Back
2021 Supreme(Chh) 121
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, VIMLA SINGH KAPOOR, JJ.
Rakesh Yadav S/o Bhim Yadav @ Bhajau Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 489 of 2012
Decided On : 22-03-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Santosh Das, Mr. Pawan Ku. Kashyap.
For the Respondent: Mr. Anurag Verma.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 302, 304 IPC, 300 and 304-II - Evidence Act - Section 106 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313 – Offence of murder – Examination of accused - Appeal against conviction - Appellant was not happy with his wife and was doubting her character which led to frequent quarrel between them - Before date of incident there was a quarrel and deceased/wife left the house and went to live along with sister-in-law - On date of incident appellant/husband came there and took the wife back to the matrimonial house - Complaint of quarrel was being made by deceased time and again to her mother also and therefore, on that very day mother and sister both came to house of appellant - Appellant used to reside with his wife and minor child in upper floor of the house - She found appellant coming out with child and his cloths were seen stained with blood - PW-10 entered the room she found her sister lying in pool of blood - According to prosecution it is appellant who killed his wife by hammering her on vital parts with a heavy piece of stone resulting in multiple injuries, as many as 9 in number, some of which proved to be fatal - Dead-body was sent for postmortem after completion of inquest proceedings and in postmortem doctor found as many as 8 injuries and opinion was that death was due to excessive bleeding caused by multiple injuries and was opined to be homicidal in nature – Held, Quarrel between appellant/husband and deceased/wife and that was so much so that deceased had left house, she came to live along with sister-in-law and on the next day he coming downstairs with his cloths stained with blood and deceased having been found dead in room, are all incriminating circumstances - Postmortem report proved by doctor (PW-6) and his evidence clearly shows that deceased was bitterly beaten in a cruel manner with a heavy object, stone, so much so that she received as many as 9 injuries including some fatal injury resulting in excessive bleeding leading to death - Postmortem report, evidence of the doctor and his opinion that it was the homicidal death could not be substantially disputed - Accused having failed to explain injuries leading to death of his wife – Court could gather from the argument said submission is built up on prosecution story that appellant was doubting character of his wife and therefore, is pressing into service Exception 1 - Present is not a case where appellant found his wife in compromising position with a third person - Only evidence which has come is that appellant was doubting her character - Perhaps, this could be categorized as a provocation but certainly not a sudden provocation – Court do not find any good ground to interfere with judgment of conviction and order of sentence - Appeal is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.03.2012 passed by Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 170/2011, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- plus default stipulation.
2. The prosecution case is that the appellant was not happy with his wife and was doubting her character which led to frequent quarrel between them. According to the prosecution case, a day before the date of incident there was a quarrel and the deceased/wife left the house and went to live along with the sister-in-law. On the date of incident the appellant/husband came there and took the wife back to the matrimonial house. The complaint of quarrel was being made by the deceased time and again to her mother also and therefore, on that very day the mother and the sister both came to the house of the appellant. The appellant used to reside with his wife and minor child in the upper floor of the house. When the sister Kumari Manki Yadav (PW-10) went upstairs to meet her sister, she found the appellant coming out with the child and his cloths were seen stained with blood. When PW-10 entered the room she found her sister lying in pool of blood. According to the prosecution it is the appellant who killed his wife by hammering her on vital parts with a heavy piece of stone (used in the kitchen) resulting in multiple injuries, as many as 9 in number, some of which proved to be fatal.
3. The dead-body was sent for postmortem after completion of inquest proceedings and in the postmortem the doctor found as many as 8 injuries and the opinion was that the death was due to excessive bleeding caused by multiple injuries and was opined to be homicidal in nature. Upon completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed, the appellant denied charges and therefore, he was put to trial. The prosecution case was of circumstantial evidence of there being frequent quarrel between the husband and wife, wife leaving the matrimonial house a day before the incident, she being brought back to the house by the husband on the date of incident, sister of the deceased (PW-10) and other witnesses finding dead-body lying in pool of blood and the presence of the appellant with stained cloths worn by him. The motive as alleged by the prosecution was that the appellant was doubting the character of his wife - the deceased which ultimately led to murder.
4. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of incriminating circumstances and evidence appearing against him in the evidence led by the prosecution. While appellant denied those evidence and circumstances, he pleaded innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated. No defence witness was examined.
5. Relying upon the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court held that the appellant was guilty of commission of offence. This has given rise to the present appeal.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would argue that in the present case, the prosecution case rests only on circumstantial evidence as there is no eye-witness, therefore, the trial Court ought to have recorded a clear finding with regard to completion of chain of circumstances pointing only towards the guilty of the accused but the circumstantial evidence which has been led by the prosecution is not free from doubt and merely because the deceased happened to be the wife of the appellant it has been assumed that the appellant must have killed his wife. Learned counsel for the appellant would next argue that even if, the case of the prosecution is accepted that the appellant had assaulted, the criminal overt act as alleged on the appellant would not travel beyond the scope and ambit of Section 304 IPC because it is a case of exception of sudden and grave provocation. He would argue that even according to t
