Sekadiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 4653 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sekadiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 2024

Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

                            - : 1 :-


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT INDORE

                        BEFORE
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND
                 DHARMADHIKARI
                              &
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA

             ON THE 7th OF FEBRUARY, 2024

            CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 508 of 2014

BETWEEN:-
SEKADIYA S/O NANKA, AGED ABOUT 50
YEARS, PRATAP FALIYA UDAYGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
                                               .....APPELLANT

(SHRI SANTOSH CHOURASIA -ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT)


AND
  THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
  STATION HOUSE OFFICER THRU. P.S.
  RANAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)



                                              .....RESPONDENT
(SHRI GAURAV SINGH CHOUHAN - DEPUTY GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR
THE RESPONDENT/STATE ).



              Reserved on      : 07.02.2024

              Pronounced on : 17.02.2024
                                                    - : 2 :-


.................................................................................................................

This Criminal Appeal having been heard and reserved for orders,

coming on for pronouncement this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice

Devnarayan Mishra passed the following :

                                              JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal has been preferred by accused/appellant being aggrieved with the judgment and sentence passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Jhabua in ST. No.81/2013 dated 17.12.2013 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- in default of depositing the fine additional rigorous imprisonment of three months.

2. The prosecution story in nutshell is that on 28.04.2013 at about 8:00 pm the complainant Fatiya (PW-1) driving the tractor of Jagdish Gari went to Ranapur Bus Stand where the accused Sekadiya met him and the accused told him that he has killed his wife Rano Bai on 27.04.2013 between 10:00 to 11:00 am near Amba Kuan by strangulation and hitting with the stones and body of the deceased is lying near the Dungranala. The accused requested to inform the incident to his brother-in-law Aman Singh. The accused also told Fatiya (PW-1) that the deceased Rano Bai was having illicit relations with Ajiya Chougand (PW-7) and she was continuing the relations even after repeated advice. On

- : 3 :-

27.04.2013 the accused saw her wife going along with Ajiya on Dungara Road and he chased them but Ajiya ran away and he caught hold the deceased and strangulated her and crushed her skull by stones. On that information was passed to Aman Singh, Kesari Bai, Ram Singh and they saw the dead body of the deceased near Dungarnala. The Police Ranapur was informed on that basis the Police registered the Marg 28/2013 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Police Inspector Rajesh Baghel (PW-10) went on the spot and preprared a spot map and an inquest report. He also prepared the spot map Ex.P-4 and seized the plain soil and blood stained soil and a bag and prepared seizure memo Ex.P-5.

3. The dead body was sent for postmortem to District Hospital, Jhabua and crime No.137/2013 under Section 302 of IPC was registered, the accused was arrested from the Bus Stand Ranapur and arrest memo Ex.P-6 was prepared. The spot was made identified by the accused and trace map of the spot was prepared Ex.P-12. The petticoat, lugada and blouse of deceased was recovered and seizure memo Ex.P-17 was prepared. The statement of the witnesses were recorded and after the investigation charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Jhabua. After committal and transfer the case was submitted before the trial Court.

4. The trial Court framed the charges under Section 302 of the IPC. Accused abjured the guilt and prayed for the trial. During the trial, the trial Court recorded the statement of the witnesses and

- : 4 :-

exhibited the documents, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has taken the defense that he was falsely implicated in this case, he is innocent but he has not examined any witnesses in his favour.

5. The trial Court after completion of trial passed the impugned judgment, being aggrieved by which, this appeal has been filed by the appellant.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the whole prosecution case is based on the confession of the accused and the witness Fatiya (PW-1) cannot be relied and there are no other evidence by which the statement of Fatiya can be corroborated. Ajiya @ Ajay Singh (PW-7) has not stated that the accused was having any doubt regarding illicit relations of the deceased with him. It has also been brought on the record when Fatiya went to lodge the FIR the accused was present in the Police Station thus, it appears that when the accused went to inform the Police about the incident that his wife have been murdered the Police without making proper investigation has implicated applicant himself and in this situation the conviction of the appellant cannot be maintained.

7. Learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State has argued that the trial Court has elaborately discussed the reasons in the judgment and after appreciation of evidence relied on the statements of Fatiya (PW-1) and on that basis convicted the appellant. There is no infirmity and illegality in the judgment

- : 5 :-

hence, the appeal be dismissed, the conviction and sentence be maintained.

We heard both the parties and perused the record.

8. In this case first of all, we have to see in what circumstances the deceased died and what was the place of incident and on that point Dr. G.S Chouhan (PW-8) has stated that on 28.04.2013 he was posted as Medical Officer in Community Health Centre, Ranapur. On that day Constable Jayram Badge No.417 brought the dead body of the deceased Ranubai W/o Sekadiya aged about 45 years R/o Pratap Faliya, Udaygarh. The dead body was identified by Pinku son of the deceased, the appellant and brother-in-law of deceased Jogadiya S/o Nanka.

