IMPORTANT POINT
Where case is based on circumstantial evidence, pieces of circumstances, however strong may be, all links in the chain must be proved.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302 and 201-Appellant No.1, husband of deceased, convicted in reversing judgment of acquittal by High Court and appellant No.2, mother of appellant No.1, convicted u/s 201 IPC-Deceased was found dead dying in kitchen of the house in burnt condition-Case was based on circumstantial evidence-Trial Court recorded acquittal judgment on ground that door of the kitchen had to be broken open and it was impossible for assassin to jump from window in the lane and thus it was possibly a case of suicide-Trial Court did not fully rely upon post-mortem report having regard to certain cuttings and over writings-Sustainability of conviction recorded by High Court-Findings of trial Court not be said to be irrational warranting interference by High Court-Benefit of doubt has to be given to accused-Principles for reversing acquittal judgment were not adhered to by High Court-Vital link in chain that is possibility of appellant committing offence, closing door and then sneaking out from one of two places was not proved-Conviction was liable to be set aside. (Paras 26 to 32)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.-The Appellant No.1 herein by reason of the impugned judgment reversing a judgment of acquittal passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhar on 6.1.1984 was found guilty of commission of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed murder of Bimlabai by throttling on 6.5.1983 at about 5.30 p.m. at Dhanmandi, Dhar at house No. 16, Dhanmandi, Dhar as also under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code for causing disappearance of evidence by setting her on fire after causing her death; whereas the appellant No.2 was found guilty of commission of an offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The relationship between the appellants herein are son and mother. Along with them, the husband of appellant No.2 Hari Singh and their daughter Kusum were chargesheeted for commission of murder of the aforementioned Bimlabai.

3. The deceased Bimlabai was married to the appellant No. 1 herein on or about 21.4.1982 in relation whereto the betrothal ceremony was held in December, 1980. The appellant No. 1 after the said betrothal ceremony was appointed as a bus conductor by the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. About 4 and 1/2 months thereafter, he was suspended questioning which he filed a civil suit.

4. At the relevant time, the family members of the appellants were living as tenants in a portion in the upper storey of the house of Bansidhar, P.W.1. Daulatram, another tenant, used to reside in the front portion in the first storey in the same house. One Mai Babu was a tenant on the front portion in the ground floor whereas Omprakash Shukla was tenant in the rear portion thereof.

5. Allegedly a demand was made by the accused persons for a wrist watch and a chain of gold at the time of marriage to which Ramsingh, PW5 (brother of the deceased) expressed his inability. Sometimes later, the said demand was reiterated. The appellant No.1 was eventually dismissed from services whereafter financial assistance was allegedly given to him by Ram Singh. The marriage of younger brother of Ramsingh, Rajendra was settled in December, 1982. His Tika ceremony was to take place on 24.4.1983 at Indore. Ramsingh came to the house of the accused persons to invite them and take Bimla with him to his house. For the purpose of fighting out a suit as regard the termination of his service, Narendra allegedly asked for a sum of Rs. 2000/- from Ramsingh wherefor he expressed his inability saying as his brother is going to be married after one month he was not in a position to spare the amount. Allegedly, thereupon Narendrasingh and Harisingh threatened stating "You will have to give us an amount of Rs. 2000/- otherwise we will not send Bimla to attend the marriage ceremony of her brother Raju at Indore."

6. The incident in question took place on 6.5.1983. It is alleged that on 6.5.1983 at about 5 p.m. Asha, PW7 (daughter of Daulatram) saw signs of fire coming out from the house occupied by the accused persons. PW2 Ramkunwar Bai also noticed the fire. They gave a call to the appellants but none replied. PW-10 Kusha Bhau and others also went to the house to extinguish fire. Thereafter the fire brigade as also the police reached at the place of occurrence. The dead body of Bimlabai was found lying in the kitchen of the house in burnt condition. A jerry can, its cover and a match box were also found near the dead body in the kitchen. The autopsy on the dead body of Bimlabai was conducted at about 8.15 p.m. on 7.5.1983.

7. Ram Singh, the informant came to learn about the said incident on the next day. In relation to the said incident a First Information Report was lodged by Ram Singh PW-5 at 6.30 p.m. on 7.5.1983 in the Police Station Dhar. The appellants herein with Harisingh and Kusum were chargesheeted under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case thereafter was committed to the Court of Sessions. Before the learned Sessions Judge, 17 witnesses were examined on behalf of the p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 457

IMPORTANT POINTWhere case is based on circumstantial evidence, pieces of circumstances, however strong may be, all links in the chain must be proved.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
Where case is based on circumstantial evidence, pieces of circumstances, however strong may be, all links in the chain must be proved.