IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR
Vivek Agarwal, Devnarayan Mishra, JJ.
Smt. Mamta Pathak – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 6016 of 2022
Decided On : 29-07-2025
(1) FIR -- delay in lodging -- merg recorded against unknown person -- FIR lodged after completion of merg investigation -- it cannot be said that there was inordinate delay in lodging of FIR. (2014) 2 SCC 1, AIR 1991 SC 63 and AIR 2003 SC 1164 followed. 2023 (4) JLJ 193 = 2023 SCC Online SC 1124 distinguished. [Paras 64 & 73]
(2) FIR -- delay in lodging -- every delay in lodging of FIR not fatal. [Para 70]
(3) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- S. 157(1) -- delay in forwarding FIR to Court -- FIR neither ante-dated nor ante-timed -- based on merg intimation -- no allegation of it being ante-timed or ante-dated or manipulated -- even name of accused/appellant not mentioned in FIR -- much noise without substance cannot be made to frustrate investigation and consequential proceedings -- no violation of S. 157(1) made out. (2023) 6 SCC 742, 2023 (4) JLJ 193 = 2023 SCC Online SC 1124 and AIR 2003 SC 1164 distinguished. (2014) 2 SCC 1 discussed. [Paras 75 & 77]
(4) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 27 -- Criminal P.C. 1973 -- S. 46(1) -- Constitution of India -- Art. 20(3) -- validity of memorandum reordered before arrest -- ‘custody’ in S. 46(1) does not mean physical custody by arrest -- ‘custody’ and ‘arrest’ are to be seen in different connotations and in terms of S. 46(1) of CrPC -- appellant already in custody when she gave her memorandum u/s. 27 of Evidence Act -- it cannot be said that memorandum or consequential proceedings are defective because arrest was made at 13:10 hours while memorandum was obtained at 11:00 am -- if no ‘compulsion’ was used, statement leading to discovery u/s. 27 of Evidence Act would be admissible -- memorandum not hit by Art. 20(3) of Constitution. AIR 1961 SC 29, AIR 1961 SC 1808, AIR 1962 SC 1821 and AIR 1957 SC 211 followed. AIR 1958 Cal. 682, AIR 1958 All. 119, AIR 1967 Pat. 63, AIR 1934 Lah. 150 (2) and 1975 CrLJ 354 (Gau.) relied on. AIR 1958 All. 119 distinguished. [Paras 81, 84 to 86 & 140]
(5) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- S. 46(1) -- signature on merg intimation -- contention of accused/appellant that her signatures were obtained under pressure after seven days of recording of Merg Inquest Report -- no suggestion given to person who recorded merg intimation that signatures were obtained after seven days -- merely saying so -- no material to support this contention -- rejected. [Paras 87 to 89]
(6) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 302 -- lapses in postmortem -- (1) identification of dead body -- accused/appellant had knowledge that dead body of deceased was taken for postmortem -- she and her son received dead body after postmortem -- contention that dead body was not identified properly, not made out -- (2) mouth of dead body was closed -- PW-3, who investigated merg, deposed that mouth was half-open -- mentioned in Lash Panchama that teeth are visible -- doctor who conducted postmortem not subjected to cross-examination on this aspect -- contention loses importance -- (3) postmortem was not conducted by panel of three doctors -- examined doctor admits that he was member of panel of three doctors who did postmortem -- no such issue raised in his cross-examination -- contention rejected -- (4) time of death -- no suggestion given to doctor who conducted postmortem with regard to decomposition of body and duration of postmortem -- no challenge to his finding that death occurred between 36 to 72 hours since postmortem -- aforesaid timing corroborated by Merg Intimation -- submission that lividity or red/red-blue spot on body of deceased indicates that death occurred within 6 to 12 hours, not made out -- (5) electron microscopy was not done -- no suggestion given to doctor who conducted postmortem that in absence of electron microscopy, it is not possible to say that burns found on body of deceased were caused due to electric current -- even expert did not say that finding of electric burns cannot be given without electron microscopy -- contention rejected. Modi’s A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Lexis Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa, Chap. 14 referred to. Lyon’s Medical Jurisprudence for India by S. D. S. Greval (10th Edn. 1953) relied on. [Paras 94 to 97, 100 to 102, 104, 108 & 114]
(7) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 302 -- contention that death could not have occurred on account of electric shock because house was well-earthed, RCCBs were installed and legs of deceased were placed on plastic chair -- two-pin plug with wire having naked end seized -- earthing is possible only through three-pin plug -- in two-pin plug, there is no earthing -- RCCB will fall after passing of current, and then it can be started again -- can be manipulated -- there is medico legal evidence of exit wound of electric current through scrotum, which shows that earthing had taken place -- legs of deceased could be placed on plastic chair after earthing had taken place -- contentions rejected -- cardio vascular failure resulting from electric shock was cause of death. AIR 2010 SC 806 distinguished. [Paras 112 to 116]
(8) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 302 -- Evidence Act, 1872 -- Ss. 8, 106 and 108 -- Criminal P. C., 1973 -- Ss. 313 and 342 -- case based on circumstantial evidence -- death due to electric shock -- deceased was tortured by accused/appellant -- he was freed from illegal confinement of accused/appellant by police -- accused/appellant discovered on 29.4.2021 itself that deceased was no more, but did not disclose it to anybody till 1.5.2021 -- instead, left for Jhansi with her son -- eradicating deceased would have allowed her full access to his property and assets -- accused/appellant had strong motive to eliminate deceased as she suspected infidelity -- she categorically denied that her son, who resided in the same house, could have done it -- no element of motive attached to son -- no iota of suggestion that son visited deceased on 29.4.2021 or on return