Smt Sumitra Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Mr. C.R. Sahu, counsel forthe appellants. Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Govt. Advocate for the State. JUDGMENT (Delivered on 14th February, 2012) PerT.P.Sharma,J.:-

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 07.09.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, in Sessions Trial No.03/2007, whereby & whereunder learned Sessions Judge after holding appellants guilty for commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder of their daughter-in-law Tarini Bai (since deceased) in sharing common intention and for concealing the evidence of crime, convicted the appellants under Sections 302/34 & 201 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and R.l. for three years each.

2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without any iota of evidence, convicted & sentenced the appellants as the trial Court has aforementioned and thereby committed illegality.

3. As per case of prosecution, unfortunate deceased Tarini Bai, daughter-in-law of appellants was residing with appellants in the same house at village Shivnikhurd. At intervening night of 31.10.2006 and

01.11.2006, deceased Tarini Bai died and her burnt dead body was found near the pond adjoining to the house of appellants. Appellants informed to Sonuram (PW/1) and Sumrit Bai (PW/2), parents of deceased Tarini Bai who came to village Shivnikhurd. Appellant No.2 Hinchha Ram lodged merg vide Ex.P/5 wherein he has informed to L-. police that burnt body of deceased Tarini Bai was lying in the kitchen for scene of occurrence, after Investigating officer garden. summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P/20, inquest over the dead body of deceased was prepared vide Ex.P/21. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/6. Photographs of spot and burnt dead body of deceased were taken. FIR was registered vide Ex.P/9. Burnt pieces of clothes, hairs, ash, wood and shawl were seized from the spot vide Ex.P/8. Dead body of deceased was sent for autopsy to Govt. Hospital, Dhamtari vide Ex.P/19-A. Autopsy was conducted by Dr. Y.K. Singh (PW/8) vide Ex.P/19 and found foltowing injuries/symptoms: (i) (ii) (ii) (iii) Burnt clothes found over the body. Ligatureof2.5cmwas present over region. Piece of ligature found in fist of deceased. Abdomen was badly burnt and sign of throttling was present. the neck at thyroid

4. Mode of death was asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Slides of vaginal fluid were prepared and the same were handed over constable. Sealed clothes of deceased and slides of vaginal were seized vide Ex.P/3. Appellant Sumitra Bai was taken into custody. She made disclosure statement of her burnt clothes with smell of kerosene oil, jericane containing kerosene oil and match box vide Ex.P/11, same were recovered at her instance vide Ex.P/12. ^

5. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the 'Code'). After completion investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Dhamtari. Learned Sessions Judge, Dhamtari received the case on transfer for trial.

6. .-^ In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellants, prosecution has examined 14 witnesses. Statements as many accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Code where they denied the circumstances appearing against them and innocence and false implication in the crime in question is claimed. c

7. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Sessions Judge, convicted & sentenced the appellants as aforementioned.

8. We have heard learned counset for the parties, perused the judgment impugned and record of the trial Court.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that conviction is substantially based on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confession made by the appellants before Sonuram (PW/1), deceased but his evidence do not inspires confident and trustworthy father of even it was not natural to confess before father of deceased by the appellants, except this evidence prosecution has not collected any evidence to connect the appellants with the crime in question. Hefurther argued that evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution is not sufficient for conviction of the appellants.

10.0n the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate for the State opposed the appeal and submits that evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution is sufficient for conviction of appellants. Appellants were found in their house along with deceased, deceased died as a result of strangulation andnot as a result of burnt injuries. Offence committed in secrecy and appellants were under obligation to offer true explanation that who has strangulated the neck of deceased and who has burnt the deceased but they have not offered any explanation, inter-alia clothesof appellant Sumitra Bai containing smell of kerosene have been found in possession of appellant Sumitra Bai, which further corroborates the case of prosecution. Court below has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned.

11.1n order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf ofthe parties, we have examined the evidence adducedonbehalf of the prosecution.

