appellant-3 Godawari (A-4) have been convicted under- Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo R.l. for2 years and to payfine of? 100/- v.'ith defaiittsentence ofS.l.for 3 months; Appellant-2 Ramnath (A-3) has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The sentences -have been <^ir^6ted to run concurrently. ~

2. Out offive accused persons (A-1 to A-5), accused- Shankar (A-1) i.e. had died during the pendency of the tria! and accused- Kamla Bai Appellant-4 (A-5) has died during the pendency ofthe appeal. Therefore, the appeal filed on behalfofAppellant-4Kamla Bai (A-5) hasabated, 3, 'The facts, briefly ststed, are as under:- Criminal Appeal No. 976 of 1997

3.1 Deceased-Laxmin Bai was wife of Ramnath (A-3). Shewas mam'ed 6-7 years prior to date of the incident i.e. 14.12.1991. Shankar (A-1) was father-in-law, Indrakumar (A-2) is brother-in-law, Godawari (A-4) is mother-in-law and Kamla Bai (A-5) was sister-in- law (Jethani) of the D.eceased. They were residing together in Vilalge- Ramtala. On 14.12.1991, atabout 12:35 noon, Shankar (A-1) lodged Merg Intimation (Ex-P-9) in the police station that his daughter-in-law, Laxmin Bai (Deceased) has died at about 8:00 a.m., on account of bumt injuries'sustained by her. He mentioned in the Merg Intimation that dt that time they were not present in the house and were working in their Kothar. The Investigating Officer reached to the place of occurrence, gave notice (Ex-P-2) to the Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex-P-3) on the dead body of the Deceased.

3.2 The dead body was sent for postmortem to Primary Health Center (PHC), Pathariya vide requisition Ex-P-7. The postmortem examination was conducted by a team of two doctors including Dr. R.L. Dhritlahare (P.W.12). He noticed following injuries on the dead body of the deceased: i. One cut injury on the left ear pinna; ji. Multiple abrasions of 5 X 5 c.m. over both side of chest; iii. Multiple abrasions of 7.5X 7.5 cm. on the back; and iv. Lacerated wound of 2.5 X 1 X 0.5 c.m. (triangular) 5 c.m. below-the occipital protuberance overthe skull.

3.3 Face, neck and ears all were blackish having sustained burn / injuries. Other parts ofthe body have also sustained burn injuries. There were/burn injuries on the skin of the abdomen and inner portion of the thigh. On internal examination, it was found that the brain and brain membrane were congested; glottis and trachea wgre atso congested having blood mixed froth; there were swelling over the lung&r froth was also present in the lungs; many blood clots were found on the mucus of the intestine; and liver, spleen an.d Kidney were congested. The Autopsy Surgeon opined that •». :''«..;.""'../'' :IW^"' ^ Criminal Appeal No. 976 of 1997 (except the burn injuries) all above injuries were ante-mortem in nature and the burn injuries found over the body were postmortem ihjuries, and the death was homicidal in nature. The postmortem report is Ex-P-7-A.

3.4 The prosecution-came with the case that the Deceased was assaulted in the night and whenshedied, she was put to fire and since the accused persons, who were inmates of the house could not explain as to how the Deceased received the above injuries and how she died homicidal de&th, therefore, they were liable for punishment under Sections 302/149 and 201 IPC. allegations that the Deceased was treated with cruelty, therefore, the accused persons were also liable for punishment under Section 498-A IPC. It also made

3.5 The Sessions Judge recorded the finding that the Deceased had died homicidal death; the injuries found over the dead body of the Deceased (except the burn injuries) were ante-mortem injuries; the burn injuries were postmortem injuries; the accused persons were inmates of the house; and they did not explain as to how the Deceased died homicidal death in their house, therefore, they were liable for punishment as above. 4 Mr. Yogeshwar Sharma, counsel appearing on behalf of Appellants, has argued that there is no direct evidence of assault; there is no evidence of treating the Deceased with cruelty; and the Deceased had died on account of burn injuries, which according to the Appellants was accidental, therefore, the Sessions Judge fell into error while convicting the Appellants as above.

5. On the oth^r, Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf jdppqsed these arguments and supported the judgment of the State, passed by the.Sessions Court. V, '•••.'•'': • • . -• • • ' . We have heard counsel for the parties at length and have also

6. perused the records of the Sessions case.

7. Dr. R.L. Dhritiahare (P.W.12) had conducted autopsy on the dead body oflhe Deceased. He had noticed multiple abrasions and lacerated i Criminal Appeal No. 976 of 1997 wound on the dead body of the Deceased. The lacerated wound was found over the occipital region. He also hoted that most of the internal organs were congested and blood mixed froth was present in the trachea and lungs. He has given opinion vide para 5 of the evidence that the injuries sustained by the Deceased (except the burn injuries) were ante- mortem, injuries and death was homicidal in nature. Healso found that all the burn injuries found over the dead body of the Deceased were postmortem injuries. Thus, it was a case in which, the Deceased firstly died on account of the injuries sustairied by her and thereafter, she was put to fire. The above opinion ofthe doctor appears to be logical as not a single carbon particle was found either in the glottis, trachea or in the lungs of the Deceased. Other features of postmortem burns were also the Autopsy Surgeon opined that the other injuries found. Therefore, were ante-mortem and the burn injuries were postmortem injuries. We have gone through the evidence of Dr. R.L. Dhritlahare 8. (P.W.12) and have also perused the postmortem report. We are of the view that the learned Sessioris Judge was fully justified in holding that the Deceased had died homicidal death on account ofthe injuries (other than burn injuries) sustained by her and then she was put to fire after her death. The conviction of Appellant-2 Ramnath (A-3) and Appellant-3 (A-4) 9. under Section 498-A is based on evidence of Bodhiram (P.W.9). Bodhiram (P.W.9) has deposed that when the Deceased had visited to her parent's house, she had stated to her grandfather that the persons belonging to in-laws place were treating her with cruelty. is on this evidence, the Sessions Judge has held that the husband - Ramnath (A- 3) and mother-in^law, Godawari (A-4) were iiable for punishment under Section 498-A/PC as there were evidence against them regarding ill It treatment of tKe Deceased. We findno infirmity in the said finding recorded by the Sessions Judge.

10. It is a case, ig Vi/hich, according to accused persons, the Deceased sustained burn injuries at about 8:00 a.m. on 14.12.1991 and the Merg Intimation (Ex-P-9) was lodged by father-in-law, Shankar (A-1) at about It is not mentioned in the Merg Intimation 12:35 noon onthe same day. Criminal Aopeal No. 976 of 1997 s ^ that th&Deceased had sustained any other injury except the burn injuries which according to them were accidental. The accused persons had taken the defence that the Deceased got burn injuries, while she was cooking food and after receiving burn injuries, she ran away from the kitchen to the courtyard of the house, where she fell down and she died. After the inquest, the dead body was sent forpostmortem examination. It was revealed in the postmortem report that along with the burn injuries which were postmortem, the Deceased had also sustained many other \rf injuries including the lacerated wound over the occipital region. external The Autopsy Surgeon had opined that those injuries were ante-mortem injuries; We have already believedthe testimony ofAutopsy Surgeon. view of this, the explanatipn given by the accused persons regarding the death of the Deceased becomes false and this would be an incriminating In circumstance against them.

11. Admittedly, the Deceased was residing with the accused persons and the dead body of the Deceased was found in the courtyard of the house of the accused persons. T^s accused persons had not explained the Deceased died homicidal deathin their satisfactorily as to how, house. On the contrary, a false Merg Intimation (Ex-P-9) was lodged by it was an aceidental death by fire, which Shankar (A-1) showing that according to them.the Deceased sustained while cooking the food. The Therefore, explanation given by theaccused persons about the homicidal death of the Deceased was apparently false on the face of postmortem report as also on the evidence of Dr. R.L. Dhritlahare (P.W.12), who conducted the the Sessions Judge has taken this as an autopsy. incriminating circumstance that the accused persons did not explain as to how the Deceased died homicidal death in their house. The above view taken by the/^essions Judge appears to be correct in light of provisions of Section 1066fthe EvidenceAct, which provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that Inthe instant case, whenthe Deceased haddied in the factis upon him. house of the accused persons, it would be presumed that they were having the knowledge^about the fact as to how she died homicidal death. The prosecution in this case has discharged its burden by proving that fhe Deceased had died homicidal death and the death has taken place in \ ^tad-i" CrlmmalABReaLNo, 976 of 1997 the house ofthe accused persons, butthe accused persons have utterty failed to discharge their burden as to how the Deceased died homicidal death.

12. The Sessions Judge has further held that since all the accused persons were residing together in the house, therefore, all of them must be having knowledge about the homicidal death of the Deceased, which they suppressed and they reported the matter showing it to be an they were liable for punishment under accidental death, therefore, Section 201 IPC.

13. While convicting Appellant-2 Ramnath (A-3), held that the ante-mortem.injuries i.e. abrasions and laceration were the Trial Court has received earlier to the burn injuries and those injuries must have been received on account of assault. It has held that those injuries were caused in the night and inthe night only the husband of the Deceased was present with her. Therefore, these injuries were caused by him. It is on this account, husband-. Ramnath (A-3) has been convicted under Section 302,498-A and 201 IPC and the other accused persons have been acquitted ofthe charges framed underSefction 302 IPC.

14. On due appreciation of the entire evidence available on record, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment and findings recorded by the Sessions Judge. therefore,

15. Mr. Yogeshwar Sharma has argued that the maximum sentences awarded toAppellant-1 Indrakumar (A-2) and Appellant-3 Godawari (A-4) is 3 years with fine. They have already undergone for about 2 years and their sentences may be reduced to the period 3 months, already undergqne. We have examined the case of Appellant-1 Indrakumar ^2) and Appellant-3 Godawari Appellant-1 lndral(umar (A-2) is brother-in-law (Jeth) ofthe Deceased, who has been convicted i.indfer Section201 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.l. for 3 years and Appellant-3 Godav/ari (A-4) is mother-in-law ofthe Deceased, who has been cSnvigted under Sections 498-A and 201 IPC, and sentenced to yndergo R.l. for 2 years with fine sentenees. Looking to the date of incident, which took place in theyear for 3 years and R.l. (A-4). i:?il t'v^, ^. ^t f Criminal Appeal Np. 976 of 1997 1991 apd further looking to the age ofAppellant-3, Godawari (A-4), which comes about 80 years, we deem it appropriate to reduce her sentence of Syears to the period already undergone.

16. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The appeal filed on behalf ofAppellant-2, Ramnath (A-3) is dismissed. The appeal filed on behalfof Appellant-1 Indrakumar (A-2.) and Appellant-3 Godawari (A-4) is partly allowed. Appellant-1 Indrakumar (A-2) was convicted under Section 201 IPC and Appellant-3 Godawari (A-4) \A<as convicted under Sections 201 and 498-A IPC. Their sentencps are reduced to the period already undergone, which comes about 2 years and 3 months in this case.

17. The bail of Appellant-2,Ramnath (A-3) is cancelled and he shall be taken intocustody to serve his remaining sentence. The bail bonds of (A-4) shall Appellant-1 Indrakumar continue for a period of 6 months in terms of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. (A-2) and Appellant-3 Godawari Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunii Kumar Sinha Judge Ife < /