Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sonu Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 September, 2022
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
1
Cr. A. No.519/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 519 of 2010
BETWEEN:-
SONU BAI W/O KAMALSINGH RAJ
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
ITAWA P.S. INDUSTRIAL AREA
DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MS. SHARMILA SHARMA, ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH P.S. INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT/STATE
(BY SHRI AMIT SINGH SISODIA, G.A. FOR STATE)
Reserved on : 18.08.2022
Delivered on : 26.09.2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for judgement this day, Hon'ble Shri
Justice Satyendra Kumar Singh passed the following:
JUDGEMENT
The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) [in short "Cr.P.C."]
Cr. A. No.519/2010
against the judgment dated 22.04.2010, passed by the Court of Sessions
Judge, Sessions Division Dewas, District Dewas (M.P.) in S.T. No.
78/2009, whereby appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") and sentenced her as under :-
S. Conviction Sentence
No. Imprisonment Fine Additional
amount imprisonment in
default of
payment of fine
1 302 of IPC Life Rs.2,000/- RI 4 months
imprisonment
2. Prosecution story, in brief is as follows :-
(i) The appellant Sonu Bai alongwith her husband co-accused
Kamal Singh and mother-in-law deceased Pappu Bai were
residing jointly at Village Itawa, P. S. Industrial Area, District
Dewas. In the intervening night of 27-28.02.2009, the appellant
and her husband co-accused Kamal Singh were sleeping in their
room, while deceased Pappu Bai was sleeping in her room, which
was adjacent to the room of the appellant and co-accused Kamal
Singh. On the next day morning i.e. on 28.02.2009, appellant
finding the deceased lying dead in a pool of blood in her room,
informed about the incident to her neighbours and the witnesses.
Her neighbour Pappu Singh went to the Police Chowki Itawa and
informed Constable Tulsiram about the incident. Constable
Tulsiram visited the place of occurrence, saw the deceased's body
and locked the room, where she was lying dead, and thereafter, at
about 09.00 AM, lodged the FIR (Exhibit-P/16) and at about 09.10
AM, Merg Information Report (Exhibit-P/15) at P. S. Industrial
Area, District Dewas against unknown person for the offence
Cr. A. No.519/2010
under Section 302 of IPC.
(ii) On the same day i.e. on 28.02.2009, SHO B.S. Kushwah
went to the place of occurrence and found deceased's body lying
near the cot in a pool of blood in her room, spots of blood were
spread on the cot and also on the wall and there was water spread
at the place of occurrence. He prepared spot map (Exhibit-P/2),
seized plain and blood soaked soil, blood stained pillow cover,
clothes found on the spot alongwith other articles as per seizure
memos (Exhibit-P/9 & P/10), called the witnesses issuing Safina
Form (Exhibit-P/13) and prepared inquest report (Naksha
Panchayatnama) vide Exhibit-P/14 of the body of the deceased. He
finding injuries on her head and neck, vide letter (Exhibit-P/20-C)
sent the deceased's body to the District Hospital, Dewas for post-
mortem examination.
(iii) On the same day, at about 12.05 PM, Dr. Hari Singh
conducted the post-mortem of the body of the deceased. He
prepared his post-mortem report (Exhibit-P/20) and opined that the
deceased's death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage, as a
result of injury in her neck cutting the main vessels of neck, within
12 hours since the time of post-mortem and her death was
homicidal in nature.
(iv) During investigation, it was found that prior to the incident,
the appellant Sonu Bai used to quarrel with the deceased on petty
issues. Co-accused Kamal Singh had taken an amount of
Rs.24,000/- from the deceased, which he did not return. He was
demanding an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the deceased for
running a medical shop and deceased was not inclined to give the
same, due to which he also used to quarrel with her. As both of
Cr. A. No.519/2010
them were found present on the spot at the time of incident,
therefore, on 02.03.2009, I/O B.S. Kushwah arrested the appellant,
as per arrest memo (Exhibit-P/4) and co-accused Kamal Singh, as
per arrest memo (Exhibit-P/3), recorded their disclosure
statements. On the basis of appellant's disclosure statements
(Exhibit-P/6), on her instance, he seized a moosli (Article A-2), an
iron rod type weapon used in the crime, from the box of her room,
as per seizure memo (Exhibit-P/8). On the same day, on the basis
of co-accused Kamal Singh's disclosure statements (Exhibit-P/4),
on his instance, he seized a blood stained knife (Article A-1), kept
hidden in the almirah of his room, from his possession, as per
seizure memo (Exhibit-P/7).