12. In the present case, homicidal death of deceased Tarini Bai as aresult of strangulation has not been substantially disputed on behalf of appellants; even otherwise same is also established by the evidence of ^.. Dr. Y.K. Singh (PW/8) and autopsy report Ex.P/19 that death was homicidal in nature. ^N^

13.As regard complicity ofthe appellants incrime in question is concerned, conviction is substantially based on circumstantial evidence and evidence of confessional statement of appellants. As per non confessional part of merg Ex.P/5 lodged by appellant Hinchha Ram, his daughter-in-law was present in his house and appellant Sumitra Bai was sitting in room and Tarni Bai was sleeping in other room and on second day morning dead body of Tarni Bai was found in his kitchen garden. Sonuram (PW/1), father of deceased has also deposed in para 10 that at intervening night of 31.10.2006 and 01.11.2006, Khileshwar husband of deceased was present in his house at village Kachana i.e. he was not present in his house at village Shivnikhurd.

14.As per evidence of Sonuram (PW/1), he was informed by some person about the incident then he went to village Shivnikhurd along with other persons where they saw burnt dead body of deceased Tarini Bai. After cremation of the deceased, being asked, both the appellants made confession before him that on account of dispute at 12.00 p.m. at night thereafter some Tarini was leaving the house, whom they stopped, quarrel took place then they dragged her and after pressing her neck when she died they poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze.

15.As per evidenceof Khileshwar Kumar (PW/3), husband of deceased and told him that son of appellants, being asked, appellant Sumitra Bai deceased Tarini Bai has committed suicide. '^^y ^

16.As per evidence of Anup Nag (PW/7), appellant Sumitra Bai made disclosure statement of burnt saree and clothes containing smell of kerosene vide Ex.P/11, which were seized along with kerosene oil, match box. Saree was partly burnt and smell of kerosene oil was coming He has also from clothes produced by appellant Sumitra Bai. deposed that at intervening night of 31.10.2006 and 01.11.2006, Tarini in the house of appellants, her husband was not Bai was present present, and her burnt dead body was found at pond (kitchen garden) adjoining to the house of appellants. Death of deceased Tarini Bai as a result of strangulation and not as a result of burn injuries. Burnt saree and clothes containing smell of kerosene oil have been recovered from ^ the appellant Sumitra Bai at her instance. Both the appellants made confessional statement before Sonuram (PW/1). examination, Sonuram (PW/1) he has specifically deposed that both the appellants made confessional statement. If the aforesaid circumstances, In his detailed cross- are considered together then only inference would be possible that both the appellants were present in the house along with deceased, deceased died as a result of strangulation. Appellants were under obligation to offer an explanation that how deceased Tarini Bai died and who has strangulated her neck but instead of offering explanation appellant Sumitra Bai made false explanation in Ex.P/5 that dead body was lying at kitchen garden and appellant Sumitra Bai also made false explanation to his son KhileshwarKumar (PW/3) that she has committed suicide i.e. These appellant has not offered any reasonable explanation. circumstances and confessional statement are sufficient for drawing inference that appellants have committed homicidal death of deceased with intent to cause her death. Another fact which has been proved by prosecution is that husband of deceased was not present in the house, inter-alia he was present in his in-laws house. Smeared slides of vaginal part were taken by autopsy surgeon and as per FSL report Ex.P/18(C) presence of sperm has been confirmed in the slides of vaginal, which shows that she has been subjected to intercourse but appellants have not taken any defence in the light of aforesaid fact. Evidence adduced for drawing inference that only on behalf of prosecution is sufficient appellants have committed homicidal death of deceased with intent to .,,^^^'y-^ ,/ys:^ 'I f-<L.l ^^ ^- Vjjay ^ cause her death and with intent to conceal the evidence of criminal case they have burnt the dead body of deceased.

17.After appreciating the evidence available on record, learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned.

18. On close scrutiny of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in convicting and sentencing the appellants requiring any interference.

19. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. — Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge