1997 Supreme(MP) 403

S.K. Dubey and Rajeev Gupta, JJ.
Khunnu v. State of M.P.
Cr. Appeal No. 717 of 1988 (J); Decided on 15.7.1997.

Headnote:(1) Evidence Act, 1972 -- S. 3 -- husband and wife residing in same house -- wife found murdered -- incident not explained by husband -- it is a strong circumstance against husband.

        (2) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 302 -- husband and wife residing in same house -- wife murdered -- incident not explained by husband -- husband rightly convicted.

        ¼1½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 3 & ifr vkSj iRuh dk ,d&gh ?kj esa fuokl & iRuh dh gR;k & ?kVuk dk ifr }kjk Li"Vhdj.k ugha & ;g ifr ds fo:) ÁHkkoh ifjfLFkfr gSA

        ¼2½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 302 & ifr vkSj iRuh dk ,d&gh ?kj esa fuokl & iRuh dh gR;k & ?kVuk dk ifr }kjk Li"Vhdj.k ugha & ifr Bhd&gh fl)nks"k Bgjk;k x;kA

        Brief facts of the case, relevant for deciding this appeal, are that Bisso Bai (since deceased) was residing in the house of her husband, accused Khunnu, in village Jakhali, District Betul. Nanhu (PW 8) noticed some blood stains on the shirt of accused Khunnu in the evening of 5.8.87, informed the same to village Kotwar Sitaram. On a querry about the blood stains on his shirt, accused Khunnu confessed to have murdered his wife Bisso Bai. Thereupon Sitaram and Rohidas went inside the house of accused Khunnu and found the dead body of Bisso Bai. Sitaram, therefore, reported the matter to police Shahpur. On post-mortem examination, four external injuries were found on the body of Bisso Bai. Fracture of her temporal bone was also found. In the opinion of the Autopay Surgeon, Bisso Bai had died due to the head injury. During the course of investigation, accused Khunnu was arrested and in pursuance to his information given under section 27, of the Evidence Act, one Basula (the alleged weapon of offence) was seized. After completing the investigation, Police Shahpur filed charge-sheet against accused Khunnu for the alleged commission of the offence under section 302; of the IPC.

        Held : Now, we shall examine the circumstances found proved by the trial Court against the appellant. Appellant Khunnu and his wife Bisso Bai used to reside in the same house, and appellant Khunnu was alone inside the house alongwith his wife, Bisso Bai, on the fateful day, is not in dispute. It is in the evidence of Sitaram (PW 2) that on finding blood stains on the shirt of Khunnu, he inquired from him about the source of these blood stains, whereupon Khunnu started weaping. It is further in the evidence that immediately thereafter Sitaram (PW 1) found the dead body of Bisso Bai inside the appellants house. The appellant does not appear to have given any explanation to Sitaram, about the injuries sustained by his wife, Bisso Bai. No such explanation has been given by the appellant even at the time of his examination under section 313, of the Cr.P.C. It is, therefore, clear that the appellant has not come out with any positive case for explaining the manner and the circumstances in which deceased Bisso Bai sustained these injuries, inside the appellants house.

        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.

        Now, coming to the facts of the present case, it has been found proved by us that appellants wife Bisso Bai died a homicidal death inside the house of appellant Khunnu, resulting from the injuries found on her body. The appellant neither on his own, nor on a querry from Sitaram (PW 1), had given any explanation about the injuries found on the body of his wife, Bisso Bai. It has not been the case of appellant Khunnu, at any stage, that he was not present inside the house at the time of the alleged assault of his wife Bisso Bai. Therefore, the appellant, alone being inside the house with his wife, is bound to explain as to how his wife Bisso Bai sustained the injuries found on her body. The failure on the part of appellant Khunnu to explain the injuries found on the body of his wife, Bisso Bai, is another incriminating circumstance, indicating towards his guilt.

        From the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that it was the appellant and appellant alone who had caused injuries to his wife Bisso Bai, resulting in her death. From the number and nature of the injuries, found on the body of Bisso Bai, we have no manner of doubt that the appellant, while causing those injuries on his wife, intended to commit her murder. Therefore, the act of appellant Khunnu, in causing those injuries on his wife Bisso Bai, would not amount to anything less than murder and is, therefore, punishable under section 302, of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court, in our opinion, has rightly convicted appellant Khunnu under section 302, of the Indian Penal Code, and we do not find any scope for interference in this appeal.