Back
High Court of Madhya Pradesh
S.A.Dharmadhikari, Prakash Chandra Gupta, JJ.
ASHOK s/o TEJ MALVIYA – APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – RESPONDENT
Cri. Appeal No. 1172 of 2012
Decided On : 31-01-2023
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under section 302 of the IPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Circumstantial evidence - Extra-judicial confession - Motive to kill - Homicidal nature of death - Reliability of witnesses - Burden of proof - Conviction upheld
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under section 302 of the IPC for killing his wife, the deceased Pavitra Bai, by strangling her. The deceased had a love marriage with the appellant, who was aware of her inability to conceive. The relationship between the appellant and the deceased turned sour, leading to physical assaults on the deceased. On the day of the incident, the appellant was alone with the deceased at home, and the deceased was found dead with ante-mortem injuries. The appellant made extra-judicial confessions regarding the murder. The appellant denied the offence and claimed innocence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, based on medical evidence and witness statements. The court relied on circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's motive to kill the deceased, his presence at the scene, and the extra-judicial confessions. The court held that the burden of proof shifted to the appellant to provide a cogent explanation, which he failed to do. The court concluded that the appellant had committed murder with the intention to cause death, and upheld the conviction under section 302 of the IPC.
Issues: The issues involved the reliability of witness statements, the burden of proof, the admissibility of extra-judicial confessions, and the determination of the appellant's intention to cause death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles of circumstantial evidence, the burden of proof under section 106 of the Evidence Act, and the admissibility of extra-judicial confessions. The court also considered the appellant's motive to kill the deceased and the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the appellant.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upheld the conviction under section 302 of the IPC, and maintained the minimum sentence imposed on the appellant.
JUDGMENT PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA, J. : – Appellant has filed this appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the “Cr.P.C.”), against the judgment dated 9-8-2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dewas in S.T. No. 42/2012, whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 302 of the IPC (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”) and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of life.
2. It is admitted fact that the deceased Pavitra Bai was earlier married to a person, resident of village Babadiya. Prior to 3 years of the incident, Pavitra Bai and appellant had love marriage. Thereafter, deceased used to live with her husband/appellant at Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Dewas. Her father-in-law Tej Singh (PW/3) and mother-in-law Smt. Sugan Bai (PW/4) were also living with deceased and appellant in the same house, in which, the incident had taken place. At the time of marriage, family members of the deceased had told the appellant that the uterus of the deceased is small, and she will not be able to conceive child, even after knowing this fact, the appellant had married the deceased.
3. The facts lie in a short compass, which proceeds as, sister of deceased, Smt. Sushila Bai (PW/1) lives just 8-10 houses away from the house of deceased in Rajiv Gandhi Nagar. Appellant Ashok was a labour, and deceased used to work in nursing home. The relation between appellant and deceased were not cordial, and they used to fight usually. 1 year post-marriage, the appellant started physically assaulting the deceased. Before the incident, the deceased had consumed poison on Diwali, for which she was admitted to Mahatma Gandhi District Hospital, Dewas. On the date of incident, i.e. on 21-12-2011 in the evening, appellant Ashok and deceased were alone at home, at that time, Tej Singh (PW/3) and Sugan Bai (PW/4) had gone to sell fruits, and they returned home at around 10:00 PM. Then appellant had told them that he killed the deceased Pavitra Bai by strangling her neck with dupatta. Tej Singh (PW/3) and Sugan Bai (PW/4) saw that, deceased was lying dead on bed. Tej Singh (PW/3) called Smt. Sushila Bai (PW/1) and maternal aunt (mousi), Guddi Bai (PW/6) and told them about the incident. Sushila Bai (PW/1), Guddi Bai (PW/6) and maternal uncle (mousa) of deceased Girdhari Lal (PW/2) went to the house of the deceased and saw that Pavitra Bai was lying dead on the bed present in the middle room. There was blackish mark on her neck. On being asked by Giridhari Lal (PW/2), the appellant told him that he strangled the neck of the deceased with her dupatta and killed her. Appellant killed the deceased as she was not able to conceive child. Thereafter, Sushila Bai (PW/1) went to Police Station Dewas along with Giridhari Lal (PW/2) and intimated the incident to the police. On the basis of this intimation, S.I. R.P. Tiwari (PW/10) lodged an FIR (Ex.P/1) against the appellant and also registered merg intimation (Ex.P/13).
4. During investigation S.I. R.P. Tiwari (PW/10) sent a letter (Ex.P/14) to Naib Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate to conduct Lash Panchnama of the deceased. On 22-12-2011, Naib Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate, Smt. Darshini Singh (PW/7) went to mortuary room in the District Hospital, Dewas. She gave notice (Ex.P/3) to the witnesses and prepared Lash Panchnama (Ex.P/4). Inspector Abdul Jabbar Khan (PW/11) wrote a letter (Ex.P/12A) to the doctor of district hospital for post-mortem. On 22-12-2011 at 10:20 AM, Dr. R. K. Sharma (PW/9) conducted post-mortem and gave post-mortem report (Ex.P/12). On the same day at 12:00 AM, Inspector B.P.S. Parihar (PW/12) inspected the place of incident and prepared a spot map (Ex.P/2) at the instance of Smt. Sushila Bai (PW/1). On 23-12-2011 at 09:15 AM, Inspector Abdul Jabbar Khan (PW/11), arrested the appellant vide arrest memo (Ex.P/10). On the same day at 09:45 AM, he recorded disclosure statement of the appellant vide disclosure memo (Ex.P/11) and at 10:30 AM he recovered a d
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence, the shift of burden of proof to the appellant, and the admissibility of extra-judicial confessions in esta....
The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and condu....
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : R. P. Gupta For the Respondent : C. P. Singh
Circumstantial evidence must establish a complete chain of guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so warrants acquittal.
In order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the gui....
Criminal Law – Offence of Murder - Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge - Prosecution has succeeded in establishing other circumstances in chain raising a strong presumption of guilt ag....
The court relied on circumstantial evidence, the credibility of witnesses, and the nature of the injuries to establish the guilt of the accused under IPC 302.
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
