Important Point
Where entire circumstances suggested that it was not a case of suicide or accidental death but was a homicide and accused and deceased alone stayed together and only defence of alibi was found not acceptable conviction on basis of circumstantial evidence was justified.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302—Murder—Appeal against acquittal—Deceased wife of accused died out of extensive burn injuries—Allegation that accused beaten up deceased and set her on fire—No direct evidence—Circumstantial evidence—Accused ill-treating deceased on ground of insufficient dowry—Delay in communicating death to parents of deceased—Complaint of father of deceased that deceased died in suspicious circumstances and deceased killed her—Only defence of plea of alibi that at material time accused was out of Station—No material to support plea—Accused and deceased alone resided together—Dead body lay in middle of cot—Broken bangles found lying in verandah—Neigbours evidence proved ill-treatment—Circumstances proved it was a case of homicide and not suicide nor accidental death—Not even a probable case made out to prove plea of alibi—Conviction by trial Court rejecting plea of alibi justified—High Court not correct in accepting plea of alibi and acquitting accused—Conviction restored. (Paras 11 to 17)
Result : Appeal allowed.

Judgment

Kurdukar, J. — The respondent - Mahavir (accused) was tried for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for causing the death of his wife - Radha. The couple was staying in the matrimonial home at Bikaner. It is the case of the prosecution that the respondent was all along ill-treating his wife Radha since deceased on the ground that sufficient dowry was not given to him.

2. The incident in question took place during the night intervening between November 23 and 24, 1982 at the residence of the respondent. According to the prosecution, the respondent after beating Radha, poured kerosene on her and then set her on fire. Radha died during the same night due to extensive burn injuries on her person.

3. On the following day, one Chattur Bhuj, brother of the respondent went to the father of the deceased to inform him about the death of Radha.

4. The parents of the deceased came to the village and lodged a report that Radha died in suspicious circumstances. It appears that no investigation was properly done and therefore on 28.11.1982, a complaint was lodged by the father of the deceased alleging that Radha was killed by the respondent. It is on this basis the investigation proceeded further. In the post-mortem examination, it was noted that the deceased had sustained extensive burn injuries and she died because of these injuries.

5. The trial proceeded against the respondent. The prosecution examined many witnesses including the neighbours and the relatives of the deceased.

6. The defence of the respondent was that he was out of town and had gone to see his ailing maternal grandmother at Deshnok. He returned to Bikaner only on 24.11.1982 when he received a message that his wife died because of burn injuries. Thus, the plea taken by the respondent was of an alibi.

7. The trial Court relying upon the various circumstances held that each circumstances was conclusively proved by the prosecution and all these proved circumstances complete the chain. The only inference from all these circumstances is that the respondent alone was responsible for causing the death of Radha. The trial Court did not accept the plea of alibi, set up by the respondent. Resultantly, the trial Court by its judgment and order dated 21.10.1987 held the respondent guilty for committing the murder of his wife - Radha and convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. The trial Court also directed the respondent to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year.

8. The respondent aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction filed an appeal to the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court on reappraisal of the evidence did not agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court and held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish that the respondent committed the murder of Radha. Consistent with this finding, the High Court acquitted the respondent. It is against this judgment and order of acquittal dated March 5, 1990 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, the State has preferred this appeal.

9. Mr. Bhati, learned counsel appearing in support of this appeal, took us through the judgments of both the courts below as well as the oral and documentary evidence on record. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the High Court had failed to consider the evidence of various other witnesses, namely, Hanuman - P.W. 3, Shankar Lal - P.W. 4 and Shiv Kumar - P.W. 5. Learned counsel urged that since the High Court had failed to consider the evidence of material witnesses, the judgment is unsustainable. He then urged that the High Court has failed to consider various circumstances which were conclusively established by the prosecution.

10. Countering these submissions, learned Advocate for the respondent urged that this being an appeal against an order of acquittal, this court should not interfere with the order of acquittal. Strong reliance was sought

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Important PointWhere entire circumstances suggested that it was not a case of suicide or accidental death but was a homicide and accused and deceased alone stayed together and only defence of alibi was found not acceptable conviction on basis of circumstantial evidence was justified.

Important Point
Where entire circumstances suggested that it was not a case of suicide or accidental death but was a homicide and accused and deceased alone stayed together and only defence of alibi was found not acceptable conviction on basis of circumstantial evidence was justified.