1. This appeal has been preferred being aggrieved by the judgement dated 04.09.2001 passed by the Court of Shri V.P.S.Chouhan, Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghgarh, Distt. Rajgarh (Biaora) in ST No.77/2001 by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC with life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional simple imprisonment of six months and under Section 203 of the IPC with rigorous imprisonment of one year.
2. According to the prosecution story, on 14.03.2001, at 6.10 a.m., Nannoolal lodged the report in the Police Station Kuravar that in the last evening at about 7.00 p.m. he and his wife returned home from factory. He inquired from his wife Tulsibai that in the way to whom she was talking. She replied why he had suspicion without any reason on her then Nannoolal told that he has seen her several times. On this point Tulsibai started altercation, hence Nannoolal gave her two slaps. Thereafter, Tulsibai kooked the food and Nannoolal and his children after having dinner slept. At about 4.30 a.m. Nannoolal awoke and saw that his wife Tulsibai was hanging in the room by strangulation of Saree then he after opening the Saree laid her on the bed and saw that she was dead, hence he had come to report to the Police Station. This report was lodged at merg No.8/2001, thereafter police reached the spot. On inspection of the spot it was found that the wooden log on which it was alleged that Tulsibai hanged herself was intact. The dust on the log and webs of the spiders were untouched. On perusal of the Saree it was found that it was not used for hanging. On inquiry from Nannoolal before the witnesses he told that in the evening he had an altercation with his wife in which he throttled her neck and tied her neck with Saree and killed her and thereafter he kooked the food and then fed his children. Vinod aged 6-7 years son of Nannoolal confirmed this fact. In this way it was found that Nannoolal murdered his wife by throttling and suppressing this fact he made a report to the police pretending it to be a case of suicide. Hence, Crime No.47/2001 was registered at Police Station Kurawar under Section 302/201 of the IPC and the appellant was arrested. After trial the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the appellant.
3. It has been argued by the Counsel for the appellant that he has been falsely implicated in this case. It was a case of suicide by Tulsibai. There was no evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant. His child Vinod was not produced in evidence, who is said to be the eye witness of the incident. The case is based on the circumstantial evidence and there was no direct evidence or eye witness. The chain of circumstantial evidence was not complete. The appellant was involved on the basis of suspicion only. There were serious contradictions and omissions in the prosecution evidence. The doctor who conducted the postmortem examination did not find any sign of strangulation on the neck of the deceased. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that by the knot of the string there may be fracture in the thyroid and it was the case of suicide. The Trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellant was with his wife at the time of the incident, hence he is responsible for the death of his wife. The Trial Court further erred in not considering the fact that there was no evidence that Tulsibai was a woman of bad character and lived in adultry. There was no mens rea on record to come to the conclusion that why appellant will commit the murder of his wife, hence the appeal should be allowed.
4. It has been argued by the Counsel for the respondent that by evidence it was proved that the appellant murdered his wife and pretending it as a case of suicide falsely made a report to the police. The circumstances show that this was not a case of hanging but it was a case of throttling by the appellant because he was sleeping with his wife in the night and he himself admitted that he had an altercation with his wife. The circumstances led to the conclusion that appellant murdered his wife as he was having suspicion over her character and on this point he had a dispute with his wife. He has admitted this fact in the FIR and further that he slapped his wife in the evening, therefore, the appellant has been rightly convicted. There was no evidence on the spot to show that Tulsibai committed suicide by hanging from the log of the room because it was found untouched, therefore, the appellant has been rightly convicted. The appeal being devoid of merit be dismissed accordingly.
5. Considered circumstances and record of the Trial Court perused. From the statement of Dr. Dinesh Gupta it reveals that on 14.03.2001 the body of deceased Tulsibai wife of Nannoolal was examined by him and he gave the report Ex.P/10. He found two ante-mortem dark brownish black marks on the neck. The mark of left side was 3x1.5 cm. and the mark of right side was 4x2cm. According to his opinion, these injuries were ante-mortem and the duration was within 12 to 24 hours from the time of postmortem. The cause of death was asphyxia resulting from throttling. From the postmortem report it reveals that there were two marks over the neck, each on either side of wind pipe dark brownish black permanent like. This shows that on both sides of the wind pipe there were contusion marks of size above mentioned and the cause of death was throttling. In crossexamination he has ruled out the possibility of throttling by the knot of the string because at the time of the hanging the knot of the string is not in front of the neck but it is on back side of the neck. In this way, from the postmortem report it was found that the death of Tulsibai was due to asphyxia resulting from the throttling and the death was homicidal in nature. It was not suicide.
6. Bhavsingh(PW-2) confirmed the fact that two years before Nannoolal and his wife had an altercation and he gave them understanding and said that why they quarrel. Mohansingh(PW-5) the brother of Tulsibai also confirmed the fact that Tulsibai and Nannoolal used to quarrel on domestic issues and he gave them understanding. He also deposed that Nannoolal murdered his wife due to her bad character and after murder he himself went to report to the Police Station. Birma(PW-6) in this respect deposed that Tulsibai was his cousin sister and married to Nannoolal. Both the husband and wife had altercations and he used to give them understanding. In this way all these witnesses have confirmed this fact that Nannoolal and Tulsibai used to quarrel with each other and they gave them understanding for not quarrel. Normally in the human life whenever the husband and wife quarrels with each other it is a matter only in between them and it does not go outside the house but if it is of a such type that others has to interfere in it and if they give understanding to the husband and wife for not to quarrel, it shows that their quarrel is not normal and quarrel of daily routine but it is so severe that others has to interfere in it, therefore, the quarrel in between Nannoolal and Tulsibai was of a serious nature for which the others had occasioned to interfere and gave them understanding.