9. On examination he found that there was contusion of 1x1.5 inch bluish in colour on both side of the chest, lacerated wound on occipital region of the head measuring 1/2 x 1/2 inch with clotted blood. Third lacerated wound on the left phalange measuring 1/2 x 1/2 inch clotted blood was present. When the skull was opened hematoma was present over the brain in the occipital region, hyoid bone was fractured due to strangulation and both the lungs were raptured and pale, the ribs of left side were fractured, both the chambers of heart were empty, liver, kidney, spleen and stomach were pale that was caused due to injuries in the vital organs and as per the opinion of the doctor the deceased died due to asphyxia. This witness has also stated that lugada,

- : 6 :-

petticoat and blouse were sealed and packed and handed over to the Police Constable. This witness had exhibited the Postmortem report Exhibit P-11.

10. Thus, from the evidence of this witness it is clear that the deceased died due to asphyxia that was caused due to strangulation and it is clear that the ribs of the left side were fractured, hematoma was present over the occipital region in the brain, hyoid bone was fractured.

11. Now, the question arises who has caused the injury? On the point that identity of the deceased, the witness Pinku (PW-6) who is the son of the appellant and deceased has stated before the Court that on the date of incident the deceased and the appellant went to sell a male buffalo in the market he went late on the work and returned to his home. At night on call he asked his parental uncle (Fufa) Aman Singh (PW-2) that his parents have not returned home on that Aman Singh told him that his father has returned but not with his mother. On the next day in the morning he went to his work on that Aman Singh (PW-2) informed on the phone that the dead body of deceased Ranubai is lying in Ranapur on that he alongwith Jogadiya, Biniya, Lal Singh, Sekadiya Umaniya went on the spot Amba Kuan and saw the dead body of his mother. Injury was found on the back of the head, marks on throat of strangulation. The Police recovered the dead body of his mother and sent for Postmortem.

- : 7 :-

12. The witness Fatiya (PW-1), Aman Singh (PW-2), Kesari Bai (PW-3), Ram Singh (PW-4) and Kunwar Singh (PW-5) has supported the fact that the dead body of Ranu Bai was found near Dungarnala in the border of village Amba Kuan. There were injuries on the head, mouth and hands of the deceased and blood was found in the injuries. Thus, it is clear that the deceased was found near Dungarnala in injured condition and particularly the injury on the head, hands and mouth were found.

13. The witness Fatiya (PW-1) has clearly stated that he drives the tractor of Jagdish Gari and on the date of incident he went on the tractor to Bus Stand Ranapur where he met accused Sekadiya. Sekadiya is brother-in-law of son of his grandfather Aman Singh. The accused Sekadiya asked him inform Aman Singh that he has killed his wife Ranubai in Dungarnala on that he alongwith Ram Singh (PW-4) went to the Dungarnala and found the dead body of the deceased.

14. Ram Singh (PW-4) has supported that the accused Sekadiya has disclosed to Fatiya (PW-1) that he has killed his wife and left her at Dungarnala. The Fatiya met this witness Ram Singh at Bus Stand and both went to Ranapur Police Station and informed the Police and after that they alongwith Police went to Dungarnala and saw the deceased lying.

15. The witness Aman Singh (PW-2) has supported that accused Sekadiya is his brother-in-law. At the time of incident he

- : 8 :-

was at his home and Fatiya (PW-1) informed him on phone that Sekadiya has killed his wife and her dead body is lying in Dungarnala. Thereafter, the Police was informed and they went on the spot. Kesaribai (PW-3) sister-in-law of the appellant also supported that accused is his brother-in-law. The Fatiya has informed to her husband that Sekadiya has killed his wife and the dead body of the deceased is lying on Dungarnala. On the information she alongwith her husband Aman Singh (PW-3) and Fatiya (PW-1) went on the Dungarnala and saw the dead body of the deceased lying, and near the dead body some piece of stone were lying that was stained with blood, the Police was informed.

16. Police Officer Rajesh Singh Baghel (PW-10) has stated that on 28.04.2013 the Fatiya (PW-1) lodged an FIR against the accused and on that basis he registered an FIR Ex.P-2, Crime No.81/2013 under Section 302 of IPC. On that same day a marg intimation was registered Ex.P-1.

17. This witness has also stated that on 28.04.2013 he went on the spot and saw the dead body of deceased and prepared an inquest report, spot map and recovered from the spot blood stained and plain soil, stones and a bag, the seizure memo was prepared Ex. P-5 and on the same day the accused was arrested.

18. In this respect after Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 was registered, on 28.04.2013 at about 9:00 am an entry was also made in the daily diary entry No.10/2023 and the marg was also registered as Ex.P-

- : 9 :-

1. In these reports the time of incident have been mentioned on 27.04.2013 around 10:00 to 11:00 am. From the inquest report it is clear that the deceased was wearing pink colour blouse, petticoat yellow in colour and blood was found on blouse and petticoat of the deceased. The Police Officer Rajesh Singh Baghel as per Ex.P- 5 has also recovered five pieces of stone, blood stained soil, plain soil and cloth bag.