from Jhansi -- electric wire recovered at her instance -- not showing switch board on spot map, from which current was allegedly flown in body of deceased, not fatal to case of prosecution -- strip of Olanzapine tablets recovered -- four tablets missing -- presence of Olanzapine in viscera of deceased -- no outsider entered house -- appellant was granted ample opportunity to lead defence evidence -- all the material found during investigation has been placed before accused while examining her u/s. 313 of CrPC -- it appears to be a well-planned cold blooded murder -- chain of circumstances complete -- appellant tortured deceased to death by serving sedative drug and thereafter passing electric current -- guilt proved beyond all reasonable doubt. AIR 2000 SC 1735, AIR 2011 SC 72 and 2021(2)JLJ 211 = (2021) 5 SCC 626 followed. (1952) 2 SCC 71, (1973) 2 SCC 808, (1984) 4 SCC 116, (2013) 12 SCC 406, (2021) 10 SCC 725, (2003) 12 SCC 758, AIR 2020 SC 2451, (2023) 6 SCC 742, (2023) 6 SCC 399, (2019) 9 SCC 738, (2007) 2 SCC 258, 2002 (2) JLJ 373 = (2002) 7 SCC 317, AIR 1962 SC 1821, (2013) 15 SCC, AIR 2007 SC 2316, (2016) 3 SCC 317, AIR 2010 SC 806, (2023) 3 SCC 372 and (1996) 7 SCC 308 distinguished. AIR 2023 SC 4759, (2024) 9 SCC 546, 2024 SCC Online SC 70, 2023 SCC Online SC 537, 2020(4) JLJ 193 = (2020) 7 SCC 1, 2023 SCC Online SC 486, (2002) 8 SCC 45 and (2009) 10 SCC 434 referred to. [Paras 128, 129, 132, 135, 138, 148, 153, 161 & 163]
(9) Motive -- to deduce motive, immediate past and conduct are required to be examined rather than remote incidents. [Para 134]
(10) Motive -- no direct evidence -- evidence of motive becomes one of the circumstances. AIR 2011 SC 72 followed. [Para 135]
(11) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 45 -- reliance on textbooks of medical jurisprudence -- opinions of authors may have persuasive value but cannot always be binding -- such opinions cannot be placed on higher pedestal than opinion of expert examined in Court -- appellant did not confront medical expert, doctor who conducted postmortem and Investigating Officer with any medical text -- reliance on various textbooks of medical jurisprudence will not help appellant. AIR 2004 SC 2174 followed. Essentials of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology (35th Edn.) by K. S. Narayan Reddy & O. P. Murty and Textbook of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology (6th Edn.) by Krishan Vij referred to. [Para 143]
¼1½ çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ & nkf[ky djus esa foyac & exZ vKkr O;fä ds fo:) vfHkfyf[kr & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ exZ vUos"k.k iw.kZ gksus ds mijkar nkf[ky dh xbZ & ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ nkf[ky djus esa vR;fèkd foyac FkkA ¼2014½ 2 ,llhlh 1] ,vkbvkj 1991 ,llh 63 rFkk ,vkbvkj 2003 ,llh 1164 vuqlfjrA 2023 ¼4½ ts,yts 193 % 2023 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 1124 çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 64 ,oa 73½
¼2½ çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ & nkf[ky djus esa foyac & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ nkf[ky djus esa çR;sd foyac ?kkrd ughaA ¼iSjk 70½
¼3½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 157¼1½ & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ U;k;ky; dks vxzsf"kr djus esa foyac & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ u rks iwoZ&fnukafdr] u iwoZ≤kafdr gh & exZ bfÙkyk ij vk/kkfjr & mlds iwoZ≤kafdr ;k iwoZ&fnukafdr vFkok Nylkf/kr gksus dk vfHkdFku ugha & ;gk¡ rd fd çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ esa vfHk;qä@vihykfFkZuh dk uke rd mfYyf[kr ugha & lkjghu 'kksj&'kjkcs ds dkj.k vUos"k.k rFkk ikfj.kkfed dk;Zokgh dks foQy ugha fd;k tk ldrk & /kkjk 157¼1½ dk vfrØe.k fl) ughaA ¼2023½ 6 ,llhlh 742] 2023 ¼4½ ts,yts 193 % 2023 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 1124 rFkk ,vkbvkj 2003 ,llh 1164 çHksfnrA ¼2014½2 ,llhlh 1 foosfprA ¼iSjk 75 ,oa 77½
¼4½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 27 naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 46¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 20¼3½ & fxjrkjh ds iwoZ vfHkfyf[kr Kkiu dh fof/kekU;rk & /kkjk 46¼1½ esa ^vfHkj{kk* ls fxjrkjh ds ek/;e ls 'kkjhfjd vfHkj{kk rkRif;Zr ugha ^vfHkj{kk* rFkk ^fxjrkjh* dks fHkUu&fHkUu vFkksZ esa rFkk naM çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 46¼1½ ds fuca/kukuqlkj ns[kk tkuk gksrk gS & vihykfFkZuh us tc lk{; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 27 ds v/khu viuk Kkiu fn;k rc og vfHkj{kk esa vk pqdh Fkh & ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd Kkiu vFkok ikfj.kkfed dk;Zokgh =qfViw.kZ gSa D;ksafd fxjrkjh 13%10 cts dh xbZ tcfd Kkiu iwokZg~u 11%00 cts vfHkçkIr fd;k x;k & ;fn fdlh ^ncko* dk mi;ksx ugha fd;k x;k rks lk{; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 27 ds v/khu çdVhdj.k djkus okyk dFku xzkg~; gksxk & Kkiu lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 20¼3½ }kjk vkgr ughaA ,vkbvkj 1961 ,llh 29] ,vkbvkj 1961 ,llh 1808] ,vkbvkj 1962 ,llh 1821 rFkk ,vkbvkj 1957 ,llh 211 vuqlfjrA ,vkbvkj 1958 dyŒ 682] ,vkbvkj 1958 bykŒ 119] ,vkbvkj 1967 iVuk 63] ,vkbvkj 1934 ykgkSj 150 ¼2½ rFkk 1975 lhvkj,yts 354 ¼xqokŒ½ voyafcrA ,vkbvkj 1958 bykŒ 119 çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 81] 84 ls 86 ,oa 140½
¼5½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 46¼1½ & exZ bfÙkyk ij gLrk{kj & vfHk;qä@vihykfFkZuh dk ladFku fd mlds gLrk{kj exZ e`R;q&leh{kk çfrosnu ds vfHkys[ku ds lkr fnol i'pkr~ ncko esa vfHkçkIr fd, x, & exZ bfÙkyk vfHkfyf[kr djus okys O;fä dks ,slk dksbZ lq>ko ugha fn;k x;k fd gLrk{kj lkr fnol mijkar vfHkçkIr fd, x, & ,slk dguk ek= gS & bl ladFku ds leFkZu esa dksbZ lkexzh ugha ukeatwjA ¼iSjk 87 ls 89½
¼6½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 302 & 'ko&ijh{k.k esa pwdsa & ¼1½ 'ko dh 'kuk[r & vfHk;qä@vihykfFkZuh dks Kkr Fkk fd e`rd dk 'ko 'ko&ijh{k.k ds fy, ys tk;k x;k gS & mlus vkSj mlds iq= us 'ko&ijh{k.k ds i'pkr~ 'ko çkIr fd;k ladFku fd 'ko dh 'kuk[r Bhd ls ugha dh xbZ] fl) ugha & ¼2½ 'ko dk eq[k can Fkk & vlkŒ 3 us ftlus exZ dk vUos"k.k fd;k] vfHklk{; fn;k fd eq[k v/k&[kqyk Fkk & yk'k iapukek esa mfYyf[kr fd nk¡r fn[k jgs Fks & 'ko&ijh{k.k djus okys fpfdRld dh bl igyw ij çfrijh{kk ugha dh xbZ & ladFku egRoghu gks tkrk gS & ¼3½ 'ko&ijh{k.k rhu fpfdRldksa ds ny }kjk ugha fd;k x;k & ijhf{kr fpfdRld }kjk Loh—r fd og rhu fpfdRldksa ds ml ny dk lnL; Fkk ftlus 'koijh{k.k fd;k & mldh çfrijh{kk esa ,slk dksbZ ç'u ugha mBk;k x;k & ladFku ukeatwj & ¼4½ e`R;q dk le; & 'ko&ijh{k.k djus okys fpfdRld dks 'ko ds lM+ko rFkk 'ko&ijh{k.k ls e`R;q dh vof/k ds ckjs esa dksbZ lq>ko ugha fn;k x;k & mlds bl fu"d"kZ ij dksbZ vk{ksi ugha fd e`R;q 'ko&ijh{k.k ls 36 ls 72 ?kaVksa ds e/; gqbZ Fkh & iwoks±ä le; exZ bfÙkyk }kjk laiq"V fuosnu fd e`rd ds 'kjhj ij ihysiu vFkok yky@yky&uhys /kCcs ls minf'kZr gksrk gS fd e`R;q 6 ls 12 ?kaVksa ds Hkhrj gqbZ Fkh] fl) ugha & ¼5½ bySDVª‚u ekbØksLdksih ugha dh xbZ 'ko&ijh{k.k djus okys fpfdRld dks lq>ko ugha fn;k x;k fd bySDVª‚u ekbØksLdksih ds vHkko esa ;g dguk laHko ugha fd e`rd ds 'kjhj ij ik, x, tyus ds fpg~u fo|qr çokg ds dkj.k gq, Fks & fo'ks"kK us Hkh ;g ugha dgk fd fo|qr nkg dk fu"d"kZ bySDVª‚u ekbØksLdksih ds fcuk ugha fn;k tk ldrk & ladFku ukeatwjA ysfDll usfDll cVjoFkZ ok/kok dh eksnh —r VsDLVcqd v‚Q esfMdy T;wfjlçwMsUl ,aM V‚fDldksykth] v/;k; 14 fufnZ"VA ,lŒMhŒ,lŒ xzsoky dh Y;‚u —r esfMdy T;wfjlçwMsUl Q‚j bafM;k ¼10ok¡ laLdj.k] 1953½ voyafcrA ¼iSjk 94 ls 97] 100 ls 102] 104] 108 ,oa 114½
¼7½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 302 & ladFku fd e`R;q fo|qr >Vds ds dkj.k ugha gks ldrh Fkh D;ksafd Hkou esa vPNs ls vfFkaZx dh xbZ Fkh] vkjlhlhch yxh gqbZa Fkh rFkk e`rd ds iSj IykfLVd dh dqlhZ ij j[ks Fks & [kqys fljs okys rkj dk nks&fiu Iyx vfHkx`ghr & vfFkaZx rhu&fiu Iyx ds ek/;e ls gh laHko gS & nks&fiu Iyx esa vfFkaZx ugha gksrh & vkjlhlhch fo|qr çokfgr gksus mijkar fxjsxh vkSj fQj mls iqu% Bhd fd;k tk ldrk gS & Nylk/ku fd;k tk ldrk gS & vaMdks"k ds ek/;e ls fo|qr çokg ds fudkl ds ?kko dk fpfdRlk fof/kd lk{; gS] ftlls nf'kZr gksrk gS fd vfFkaZx gqbZ Fkh IykfLVd dh dqlhZ ij e`rd ds iSj vfFkaZx gksus ds mijkar j[ks tk ldrs Fks & ladFku ukeatwj & fo|qr >Vds ls ifj.kr g~}kfgdkikr eR;q dk dkj.k FkkA ,vkbvkj 2010 ,llh 806 çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 112 ls 116½
¼8½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 302 & lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 8] 106 rFkk 108 & naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 313 rFkk 342 & ekeyk ikfjfLFkfrd lk{; ij vk/kkfjr & fo|qr >Vds ds dkj.k e`R;q & e`rd dks vfHk;qä@vihykfFkZuh }kjk ;kruk nh tkrh Fkh & mls vfHk;qä@vihykfFkZuh ds voS/k ifjjks/k ls iqfyl }kjk NqM+k;k x;k Fkk & vfHk;qä@vihykfFkZuh dks 29-4-2021 dks gh irk py x;k Fkk fd e`rd ugha jgk] ijarq mlus 1-5-2021 rd ;g fdlh dks ugha crk;k & cfYd vius iq= ds lkFk >k¡lh ds fy, fudy xbZ & e`rd dks ekjus ls mldh laifÙk vkSj vkfLr;k¡ iwjh rjg ls vihykfFkZuh dh igq¡p esa vk tkrha & vfHk;qä@vihykfFkZuh ds ikl e`rd dks ekjus dk çcy gsrq Fkk D;ksafd mls nkEiR; fo'okl?kkr dk lansg Fkk & mlus lqLi"Vr% bUdkj fd;k fd mlds iq= us] tks mlh ?kj esa jgrk Fkk] ;g fd;k gksxk iq= ds lkFk gsrq dk dksbZ rRo layXu ugha & ys'kek= Hkh lq>ko ugha fd 29-4-2021 dks vFkok >k¡lh ls ykSVus ij iq= dh e`rd ls HksaV gqbZ & fo|qr rkj vihykfFkZuh ds crkus ij cjken & LFky ekufp= ij