1997 Supreme(MP) 402

S.K. Dubey and Rajeev Gupta, JJ.
Manik Rao v. State of M.P.
Cr. Appeal No. 729 of 1988 (J); Decided on 15.7.1997.

Headnote:Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 302 -- husband and wife sleeping in one room -- wife died a homicidal death inside the room -- incriminating circumstance i.e. presence of husband with deceased wife is enough to hold him guilty.

       naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 302 & ifr vkSj iRuh dk ,d&gh dejs esa ‘k;u & iRuh dh dejs ds Hkhrj ekuo o/k e`R;q & Q¡lkus okyh ifjfLFkfr vFkkZr~ e`rd iRuh ds lkFk ifr dh mifLFkfr mls nks"kh vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd, tkus ds fy, i;kZIr gSA

        Brief facts of the case, relevant for deciding this appeal, are that accused Manik Rao used to reside with his wife Durga Bai (since deceased), three children and his parents in his house in village Tahli, District Betul. In the intervening night of 11-12.3.87, accused Manik Rao and his wife, Durga Bai, had gone inside their room for sleeping. Their children and parents were sleeping outside the house. In the late night, at about 2.00, cries of Durga Bai were heard from her room. Anand Rao, father of accused Manik Rao, knocked repeatedly at the door of his room. After sometime, accused Manik Rao opened the door, and his father and other members of the family found Durga Bai lying dead on a cot, inside the room. Accused Manik Rao, who was armed with an axe, threw the same and came out of the room. Accused Manik Rao made an extra-judicial confession to village Kotwar Pyarelal, and village Patel Dhondhya, to have committed the murder of his wife Durga Bai. Village Kotwar Pyarelal lodged the First Information Report at police station Chicholi, District Betul. On post-mortem examination, as many as 10 incised wounds were found on the body of deceased Durga Bai. In the opinion of the Autopsy Surgeon, Durga Bai died a homicidal death due to acute haemorrhagic shock. Police Chicholi, after completing the investigation, filed charge-sheet against the accused for the alleged commission of an offence, punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

        Held : True, there in no eye-witness of the alleged commission of murder of Durga Bai. It is also true that most of the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, and were declared hostile. The trial Court found appellant Manik Rao guilty of the offence of murder, on the basis of the incriminating circumstances found proved against him.

        Now, we shall examine the circumstances found proved by the trial Court against the appellant. It is not in dispute that appellant Manik Rao used to reside with his wife Durga Bai, in his house, in village Tahli. From the evidence contained in para 2, of the statement, of Anand Rao (PW/3), father of appellant Manik Rao, it is established that on the fateful night, after hearing the cries of Durga Bai, Anand Rao had asked appellant Manik Rao to open the door, and on the door being opened, he found his daughter-in-law Durga Bai lying dead inside the house. From the above evidence, it is established that in the fateful night, appellant Manik Rao was along with his wife Durga Bai, inside the room. From the evidence, led by the prosecution, it is further established that as many as 18 external injuries were found on the body of deceased Durga Bai, and she had died a homicidal death inside the room of her husband.

        It is now settled that in a case, resting on circumstantial evidence alone, if it is established that the wife had died a homicidal death inside the house of her husband, and at the time of alleged death the husband alone was inside the house, then the absence of any explanation, or the falsity of the explanation, put forth by the accused husband would be an added incriminating circumstance, for holding the accused/husband guilty of the commission of the murder of his wife.

        The trial Court has rightly not accepted the defence of appellant Manik Rao, that he was not inside the house on the fateful night and was sleeping with his son Dhanraj in his field. At the first place, the appellant has not examined his son Dhanraj, for proving his defence. Consequently, the categorical statement of Anand Rao (PW/3) about the presence of appellant Manik Rao inside the house in the fateful night, completely demolishes the appellants defence of plea of alibi.

        The explanation given by the appellant having been found false, and the incriminating circumstance that the appellant alone was with his wife Durga Bai, inside the room, and Durga Bai died a homicidal death inside the room of her husband, the conclusion is irresistible that it was the appellant and appellant alone, who had committed murder of his wife Durga Bai, and we have no hesitation in holding so. The trial Court, in our opinion, has rightly convicted appellant Manik Rao for an offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for having committed the murder of his wife, Durga Bai. From the number and nature of the injuries, found on the body of deceased Durga Bai, we have no manner of doubt that appellant Manik Rao, while causing as many as 18 incised wounds on his wife, intended to commit her murder. His act, therefore, would not amount to anything which may fall short of murder, punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. We are, therefore, of the view that there is no scope for any interference in this appeal.

        For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by appellant Manik Rao fails and is hereby dismissed in toto.