19. In this aspect it is to be seen that whether the statement of Fatiya is fully reliable or not? All these aspect as discussed above the dead body was found on the place which was stated by Fatiya (PW-1) and blood stained stones were recovered and the body of the deceased was recovered in injured position and the deceased had already died. Further more, the witness Fatiya (PW-

1) has stated that accused had requested to him to narrate the incident to Aman Singh (PW-2). The witness Aman Singh (PW-2) has also supported the fact that Fatiya has informed him on phone that Sekadiya had told him that he has killed his wife and her dead body is lying in Dungarnala. Nothing has been found by which the statement of Fatiya can be disbelieved. From the cross-

examination of Aman Singh (PW-2) it has been brought that on that day accused went to Ranapur to sell the male buffalo and thus, witness has admitted in para 11 that on that day Sekadiya directly went to Ranapur. He went with male buffalo to Ranapur and whole day they were trying to sell the buffalo but could not sell the

- : 10 :-

buffalo. On the next day when Sekadiya returned to his village Chapri he got the information from Fatiya.

20. On this aspect it is the prosecution case that from the statement of Pinku (PW-6) son of the appellant and deceased, he has clearly stated that on the date of the incident her mother Ranubai and father Sekadiya went to Ranapur to sell the buffalo.

Aman Singh had to reach with buffalo to Ranapur Market and for that purpose the accused and deceased went from home saying that they are going to Ranapur and as Aman Singh has stated he went with him to Ranapur. The buffalo was not sold on that day. So both of them returned and on the next day he got the information from Fatiya (PW-1) thus, from this fact it cannot be said that the accused didn't returned from the Ranapur and as per the prosecution case when both of them were going it would have been that there was some distance and his husband saw his wife going with Ajiya (PW-7) and accused was having doubt that his wife was having illicit relations with Ajiya and on that doubt he was annoyed with the deceased and on the date of incident he was much annoyed and he killed his wife.

21. It is also been brought on record that previously also the accused had quarreled and assualted his wife and was arrested by the Police and the victim herself had released him from the jail custody. On this point statement of Kesaribai (PW-3) are worth mention.

- : 11 :-

22. Thus, the prosecution case is totally based on the confession of the appellant/accused made before the Fatiya (PW-

1). As rule of prudence the corrobration is required in this aspect Pinku (PW-6) has stated that his mother Ranubai along with his father accused Sekadiya went to sell the male buffalo in the market and male buffalo was in Aman Singh's home. In night when both of his parents did not returned he asked Aman Singh on the phone that his parents have not returned to that Aman Singh replied that his father Sekadiya has returned but his mother Ranubai has not returned.

23. Just before the death, deceased Ranubai and appellant both had departed from home to sell the male buffalo and they were to reach Aman Singh's (PW-2) house. But accused alone reached to Aman's house and he spent the whole day with Aman Singh. This fact is also supported by Aman Singh (PW-2) in para 11 and 12. Thus, the accused was last seen with the deceased and deceased was his wife then it was his liability to explain that what happened with his wife, but accused failed to explain that fact. These circumstances also go against the appellant.

24. On this point it is worth mentioning that Amar Singh (PW-2) is the brother-in-law (Jija) of the deceased, Smt. Kesaribai (PW-3) is the sister of the appellant. Pinku (PW-6) is the son of the deceased and appellant. These witnesses supported the statement of Fatiya (PW-1). In these circumstances there is no reason to

- : 12 :-

disbelieve the statement of Fatiya (PW-1). The prosecution has also brought on the record that the accused was having doubt over the character of his wife, that she had illicit relations with Ajiya (PW-7). On the date of incident the appellant saw that his wife was going with Ajiya. It is also proved from the prosecution witness that previously the appellant had assualted his wife and the appellant was sent in custody and his wife made arrangements for his release. Thus, there is clear motive and occasion.

25. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the case comes under culpable homicide not amounting to murder. But to determine the intention of the appellant it is to be seen the injuries sustained by deceased. There were injuries on both sides of the chest and a lacerated wound was found on the occipital region of the head and on the left phalange. The deceased died due to asphyxia which was caused due to strangulation. The strangulation was of such kind that hyoid bone got fractured. Thus, the person strangulating in such way have clear intention to comit the murder. Thus, the injuries suffered by the deceased and the act of strangulation clearly show the intention of the appellant that he want to cause the death of the deceased. Thus, the act of the accused falls under the category of culpable homicide amounting to murder.

26. Therefore, it is clear that accused committed murder of deceased Ranubai on 27.04.2013 between 10:00 to 11:00 am in

- : 13 :-

Ambakuan near Dungarnala, Police Station Ranapur, Jhabua.

27. In view of above, the conviction and sentence of the trial Court under Section 302 of IPC is hereby affirmed, the appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed.

28. The order of trial Court regarding the case property is affirmed. Copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned Jail Authorities for information and necessary action. The record of the trial Court be returned back with the copy of this judgment.

C.C as per Rules.

               (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)                          (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
                          JUDGE                                    JUDGE



               akanksha