Back
1996 Supreme(MP) 263
S.B. Sakrikar, D Shukla J.
Onkar Singh And Anr.
vs
State Of M.P.
DECIDED ON : 7 March, 1996
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on autopsy evidence and circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the appellants for the homicidal death of the deceased and the attempt to destroy evidence.
Headnote:
Conviction - Homicide - Sections 302, 201 IPC - [302, 201 IPC] - The court found the appellants guilty of causing the homicidal death of the deceased and attempting to destroy the evidence by burning the body. The conviction under Section 302 IPC for appellant No. 1 was upheld, while the conviction under Section 302 IPC for appellant No. 2 was set aside, but the conviction under Section 201 IPC was upheld.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the homicidal death of the deceased Mery, who was found burning in the house of appellant No. 1. The prosecution presented evidence indicating that the death was not accidental or suicidal, but a result of throttling, and the body was burnt to destroy evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found appellant No. 1 guilty of causing the homicidal death of his wife, while appellant No. 2's conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside. However, appellant No. 2's conviction under Section 201 IPC was upheld.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellants were responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased and the subsequent attempt to destroy evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of the autopsy, which indicated throttling as the cause of death, and the circumstances surrounding the burning of the body to establish the guilt of the appellants.
Final Decision: The appeal of appellant No. 1 was dismissed, upholding the conviction under Section 302 IPC, while the appeal of appellant No. 2 was partly allowed, setting aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC but upholding the conviction under Section 201 IPC.
S.B. Sakrikar, J.
1. The appellants have directed this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8th February, 1990, rendered by II Additional Sessions Judge, Alirajpur in S.T. No. 267/88, thereby convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302/201 IPC and sentencing them for life imprisonment and five years RI respectively and further ordering to run these sentences concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that appellant No.l Onkarsingh was residing in village Ambua together with his wife deceased Mery Rawat, in a Government Quarter. Onkarsingh was employed in the Government Hospital, Ambua as a Computer In-charge, and his wife deceased Mery was also working in the P.H.C. Ambua on the post of Lady Health Visitor .It is stated that appellant Onkar had illicit relations with appellant No. 2 Bayatibai, who was daughter of one Sajjansingh Chouhan, who was working as a driver in the Hospital at Ambua. It is stated that due to illicit relations with Bayatibai, appellant No. 2, the relations between the accused/appellant and deceased Mery Rawat became strained. On 2nd Oct., 1988 in the morning at about 6.00, some of the villagers saw burning flames and smoke coming out of the house of the appellant No.l Onkarsingh. The villagers and employees of the Health Department residing in the vicinity, rushed to the house of Onkarsingh. It is stated that doors were closed from inside of the house. When the doors were opened both the appellants were found present in side the house. On being asked, appellant Onkarsingh informed Dr. Gehlot (PW1) and other witnesses stated that his wife died due to burning. The witnesses found that body of deceased Mery was burning in the inner side of the house Dr. Gehlot (PW 1) informed the Police, Ambua about the incident on the basis of which, Merg report Exh.P/9 was written at Police Station, Ambua. Police Ambua immediately reached the place of incident and prepared the inquest report of the dead body of the deceased. Photographs of the dead body were also taken. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination at P.H.C., Ambua where Dr. R.N. Mandwaria alongwith his colleagues Dr. (Mrs.) Pratima Mukherjee and Dr. B.R. Khangar, conducted the autopsy and submitted post-mortem report, Exh. P/2.
3. On receipt of post-mortem report, it was found that deceased Mery died of Asphyxia as a result of throttling. Doctor opined that death was homicidal in nature. On receipt of post-mortem-report, offence was registered against the appellants under Sections 302, 201 IPC. During the course of investigations, Police Ambua recorded the statements of relevant witnesses and on completion of investigations, challan was filed against the accused/appellants in the Court of JMFC, Alirajpur. Trial Judge framed the charges against accused/appellants Under Sections 302 in the alternative 302/34, 306 and 201 IPC. Onkarsingh was also charged Under Section 498A IPC. On the basis of evidence, produced on behalf of prosecution, the trial Judge found both the appellants guilty for the of fences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced them as above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants have filed this appeal.
4. We have heard Mr. Amarsingh learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. K.K.Gupta learned Government Advocate for respondent/State.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that there is no eye witness of the incident. The facts and circumstances emerged from the evidence of the prosecution, indicate that the decased Mery died as a result of some accident or she has committed suicide and, therefore, the trial Judge has committed an error in holding the appellants guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 IPC. It is also contended on behalf of appellant No. 2 Bayatibai that from the evidence available on record, no case under Sections 302, 201 IPC is made out against the