(v) I/O B.S. Kushwah vide letter (Exhibit-P/22) sent all the
seized articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Indore for
chemical examination, obtained FSL Report (Exhibit-P/12) and
after completion of the investigation, filed the charge-sheet before
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dewas, who committed the case to
the Court of Sessions Judge, Dewas against the appellant for the
offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC.
3. Learned Trial Court considering the material prima-facie available
on record, framed the charges under Section 302 of IPC against the
appellant and co-accused Kamal Singh, who abjured their guilt and
prayed for trial. In their statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.,
they pleaded their false implication in the matter. In support of their
defense, they did not examine any witness.
4. Learned Trial Court after appreciating the oral as well as
documentary evidence available on record, acquitted the co-accused
Kamal Singh, but convicted the appellant for the offence punishable
Cr. A. No.519/2010
under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced her as mentioned in para-1 of
this judgement. Being aggrieved with the said judgement of conviction
and order of sentence, appellant has preferred this appeal for setting
aside the impugned judgement and discharging her from the charges
framed against her.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial
Court has committed a legal error while appreciating the evidence
available on record. She submits that prosecution case is based on
circumstantial evidence and there is nothing on record against the
appellant except the fact that she was sleeping in the same house in the
intervening night of the incident. As per the prosecution case itself
deceased death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of
injury in her neck cutting the main vessels of neck, and the said injury
has neither attributed to the appellant nor the weapon knife (Article-A-1),
from which the above injury was said to be caused has been seized on
her instance. Aforesaid injury was attributed to co-accused Kamal Singh,
who has already been acquitted from the charges. There is nothing on
record which could suggest any premeditation of the appellant with the
assailant, who had caused the above injury. Co-accused Kamal Singh has
been acquitted from the charges, therefore, on the same set of facts,
conviction of the appellant is not sustainable. Hence, appeal filed by the
appellant may be allowed and appellant be acquitted from the charges
framed against her.
6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State
while supporting the impugned judgement of conviction and order of
sentence submits that the judgement was passed by the Trial Court after
proper appreciation of evidence available on record. The same is well
reasoned establishing the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable
Cr. A. No.519/2010
doubt. Therefore, confirming the impugned judgement of conviction and
order of sentence, the appeal filed by the appellant may be dismissed.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and
perused the record.
8. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and
prosecution has examined in all 13 witnesses including Pappu Singh
(PW-2), who informed the police about the incident, deceased's brothers
Bhagwan Singh (PW-8), Inder Singh (PW-11) and sisters-in-law
Saritabai (PW-9) and Asha (PW-10), who reached the spot alongwith
other witnesses after the incident. The other material witnesses are
Constable Tulsiram Verma (PW-6), who lodged the Merg Intimation
Report (Exhibit-P/15) and FIR (Exhibit-P/16), Dr. Hari Singh (PW-12),
who conducted the post-mortem of the body of deceased and SHO B. S.
Kushwah (PW-13), who investigated the case.
9. Pappu Singh (PW-2) deposed that on the date of incident, at about
8.00-8.30 AM, when he saw people gathering in front of the house of the
appellant, he went there and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood
in her room and thereafter, he informed the police. Constable Tulsiram
Verma (PW-6) deposed that after receiving the information about the
incident from Pappu Singh, he rushed to the spot and saw the deceased
lying dead in a pool of blood in her room. He deposed that after locking
the door of the deceased's room, he went to the police station Industrial
Area, Dewas, lodged the Merg Intimation Report (Exhibit-P/15) and
FIR (Exhibit-P/16) against unknown person.
10. SHO B.S. Kushwah (PW-13) deposed that after registration of the
FIR (Exhibit-P/16), he went to the place of occurrence, prepared spot
map (Exhibit-P/2) and called the witnesses issuing Safina Form (Exhibit-
P/13) and prepared Naksha Panchayatnama (Exhibit-P/14) of the body of
Cr. A. No.519/2010
the deceased. He seized the blood stained clothes, plain and blood
soaked soil from the floor and wall and other articles found on the spot,
as per seizure memo (Exhibit-P/9 & P/10). He, thereafter, vide
application (Exhibit-P/20-C) sent the body of deceased to the District
Hospital, Dewas for medical examination. Dr. Hari Singh (PW-12)
deposed that on 28.02.2009, he conducted the post-mortem of the body
of the deceased and found the following injuries on her body :-
(i) Contused Abrasion measuring 3-1/2" x 1" bone deep on
left temporo-parietal region.
(ii) Two Lacerated Wounds measuring 1-1/2" x 1/2" x bone
deep on forehead.
(iii) Incised wound measuring 5" x 1-1/2" x deep upto bone
vertebral body (cutting skin, muscle, vessels and nerve trachea,
oesophagus) in neck internally.
11. Dr. Hari Singh (PW-12) deposed that all the above injuries found
on the body of the deceased were anti-mortem, and injury No.(i) and (ii)
were caused by hard and blunt object, while injury No.(iii) was caused
by hard and sharp cutting object. He further deposed that he found
depressed fracture in her left frontal and parietal bone alongwith other
injuries. He stated in his statement as well as post-mortem report
(Exhibit-P/20) that deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage, as a
result of injury in her neck cutting the main vessels of the neck. As the
appellant has not challenged the aforesaid fact therefore, this fact is
found established that in the intervening night of 27-28.02.2009,
appellant's mother-in-law Pappu Bai was assaulted by hard and blunt
object as well as by hard and sharp object and died due to shock and
haemorrhage, as a result of injury in her neck cutting the main vessels of
neck and her death was homicidal in nature.
Cr. A. No.519/2010
12. So far as the issue whether the aforesaid injuries found on the
body of the deceased were caused by the appellant is concerned, from the
unchallenged testimony of almost all the prosecution witnesses namely,
Saudan Singh (PW-7), Bhagwan Singh (PW-8), Saritabai (PW-9), Asha
(PW-10) and Inder Singh (PW-11), it seems undisputed that appellant
being daughter-in-law of the deceased Pappu Bai, was living with her
alongwith her husband co-accused Kamal Singh in the same house,
where the deceased was found dead.
13. Saritabai (PW-9), Asha (PW-10) and Inder Singh (PW-11) deposed
that on the date of incident, at about 8.00 AM, appellant herself came to
their house and informed that something had happened to her mother-in-
law i.e. deceased Pappu Bai and when they reached the place of
occurrence, they found the deceased lying in a pool of blood in her room.
The aforesaid fact has not been challenged by the appellant and the
appellant herself in her statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
admitted aforesaid facts therefore, this fact also seems undisputed that in
the intervening night of 27-28.02.2009, appellant was present in the
same house where the deceased was found dead.
14. It is apparent from the statement of SHO B.S. Kushwah (PW-13)
and spot map (Exhibit-P/2), prepared by him that there were two
adjacent rooms in the said house, wherein deceased was sleeping in the
front room, while appellant was sleeping in the adjacent room. The
appellant has nowhere explained as to when, how and by whom the
injuries found on the body of deceased were caused. As it is next to
impossible that a person sleeping in the adjacent room is not aware about
the incident, which took place in the connected room therefore,
presumption of appellant's involvement in the crime can very well be
inferred. Appellant has neither herself said anything nor has produced
Cr. A. No.519/2010
any evidence in the rebuttal of the aforesaid presumption.
15. From the statements of Bhagwan Singh (PW-8), Saritabai (PW-9),
Asha (PW-10) and Inder Singh (PW-11) as well as Constable Tulsiram
Verma (PW-6), who reached to the spot just after the incident, it is
apparent that the blood stains were tried to be removed from the place of
incident as water was found on the floor of the room. The act of
removing the blood from the place of occurrence corroborates the
involvement of the appellant in the alleged crime.
16. Saudan Singh (PW-7), Bhagwan Singh (PW-8), Saritabai (PW-9),
Asha (PW-10) and Inder Singh (PW-11) have not stated anything about
the strained relations between the deceased and co-accused Kamal Singh
and have denied the presence of the co-accused Kamal Singh on the spot
at the time of incident as well as on the next day morning, when they
reached the spot and have turned hostile on the aforesaid points, but from
the statements of Bhagwan Singh (PW-8), Saritabai (PW-9), Asha (PW-
10) and Inder Singh (PW-11), it is apparent that the relations of the
deceased with the appellant were strained. Inder Singh (PW-11) deposed
that prior to the incident, appellant, due to her dispute with the deceased,
went to her paternal house and lived there for a long period.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussions, although the circumstances
produced on record very well proved the involvement of the appellant in
the crime but as per statement of Dr. Hari Singh (PW-12) and the post-
mortem report (Exhibit-P/20) prepared by him, death of the deceased
was caused due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of injury in her
neck cutting the main vessels of the neck and the aforesaid injury was
attributed to the co-accused Kamal Singh and the weapon knife (Article-
A-1), by which above injury was caused, is said to be seized on the basis
of his memorandum statement (Exhibit-P/7) on his instance, from his
Cr. A. No.519/2010
possession, as per seizure memo (Exhibit-P/5). Therefore, in the absence
of evidence about any premeditation of appellant with the co-accused
Kamal Singh or the person, who caused the above injury to the deceased,
she cannot be held liable for the said injury.
18. As the injuries No.(i) & (ii), mentioned in para No.10 of this
judgement, have been attributed to the appellant, and the same were not
stated to be the immediate cause of the death of the deceased, therefore,
intention of the appellant to cause death or knowledge that her act was
likely to cause death of the deceased not made out beyond reasonable
doubt. Dr. Hari Singh (PW-12) deposed that both the above injuries i.e.
one Contused Abrasion on left temporo-parietal region and two
Lacerated Wounds on forehead were caused by hard and blunt object,
and he found depressed fracture in deceased's left frontal and parietal
bone. The hard and blunt object 'moosli' (Article-A-2), from which above
injuries were caused, is an iron rod type instrument weighing about two
kilograms, and by which death of a person can likely be caused, has been
seized on the instance of the appellant from her box. The act of causing
more than one grievous injuries by such deadly weapon itself shows that
the same were caused voluntarily.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, from the evidence produced on
record, act committed by the appellant cannot be said to come under the
purview of Section 302 of IPC instead, it would come under Section 326
of the IPC. Therefore, conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of
the IPC could not be maintained. She could only be convicted for an
offence under Section 326 of the IPC. Appellant has completed about 13
years of her jail sentence, therefore, looking to the period of custody of
the appellant, her jail sentence is liable to be altered. Hence the sentence
awarded to the appellant is altered from life imprisonment to the period
Cr. A. No.519/2010
already undergone.
20. In the result, we allow the appeal, but only to the extent that
instead of Section 302 of the IPC, the appellant shall stand convicted for
the offence of causing grievous injuries by deadly weapon moosli,
punishable under Section 326 of the IPC and accordingly, sentence of
life imprisonment awarded to the appellant is altered from life
imprisonment to the period already undergone. The conviction of the
appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is hereby set aside and the same
is hereby converted under Section 326 of the IPC and her jail sentence is
reduced to the period already undergone. Appellant be set at liberty
forthwith, if she is not required in any other case. Her bail bonds, if any,
shall stands discharged.
21. With the aforesaid, the criminal appeal is allowed in part to the
extent as indicated herein above.
22. The Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court record
forthwith alongwith copy of this judgement.
(Subodh Abhyankar) (Satyendra Kumar Singh)
Judge Judge
gp
Digitally signed by GEETA PRAMOD
GEETA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH INDORE, postalCode=452001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=1dc3d93a178bbacd0e9485f9f6e9933549
9bddb32501850a4984b5b63f6d7a38,
PRAMOD
pseudonym=12F09B7BC77D4D3D96B764E8FA34
B6FE3874D434,
serialNumber=41554F8E701AEEB833278B4FDD90
0CBED72CCF299EA61E33BBE6175289BA0390,
cn=GEETA PRAMOD
Date: 2022.09.27 11:27:54 +05'30'