7. This fact of quarreling and suspicion over the character of Tulsibai has been admitted by Nannoolal in report Ex.P/14 in which he mentioned this fact in the following words :-
This is an information which was voluntarily given by Nannoolal to the police at the time of report. It has been argued by the counsel for the appellant that information given to the police by the accused is not admissible in evidence but this is not the correct legal position.
8. According to Section 24 of the Evidence Act, “A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise, having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds, which would appear to him reasonable, for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.”
9. In the case of Francis stanly @ stalin vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureu, Thiruvananthapuram 2007 Cri.L.J. 1157 (SC), it has been held that,”if the confessional statement is found to be voluntary and free from pressure, it can be accepted. But it all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this connection whether a particular alleged confessional statement should be accepted.”
10. Therefore, if the confession is caused by inducing, threat or promise, it is not relevant but in this case the accused appellant Nannoolal himself narrated this fact voluntarily at the time of the police report. Hence it is an admission of the fact that he was having a suspicion over the character of his wife and he had an altercation with her and he gave her two slaps. Therefore, it is proved from the admission of the appellant Nannoolal and the statement of witnesses that Nannoolal was not having cordial relations with his wife and on the date of incident he also had quarrel with his wife about the suspicion over the character of Tulsibai.
11. From the FIR (Ex.P/14), it reveals that Nannoolal reported to the police that about 4.30 a.m. he saw that his wife was hanging on the log of the room by Saree and he took her down and after opening the Saree saw that she was dead. But by medical evidence and from the statement of Dr.Dinesh Gupta (PW-8) and the postmortem report Ex.P/10 it revealed that it was not a case of suicide but the cause of death of Tulsibai was asphyxia as a result of throttling and the death was homicidal in nature.
12. Y.U.Farukhi (PW-10) S.D.O.P., who is the Investigating Officer in this case has deposed that he prepared the spot map (Ex.P/12) and on the place of incident he saw the dust on the log untouched. From the spot map (Ex.P/12) it reveals that whole of the log was covered with dust and spider webs and it does not confirm the fact that the deceased committed suicide at this place. It shows that this log was not used by the deceased for the suicide while the appellant-accused informed the police that deceased Tulsibai committed suicide by hanging on this log from where he took her down and laid on the cot. It is very natural that if the log was used for the suicide then naturally the dust of the place where the Saree was wrapped on the log should have been disturbed and there should not have been the dust and the spider webs. There should be some impressions that the Saree was wrapped there and due to which the spider webs were disturbed but nothing was found and there was no evidence that the log was used for the wrapping of Saree and for suicide. Considering the postmortem report and this situation it was confirmed that it was not a case of suicide. Vinod the son of deceased was an eye witness of the incident but he was a child of 6-7 years and by ordersheet dated 19.07.2001 he was given up by the prosecution because he was not in the condition to give the statement.
13. In this case the accused-appellant himself went to the police and he lodged the report Ex.P/14 about the suicide of his wife and he also informed the police that he was having suspicion over the character of his wife and he slapped his wife in the evening before her death. From the evidence it is clear that it was not a case of suicide but by medical evidence it was proved that it was a case of throttling and murder and her death was not suicidal death but it was homicidal. Since the appellant was in the room in the night as he has mentioned in the FIR (Ex.P/14) that in the night they slept and at about 4.30 a.m. he saw that his wife was hanging in the same room and he took her down from the hanging and after opening her Saree saw that she was dead, thereafter he came to report to the police. This shows that the appellant was in the company of his wife, therefore, these circumstances lead to the conclusion that he murdered his wife as he was having a suspicion over her character and on this point he also slapped his wife in the evening, therefore, these circumstances leads to the conclusion that the appellant murdered his wife.
14. In the case of Lal Sahay V/s. State of M.P. 1998 (II) MPWN 116, it has been held that, “husband and wife both in the room –wife murdered – offence against husband also proved by extra judicial confession – conviction proper.”
15. In the case of Manik Rao V/s. State of M.P. 1998 (II) MPWN 18, it has been held that, “husband and wife sleeping in one room – wife died a homicidal death inside the room – incriminating circumstances, I.e. presence of husband with deceased wife is enough to hold him guilty.”
16. In the case of Phundi V/s. State of M.P. 1993 JLJ 200, it has been held that, “accused is supposed to give palusible explanation of cause of death, failure may be treated the circumstances against him.”
17. In the case of Dineshilal V/s. State of Maharashtra (1992) 3 SCC 106, it has been held that, “when death caused while deceased in the custody of the accused, accused is obliged to give a plausible explanation for the cause of death in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
18. In the case of State of U.P. V/s. Dr.Ravindra Prakash Mittal (1992) 3 SCC 300, it has been held that,”presence of accused husband in the company of the deceased wife in the room on the previous night as well as presence of accused in the room next morning proved, motive of murder shown, false pleading of alibi taken by accused instead of giving any plausible explanation for the custodial death, traditional external visible features of strangulation and other internal injuries found, held chain of circumstances lead to the only conclusion of the commission of the offence by the accused.”
19. In this case in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. the appellant Nannoolal has not given any explanation about the cause of death of his wife. But by way of FIR (Ex.P/14) he informed the police that his wife committed suicide but this fact has not been proved, therefore, the circumstances leads to the conclusion that the appellant was responsible for the death of his wife and gave false information to the police about her suicide, therefore, this was a circumstances against him. Therefore, these circumstances lead to the conclusion that he murdered his wife because he was having suspicion over her character. Hence, the Trial Court rightly convicted the appellant. Therefore this appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
20. Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion, we are of the view that this appeal is devoid of merit, hence it is dismissed accordingly.