og fLop cksMZ ugha fn[kkuk ftlls vfHkdfFkrr% e`rd ds 'kjhj esa fo|qr çokg çokfgr fd;k x;k] vfHk;kstu ds i{kdFku ds fy, ?kkrd ugha & vksykUtkikbu dh xksfy;ksa dh iV~Vh cjken & pkj xksfy;k¡ xk;c & e`rd ds foljk esa vksykUtkikbu fo|eku & ?kj esa dksbZ ckgjh O;fä ugha ?kqlk & vihykfFkZuh dks çfrj{kk lk{; is'k djus dk çpqj volj fn;k x;k & naM çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 313 ds v/khu vfHk;qä dh ijh{kk fd, tkrs le; vUos"k.k ds nkSjku ikbZ xbZ laiw.kZ lkexzh mlds le{k j[kh xbZ & ;g funZ;rkiwoZd dh xbZ lqfu;ksftr gR;k çrhr gksrh gS & ifjfLFkfr;ksa dh J`a[kyk iw.kZ & vihykfFkZuh us 'kked vks"kf/k nsdj vkSj rRi'pkr~ fo|qr çokfgr djds ;kruk nsdj e`rd dh gR;k dh & nks"k leLr ;qfä;qä lansg ds ijs lkfcrA ,vkbvkj 2000 ,llh 1735] ,vkbvkj 2011 ,llh 72 rFkk ¼2021½ 2 ts,yts 211 % ¼2021½ 5 ,llhlh 626 vuqlfjrA ¼1952½ 2 ,llhlh 71] ¼1973½ 2 ,llhlh 808] ¼1984½ 4 ,llhlh 116] ¼2013½ 12 ,llhlh 406] ¼2021½ 10 ,llhlh 725] ¼2003½ 12 ,llhlh 758] ,vkbvkj 2020 ,llh 2451] ¼2023½ 6 ,llhlh 742] ¼2023½ 6 ,llhlh 399] ¼2019½ 9 ,llhlh 738] ¼2007½ 2 ,llhlh 258] 2002 ¼2½ ts,yts 373 % ¼2002½ 7 ,llhlh 317] ,vkbvkj 1962 ,llh 1821] ¼2013½ 15 ,llhlh ,vkbvkj 2007 ,llh 2316] ¼2016½ 3 ,llhlh 317] ,vkbvkj 2010 ,llh 806] ¼2023½ 3 ,llhlh 372 rFkk ¼1996½ 7 ,llhlh 308 çHksfnrA ,vkbvkj 2023 ,llh 4759] ¼2024½ 9 ,llhlh 546] 2024 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 70] 2023 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 537] 2020 ¼4½ ts,yts 193 % ¼2020½ 7 ,llhlh 1] 2023 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 486] ¼2002½ 8 ,llhlh 45 rFkk ¼2009½ 10 ,llhlh 434 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 128] 129] 132] 135] 138] 148] 153] 161 ,oa 163½
¼9½ gsrq & gsrq dk vuqeku yxkus ds fy, nwjLFk ?kVukvksa ds ctk; lfUudV vrhr vkSj vkpj.k ns[kk tkuk visf{kr gSA ¼iSjk 134½
¼10½ gsrq & dksbZ çR;{k lk{; ugha & gsrq dk lk{; ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ls ,d cu tkrk gSA ,vkbvkj 2011 ,llh 72 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 135½
¼11½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 45 & esfMdy T;wfjlçwMsUl dh ikB~; iqLrdksa dk voyacu & ys[kdksa dh jk; dk vkxzgh ewY; gks ldrk gS ijarq og lnSo vkc)dj ugha gks ldrh & ,slh jk; dks U;k;ky; esa ijhf{kr fo'ks"kK dh jk; ls mPprj LFkku ugha fn;k tk ldrk & vihykfFkZuh us fpfdRlk fo'ks"kK] 'koijh{k.k djus okys fpfdRld rFkk vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh dk lkeuk fdlh fpfdRlh; ikB ls ugha djk;k & esfMdy T;wfjlçwMsUl dh fofHkUu ikB~; iqLrdksa dk voyac ysus ls vihykfFkZuh dks dksbZ lgk;rk çkIr ugha gksrhA ,vkbvkj 2004 ,llh 2174 vuqlfjrA dsŒ,lŒ ukjk;.k jsM~Mh ,oa vksŒihŒ ewfrZ —r ,lsfU'k;Yl v‚Q Q‚jsfUld esfMflu ,aM V‚Dlksy‚th ¼35o‚a laLdj.k½ rFkk —".k fot —r VsDLVcqd v‚Q Q‚jsfUld esfMflu ,aM V‚Dlksy‚th ¼"k"Be laLdj.k½ fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 143½
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction must be based on substantial evidence. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. evidence needs to be corroborated and reliable for legal inference. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Agarwal, J.
This appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “ Cr.P.C ”) is filed being aggrieved of judgment of conviction dated 29.6.2022 passed by learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Sessions Trial No.84/2021 convicting the appellant in person Smt.Mamta Pathak, W/o.Late Dr.Neeraj Pathak for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C”) and sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional imprisonment for six months.
2. The prosecution case in short is that Smt.Mamta Pathak had given merg intimation bearing No.26/21 at Police Station Civil Lines Chhatarpur, which was registered under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C . with regard to death of Dr. Neeraj Pathak. The merg was investigated by the Sub Inspector Pramod Rohit (PW.3) and in pursuance of merg investigation, he had prepared Lash Panchnama and Safina Form and had taken the statements of complainant Smt.Mamta Pathak. He had prepared the crime details and had collected postmortem report (Exhibit P/1) from the doctors and found that in the opinion of post-mortem doctors, Dr. Neeraj Pathak S/o.Chintamani Pathak, aged about 65 years, R/o.Loknathpuram, District Chhatarpur died due to electrocution. The first information report pertaining to Crime No.288/2021 was registered against Smt.Mamta Pathak for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C.
3. The investigation commenced. The memorandum under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 of the accused was obtained and as per her memorandum, the objects like sleeping pills, electric wire, DVR from the C.C.T.V camera installed in the house of the deceased, footage from the C.C.T.V. camera, which contains views of the house of the accused, the video recording etc, were seized. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of Magistrate for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. On 6.8.2021, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhatarpur committed the case to Court of Sessions from where it was transferred to the Court of learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur for trial. The learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur found the charge proved against the appellant and convicted & sentenced her as mentioned in Paragraph No.1 of this judgment.
4. The appellant submits that she is innocent. She has been falsely implicated in this case. She was having very cordial and loving relationship with her husband Late Dr.Neeraj Pathak and, therefore, she cannot even think of causing any harm to her husband to whom she was committed for life, therefore, it is a case of false implication. The appellant also submits that she was working as Lecturer in Government College at Chhatarpur while her husband was the Chief Medical Officer in Government District Hospital at Chhatarpur. At the time of the incident, both of them were residing in the house at Lokhnathpurarm. The prosecution case is ill-founded because it is based on presumption that there were frequent quarrels between the appellant Smt.Mamta Pathak and the deceased Dr.Neeraj Pathak on the basis of suspected fidelity of her husband. The evidence, which has been collected by the prosecution is neither relevant nor scientific so to substantiate the involvement of the appellant and connect her with the alleged offence.
5. The allegation of frequent quarrels between the husband and wife is not substantiated from the testimony of Dhaniram Ahirwar (PW.2), a Chowkidar for the house where the incident took place, who states in his examination-in- chief that he has no knowledge about the incident. He only knew that Dr.Neeraj Pathak was residing at Loknathpuram whereas his wife was residing in the hous
Circumstantial evidence must establish a conclusive connection between the accused and the crime for conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Murder – Only on the basis of post-mortem report there cannot be conviction for offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C.
(1) Murder – If in a case based on circumstantial evidence, accused evades response to an incriminating question or offers a response which is not true, such a response, in itself, would become an ad....
(1) Section 34 IPC and 115 IPC would not go hand in hand.(2) Evidence is raw material which Judge or Adjudicator uses to reach a finding of fact – Courts can record order of conviction even in a case....
Provisions of Section 106 of Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within knowledge of a person, burden of proving that fact is upon him.
The court held that mere suspicion is insufficient for a conviction; a complete chain of circumstantial evidence is required to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.