1985 Supreme(MP) 266

P. D. Mulye, J.
Naharsingh v. State of M. P.
Cr. A. No. 110 of 1982 (I); Decided on 9-4-1985.

Headnote:(1) Evidence Act. 1872-Ss. 3 and 8-case depending upon circumstantial evidence-conduct of accused is material circumstance.

       

        (2) Penal Code. 1860-S. 201-offence not proved beyond reasonable doubt-accused entitled to an acquittal.

       

        (3) Penal Code. 1860-S. 201-offence under-two years R. I. is sufficient.

       

        Admittedly. there are no eye witnesses to the crime. The conviction of the appellant is based entirely on circumstantial evidence which have been narrated by the learned trial Court and on that basis has found the appellants guilty. Hence this appeal.

       

        The learned counsel for the appellants. after taking me through the evidence submitted that admittedly there are no eye witnesses to the incident. He further submitted that from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses P.W.1 Badrilal and P.W.2 Sangram Singh it is clear that it is appellant Naharsingh who suo motu sent his son Nagu Singh to inform the chowkidar that his daughter-in law Premkunwar Bai had died as a result of snake bite and that a report to that effect be lodged at the police station. He, therefore. submitted that from this evidence it cannot be inferred that the said appellant had given deliberately a false statement to create an impression that Permkunwar Bai had died of snake bite. He. therefore. submitted that only on the basis of the evidence of these two eye witnesses the conviction of appellant Nahar Singh for an offence under section 201 IPC is not justified. He, therefore, submitted that at least on this point appellant Naharsingh is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

       

        As regards appellant No.2, learned counsel for the appellants subn1itted that the learned trial Court has based his conviction merely on circumstantial evidence. The learned trial Court did not believe the appellants case that on the relevant night he did not sleep in his house with his wife, but was sleeping outside in the chowk The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that even according to the evidence of P. W.5 Sukhrajsingh and P.W.6 Kamal Singh, it is clear that often a quarrel used to take place between the mother-in law and the daughter-in law and, therefore, when the mother-in-law Was also staying in the same house and who has been acquitted, the learned trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellant alone simply because the deceased happened to be his wife. He further submitted that P.W.5 Sukhraj has turned hostile. Therefore, his evidence should not have been implicitly relied upon. So far as P. W. 6 Kamalsingh is concerned, he submitted that a dispute between a mother-in law and a father-In-law is a common feature of the day and even if this witness has heard cries of the daughter-in law, on that basis no such inference could be drawn that the deceased must have been done away with especially when the other accused persons have been acquitted of that offence. He, therefore, submitted that the circumstantial evidence taken into consideration by the learned trial Court is not so convincing and not so interlinked on the basis of which a conviction could stand. Further, according to the learned counsel the only evidence worth considering is that of the doctor who found several injuries on the person of Permkunwar Bai. But who caused those injuries is again the real question. Therefore, even though strong suspicion could be raised against appellant Vikram-Singh, that cannot take the place of proof as the prosecution is bound to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

       

        Held: The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant on some points may have some force, being quite attractive. But the learned trial Court has considered the conduct of appellant Vikramsmgh and has carefully taken into consideration all the relevant circumstances which have been linked together, and thereafter ultimately came to the conclusion that the case against appellant No.2 Vikram Singh has been satisfactorily proved. I am, therefore unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for appellant that Vikarmsingh was such an innocent person that he learnt about the death of his wife when he was a way in his field. He has not assigned any reason as to why on that night instead of sleeping in the room with his wife he slept in the chowk outside the house which story appears somewhat unnatural and a got up one. It is also in evidence that even his relations with his Wife were not cordial and far from satisfactory and, therefore, all the circumstances taken together has been properly considered by the learned trial Court in arriving at a definite conclusion and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to differ from the conclusion reached so far as appellant No.2 Vikram Singh is concerned.

       

        In the result, this appeal succeeds partly. The conviction of appellant No.1 Naharsingh and the sentence awarded to him there under for an offence under section 201 IPC is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge by giving him the benefit of doubt. The bail bond furnished by him shall stand discharged.

       

        So far as appellant No.2 Vikramsingh is concerned, I am of opinion that his conviction has to be affirmed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of R. I. for five years awarded to him appears to be heavy and the same is reduced to R. I. for 2 (two) years. Appeal partly allowed.