Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.M. KASLIWAL AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.
GANESHLAL
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Criminal Appeal No. 732 of 1991{From the Judgment and Order dated October 30, 1991 of the Bombay High Court of Judicature in Criminal Appeal No. 215 of 1987}, decided on April 10, 1992
Advocates appeared :
U.P. Lalit and R.K. Jain, Senior Advocates (Ms Makarand D. Adkar, Jamshed Bey and Ms V.D. Khanna, Advocates, with them) for the Appellant;
V.V. Vaze, Senior Advocate (S.M. Jadhav, Advocate, with him) for the Respondent.
Held: The normal ordinary human conduct would be that when one of their inmates, namely Kanchana was in flames, they would have made every endeavour to save her life, if it were a case of suicide, and call the people to come to their rescue to save her life or at least would have sought first aid from P.W. 6, who is next door neighbour, to save the life of the deceased. No such attempt was made nor even attempted. On the other hand the appellants earliest attempt was to misguide that Kanchana died due to short circuit. This attempt was burried fathom deep from the evidence of P.W. 10, Elect. Engr. Then set up the plea of suicide. We have Ex. 73, the First Information Report, immediately lodged by A6 with the police. We need not go into the question as to what extent the admission by a co-accused would be used against the appellant. Suffice it to state that in his examination under section 313, Cr. P.C., the appellant admitted that A6 went to the police station and gave F.I.R. Ex. 73, to the Head Constable, P.W. 11 and that A6 stated that the deceased caught fire while she was handling the wet clothes for drying, due to short circuit. In Ex. 73, it was also stated that this information was conveyed by the appellant himself. This admission is not only a relevant fact under section 8 of Evidence Act as res gestae but a most important circumstance against the appellant. The indifferent and hard hearted conduct are also important circumstances. It was also admitted that the walls in the room became blackish due to smoke. It is settled law that the conduct of an accused in an offence previous and subsequent to the crime are relevant facts. Absence of any attempt to save the life of the deceased Kanchana while she was burning and was charred to death, their conduct in not attempting to give any medical aid, the conduct of the appellant immediately after the deceased was soaked with kerosene and litting fire after closing the door, A6 obviously opened it after ensuring that she had died, the appellants coming down and standing at the grill gate on ground floor; the appellant shouted that uncle A6 should close down falsely proclaimed that there was short circuit; implying to scare away the people from attempting to save Kanchana. These are most telling and relevant crucial facts apart from repulsive inhuman conduct. The false plea of suicide is yet another relevant fact. When the death had occurred in their custody the appellant is under an obligation in section 313 Cr. P.C. statement at least to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death. No such attempt was even made excepting denying the prosecution case. These facts completely are inconsistent with the innocence, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of gruesome murder of his wife. The circumstantial evidence thus discussed is complete and consistent with the only conclusion that the inmates alone committed the crime and the appellant was one among them. (Para 10)
JUDGMENT
K. RAMASWAMY, J.- This appeal is under Section 2 of Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Jurisdiction Act, 1970. The appellant along with his parents, sister, maternal uncle and uncles daughter were charged for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Sections 201 & 203 read with Section 34 IPC of the murder of his wife Kanchana. In S.T. No. 125 of 1984, the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola by judgment dated February 10, 1987 acquitted all of them. On appeal, the appellant alone was convicted under Section 302 and Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and three years respectively by judgment dated October 30, 1991 of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur.
2. The material facts that lie in short compass are thus:
Kanchana was married to the appellant in the year 1975. In course of time the appellants father became rich, while her parentss family remained poor leading to constant humiliation. The sister of Kanchana, Vanmala, PW 5, was also married in the same village, Mangrulpir. On September 3, 1983, PW 5 went to the deceased family at about 10.00 to 10.15 a.m. and invited the mother-in-law of the deceased and Kanchana to attend "Teej" function in her house for which the mother-in-law refused to accept the invitation and also did not permit Kanchana to attend the function which resulted in exchange of words etc. When she was coming out, she heard abuses against the deceased and somebody being beaten. After extending invitations to two or three people when she came back home and was entering her house, PW 9, her maid servant came running and told her that Kanchana was dead. Thereafter she gave information to her father, PW 4, and others at Amravati. A-6, maternal uncle of the appellant, went to the Police Station and lodged First Information Report, Ex. 73, that while Kanchana was drying wet clothes on the top floor, there was short circuit in the house resulting in her death. Mohanlal PW 4, on receipt of the news reached the appellants house at Mangrulpir at about 4.00 p.m. On seeing the condition of the dead body he too laid complaint of murder. In the meanwhile the police registered the crime. The police reached the spot at about 12.50 p.m. A.S.I. Jadhao, PW 14 along with Head Constable Sharma, PW 11, conducted investigation. He drew the Panchanama, Ex. 65, the scene of offence, attested by PW 7 and another. He recovered the burnt articles, ornaments etc. and sent the body for autopsy. It was further investigated by S.I., PW 15. Subsequently, it was entrusted to the C.I.D. and PW 16, Kshir Sagar conducted the investigation and laid the charge-sheet. It may be relevant to state at this stage that initially the crime was registered under Section 306 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Later it was converted and the charges were framed by the Sessions Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C.
3. The prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of PW 4 and PW 5 to prove motive for the crime. PW 6, the Compounder and PW 8, tea-stall owner, PW 9, maid servant of PW 5 to prove the conduct of the accused together with the medical evidence and also chemical examiners report. It also relied on the report Ex. 73 lodged by A-6. The case rests on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied on by the prosecution are as follows:
4. The motive, namely the affluent circumstance of the accused party, the relative poor financial position leading to ill treatment of Kanchana. The treatment meted out to Kanchana in the presence of Vanmala, followed by beating. PW 9, maid servant informing of the death. PW 6 spoke of the appellants conduct, corroborated by PW 8, of standing at the grill gate, which is the only entry into the house and preventing the people to go into the house stating that there was a short circuit and to save them; indifferent attitude of the in-laws and other inmates and keeping mum, their leaving the deceased alone in the third floor in flames; emitting of ker
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
