Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2008 Supreme(SC) 1609

2008(7) Supreme 460
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Mula Devi & Anr. — Appellants
versus
State of Uttarakhand — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1722 of 2008
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 3444/2008)
Decided on : 04-11-08

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Fakhruddin Sr. Adv., A.K. Gopalan and Ashok Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
While dealing with circumstantial evidence, onus is on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 34 of and Section 201 IPC – Prosecution of accused appellants mother in law and sister in law of deceased for causing her death by strangulating her – Prosecution case that thereafter kerosene oil was poured over body of deceased and it was set on fire to conceal the fact of murder of deceased – Conviction by Trial Court – Appeal – Dismissed by High Court – Appeal – The circumstances highlighted by trial court to fasten guilt on appellants were that it was established on record that deceased was daughter-in-law and sister in law of accused appellants and she used to live with them – It was established on record from statement of P.W. 1, uncle of deceased and P.W.3, father of deceased that accused appellants used to harass deceased, and whenever she visited her parental house she always expressed apprehension that she might be killed on any day by them – It was established on record from medical evidence that cause of death of deceased was asphyxia as a result of ante mortem strangulation – It was established from the oral evidence that there were burn injuries on the body of the deceased that the burn injuries were postmortem – It was also established on record that incident had occurred inside the house where accused and deceased used to live – No case of defence that anyone else was there in the house at that juncture – No FIR was lodged regarding death of deceased from side of the accused – None of the circumstances presented a complete chain of circumstances to implicate the accused appellants – Circumstances referred to by trial court and abrupt conclusions arrived at by trial court and High Court did not justify conviction of appellants – Hence, conviction of accused appellants could not be sustained – Appeal allowed. (Paras 6, 7, 17 and 18)
       Facts of the Case :
        1. Accused appellants mother in law and sister in law of deceased were prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing her death by strangulating her. Prosecution case that thereafter kerosene oil was poured over body of deceased and it was set on fire to conceal the fact of murder of deceased . Trial Court convicted accused appellants for said offence. Appeal thereagainst was dismissed by High Court.
        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        The circumstances highlighted by trial court to fasten guilt on appellants were that it was established on record that deceased was daughter-in-law of and sister in law of accused appellants and she used to live with them. It was established on record from statement of P.W. 1, uncle of deceased and P.W.3, father of deceased that accused appellants used to harass deceased, and whenever she visited her parental house she always expressed apprehension that she might be killed on any day by them.It was established on record from medical evidence that cause of death of deceased was asphyxia as a result of ante mortem strangulation. It was established from the oral evidence that there were burn injuries on the body of the deceased that the burn injuries were postmortem. It was also established on record that incident had occurred inside the house where accused and deceased used to live. No case of defence that anyone else was there in the house at that juncture. No FIR was lodged regarding death of deceased from side of the accused. None of the circumstances presented a complete chain of circumstances to implicate the accused appellants. Circumstances referred to by trial court and abrupt conclusions arrived at by trial court and High Court did not justify conviction of appellants. Hence , conviction of accused appellants could not be sustained. Appeal allowed.
       Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) and Section 201 IPC. However, the appeal of the co-accused Dayal Singh, who was convicted for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, was allowed.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Puola Devi (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) daughter of PW 3 Amar Singh was married to Kamal Singh, son of accused Dayal Singh in Village Jaikot, District Tehri Garhwal. Accused / appellant Mula Devi is mother-in-law and accused / appellant Rajmati is sister-in-law of the deceased. Puola Devi, always complained about the harassment being made to her by the accused/appellants whenever she visited her parental house. She often told that her in-laws used to ask her to give her jewellery to them else they would kill her. On 30.05.1990, Amar Singh (P.W.3) (father of the deceased), who used to work in Delhi, received a message there that his daughter Puola Devi has died. On the next day, at about 5.00 P.M, he proceeded for his home Village Kulpi, District Tehri Garhwal, and reached there on 01.06.1990. He went to the Patwari and came to know that dead body of his daughter has already been taken to Narendra Nagar. It needs to be noted that in the interior hills of Uttarkhand, certain Revenue Officials are given the police powers. Meanwhile, Lal Singh (P.W.1), uncle of the deceased, had already lodged the first information report on 30th of May 1990, after he received information that Puola Devi had died in her in-laws house. In the first information report (Ext. A-1), , Lal Singh (P.W.1) had mentioned that Puola Devi was married to son of Dayal Singh in Village Jaikot, where she used to get harassment at the hands of her in-laws. He had also stated in his report that whenever Puola Devi used to come to her parental village she complained of the harassment meted out to her by the accused / appellants. She had apprehended that she would be killed in her in-laws house. Lal Singh (P.W.1) at the end of the first information report expressed suspicion that after committing murder of his niece Puola Devi, kerosene oil was poured over her body and it was set on fire to conceal the fact of murder. On the basis of the first information report, Crime No.02 of 1990 was registered against all the three accused persons under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC by Patti Patwari, Baman Gaon. The dead body of the deceased was taken into possession by Kapur Singh Payal (P.W.5), Patwari, who initially investigated the crime. He prepared the check report (Ext. A-3) on the basis of the first information report received from Lal Singh and made necessary entry in the general diary, copy of extract of which is Ext. A-4. He inspected the spot, took the dead body in his possession, prepared the inquest report (Ext. A -2) and other necessary papers including sketch of the dead body (Ext. A -6), police form No. 13 (Ext. A-7), sample of seal (Ext. A-8). He also prepared the site plan (Ext. A-5). The dead body was sent for postmortem examination. Dr. P.P. Raturi (P.W.7) Medical Officer, Narendra Nagar conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Puola Devi on 01.06.1990, at 10:00 A.M., and prepared the postmortem examination report (Ext. A-11). The cause of death in the opinion of the Medical Officer was asphyxia as a result of ante mortem strangulation. He also found postmortem burn injuries. Subsequently, the investigation was taken up by, Bachchan Singh (P.W.6), Patwari, who further interrogated the witnesses and arrested the accused persons. After completion of the investigation, he submitted charge sheet (Ext.A -10) against all the three accused for their trial in respect of the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 IPC.

Since the accused persons pl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2008 Supreme(SC) 1609

2008(7) Supreme 460SUPREME COURT OF INDIADr. Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.Mula Devi & Anr. — AppellantsversusState of Uttarakhand — RespondentCriminal Appeal No. 1722 of 2008(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 3444/2008)Decided on : 04-11-08

IMPORTANT POINT While dealing with circumstantial evidence, onus is on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea.

Cases Referred (14)

2008(7) Supreme 460
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Mula Devi & Anr. — Appellants
versus
State of Uttarakhand — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1722 of 2008
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 3444/2008)
Decided on : 04-11-08

IMPORTANT POINT
While dealing with circumstantial evidence, onus is on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea.