Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balaram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3155
1 CRA-128-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 7 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 128 of 2015
BALARAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Ms. Anita Jain - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Sonal Gupta - Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.
Heard on:- 27.01.2025.
Posted on:- 07.02.2025
.......................................................................................................................................................
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Gajendra Singh
This criminal appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 is
preferred challenging the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC and
sentence of life imprisonment and Rs.1,000/- fine with default stipulations
with two years imprisonment in sessions case No.417/2012 by Additional
Sessions Judge, Mehidpur, District Ujjain vide judgment dated 25.07.2014
for causing the murder of his wife on 14.05.2012.
2. The prosecution case before the trial Court was that
appellant/accused Balaram has doubt regarding the fidelity of his wife
Chandarbai and due to this a dispute arose between night of 13.05.2012 and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3155
2 CRA-128-2015
14.05.2012 at village Kadhai, P.S Mahidpur, District Ujjain and
appellant/accused throttled the neck of his wife Chandarbai and thereafter,
took Chandarbai to a pit situated at nursery near the house and pour kerosene
upon her and set her ablaze.
3. Appellant/accused intimated village Chowkidar Raghunath at 12:30
pm of 14.05.2012 that his wife Chandarbai is lying in a pit near the nursery.
Raghunath went to the spot and saw that Chandarbai is lying and her body is
charred and intimated the Police Station Mahidpur at 1:00pm on 14.05.2012
and Merg No.10/12 was registered. During enquiry the material found at the
spot including the quarter of desi plain liquor, match stick, two sleepers,
burnt clothes and blood stained soil and simple soil were seized as per
Ex.P/6. An autopsy was conducted and statements were recorded. When the
involvement of the appellant/accused was disclosed then an FIR under
Section 302 & 201 of the IPC was lodged on 16.05.2012 and crime
No.148/12 was registered at P.S Mahidpur, District Ujjain.
Appellant/accused was taken into custody and memorandum (Ex.P/12) was
prepared on the basis of information of appellant/accused and his clothes
were seized, nail clippings were also procured, finger prints of the
appellant/accused were procured and forwarded to Finger Print Bureau,
SCRB, PHQ, Bhopal and other material was forwarded to State Forensic
Science Laboratory, Bhopal. Statements were recorded and final report was
submitted to the Court.
4. Charges under Section 302 & 201 of the IPC were framed against
the appellant/accused and he abjured the guilt and claimed for trial.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3155
3 CRA-128-2015
5. To bring home the guilt the prosecution examined as many as 19
witnesses including Kalabai (daughter of appellant/accused) as PW-1,
Vikram son of appellant/accused as PW-2, Prakash son-in-law of
appellant/accused as PW-3, Mayabai daughter of appellant/accused as PW-4,
Manobai daughter of appellant/accused as PW-5, Dayaram son-in-law of
appellant/accused as PW-6, Anitabai as daughter of appellant/accused as
PW-7, Dinesh Chandra @ Pappu neighbor of appellant/accused as PW-8,
Chowkidar Raghunath as PW-9, Head Constable, P.S Mahidpur Rajesh
Singh as PW-10, Dr. M.S Rampure as PW-11, Prabhulal as PW-12,
Assistant Sub-Inspector Umashankar as PW-13, Assistant Sub-Inspector
Nasirullah Qureshi as PW-14, Inspector Rakesh Mohan Shukla as PW-15,
Inspector Laxmi Narayan Sagore as PW-16, Senior Scientific Officer Scene
of Crime Mobile Unit, Ujjain Shri Arvind Nayak as PW-17, Pawan as PW-
18 and Sub-Inspector Ram Singh as PW-19.
6. In examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C appellant/accused
only admitted the relationship with the witnesses through answer to
questions No.1 to 5, 26, 51, 65 and also admitted that body of his wife was
found in a pit near the nursery in answer to questions No.1 & 7. Rest of the
questions were either denied or ignorance was expressed. He pleaded that he
has been falsely implicated in the case as his wife committed suicide. He
examined Babulal as DW-1 in his defence.
7. Appreciating the evidence, trial Court found proved circumstances
as mentioned in para 22 of the judgment and rejected the defence version
putforth through Babulal (DW-1) and convicted the appellant/accused under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3155
4 CRA-128-2015
Section 302 of the IPC but acquitted appellant/accused under Section 201 of
the IPC. Appellant/accused was sentenced as per para 01 of the judgment.
8. Challenging the conviction and sentence, this appeal has been
preferred on the ground that trial Court ignored the fact that there is no eye
witness of the incident. There is material contradictions in the testimony of
Kalabai (PW-1), Vikram (PW-2), Manobai (PW-5) & Anitabai (PW-7).
They have stated about the one month old dispute but did not stated that
there was any dispute on the day of incident. Trial Court didn't examined
Kailash who can be the best witness regarding the circumstances of death of
Chandarbai. The statement of Prakash (PW-3) & Dayaram (PW-6) are full of
contradictions and both of them has deposed regarding incident of 15 days
prior to the incident. They have also deposed regarding the incident on the
date of death of Chandarbai. Dinesh Chandra @ Pappu (PW-8) & Prabhulal
(PW-12) have turned hostile and trial Court ignored this fact. FSL report
Ex.P/11 mentions that no trace of kerosene was found in the nail clippings of
the appellant/accused.
Heard.
9. The Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State has
supported the conviction and argued that life imprisonment is the minimum
sentence for the offence of murder & no interference is called for.
Perused the record.
10. In para 61 of the judgment of the trial Court it is recorded that
Chandarbai was set ablaze by putting her in the pit when she was alive
referring to Dr. M.S Rampure (PW-11) who has stated that carbon particles
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3155
5 CRA-128-2015
were found in the larynx. This finding is based on proper appreciation of the
evidence. Now, question arises whether deceased herself committed suicide
or she was burnt alive by the appellant/accused.
11. As per Senior Scientific Officer Scene of Crime Mobile Unit,
Ujjain Shri Arvind Nayak (PW-17), the body of Chandarbai was found in a
pit near nursery situated at 1½ furlong away from the residence of the
deceased. The size of pit was 26 feet long, 10½ feet width, 6½ feet deep in
which soil and stone were lying. The body of the deceased was lying flat in
the pit 72 inch away from left side. The legs were to the side of main road
and face was opposite side and a match stick was lying at a distance of 30
inch from the dead body and a plastic bottle was also lying at 1 feet distance
near the waist of deceased. The plastic bottle smelled of Kerosene and there
was no sign of movement of the body at the place of incident. The findings
of the trial Court that deceased was not in a position to defend herself is
proper in the light of Ex.P/32.
12. Evidence of Vikram (PW-2), Manobai (PW-5) & Dayaram (PW-6)
proved that in the intervening night of 13.05.2012 & 14.05.2012
appellant/accused Balaram & Chandarbai was together in the house situated
at village Kadhai, Mahidpur, District Ujjain and body of Chandarbai was
found at or about 1½ furlong in a pit and her death was caused due to the
injuries caused by burning using Kerosene oil. Inspector Rakesh Mohan
Shukla (PW-15) taken into custody the appellant/accused Balaram on
16.05.2012 at 22:20 vide Ex.P/11 at Police Station Mahidpur and seized the
Kurta (article-A) and Pyjama (article -B) from the body of appellant/accused
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3155
6 CRA-128-2015
vide Ex.P/10 and sent to FSL, Sagar vide Ex.P/15. Property was deposited at
FSL Sagar on 18.06.2012 as per Ex.P/16 and Ex.P/21 reported that extracts
of kerosene were found in the Kurta (article-A) and Pyjama (artilce-B)
seized from the body of the appellant/accused.
13. According to Senior Scientific Officer Arvind Nayak (PW-17) and
Sub-Inspector Ramsingh (PW-19) a quarter of plain country-made liquor was
found on the spot and was seized as per Ex.P/6 and was forwarded to FSL,
Sagar vide Ex.P/14. As per Laxminarayan Sagore (PW-6) he has developed
chance print on the unfilled quarter of country-made liquor and submitted to
Police Inspector Rakesh Mohan Shukla (PW-15) and instructed to obtain the
finger print of appellant/accused. Testimony of Laxminarayan Sagore (PW-
16) has stated that finger print developed on the photograph of Ex.P/27 and
finger print available on Ex.P/28 matched. But these witnesses has stated in
para 10 of cross-examination that finger print of appellant/accused was not
taken before him and the bottle from which the finger print were developed
has not been received from FSL, Sagar. Testimony of Rakesh Mohan Shukla
(PW-15) and Sub-Inspector Ramsingh (PW-19) also does not prove that
Ex.P/25 was taken by him or in his presence from Balaram. Accordingly,
presence of finger print of Balaram on the under filled quarter of country-
made liquor is not proved by the prosecution evidence.
14. Now, the question arises whether rest of the circumstances
available on the record and proved by the prosecution are sufficient to prove
commission of the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt. Referring to
Rai Singh vs. State of M.P, 2024 Latest Caselaw 9130 M.P, learned counsel
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3155
7 CRA-128-2015
for the appellant/accused has argued that no offence is proved against the
appellant/accused from the evidence on record and if any involvement of the
appellant/accused is proved then his act would constitute at the most an
offence punishable under Section 304 part-I of the IPC and not an offence
under Section 302 of the IPC.
15. This case is based largely on circumstantial evidence and peculiar
circumstances of this case is that appellant and deceased were residing in the
same house as husband and wife when Chandarbai died. In Trimukh Maroti
Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681, the Apex Court has
held as under:-
"17. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and
the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the
commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes placed in the
dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been
consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the
wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a
strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of
the crime. In Nika Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1972 SC 2077 it
was observed that the fact that the accused alone was with his wife in the
house when she was murdered there with 'khokhri' and the fact that the
relations of the accused with her were strained would, in the absence of any
cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt. In Ganeshlal v. State of
Maharashtra (1992) 3 SCC 106 the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of
his wife which took place inside his house. It was observed that when the death
had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a
plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of
any explanation were held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused,
but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the
commission of murder of his wife. In State of U.P v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash
Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045 the medical evidence disclosed that the wife died of
strangulation during late night hours or early morning and her body was set on
fire after sprinkling kerosene. The defence of the husband was that wife had
committed suicide by burning herself and that he was not at home at that time.
The letters written by the wife to her relatives showed that the husband ill-
treated her and their relations were strained and further the evidence showed
that both of them were in one room in the night. It was held that the chain of
circumstances was complete and it was the husband who committed the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3155
8 CRA-128-2015
murder of his wife by strangulation and accordingly this Court reversed the
judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused and convicted him under
Section 302 IPC. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679 the
wife was found dead in a hut which had caught fire. The evidence showed that
the accused and his wife were seen together in the hut at about 9.00 p.m. and
the accused came out in the morning through the roof when the hut had caught
fire. His explanation was that it was a case of accidental fire which resulted in
the death of his wife and a daughter. The medical evidence showed that the
wife died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and not on account of
burn injuries. It was held that there cannot be any hesitation to come to the
conclusion that it was the accused (husband) who was the perpetrator of the
crime."
16. In State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal (1992) 3 SCC 300,
the medical evidence disclosed that the wife died of strangulation during late
night hours or early morning and her body was set on fire after sprinkling
kerosene. The defence of the husband was that the wife had committed
suicide by burning herself and that he was not at home at that time. The
letters written by the wife to her relatives showed that the husband ill- treated
her and their relations were strained and further the evidence showed that
both of them were in one room in the night. It was held that the chain of
circumstances was complete and it was the husband who committed the
murder of his wife by strangulation and accordingly this Court reversed the
judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused and convicted him under
Section 302 IPC.
17. The principle flowing from these judgement is that as per the
evidence on the record if it is established that accused alone was present in
the house when the incident of murder had taken place, heavy burden lies on
his shoulder to give plausible explanation to prove the nature of incident. In
the instant case, the appellant has submitted the explanation in examination
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C that deceased committed suicide and that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3155
9 CRA-128-2015
explanation has been found false. His defense advanced through Babulal
(DW-1) also does not answer to the circumstances of the death of
Chandarbai as he only stated that Balaram was working at his home as
mason and he went to bring his hammer and intimated that his wife has died.
He also went to the house of appellant/accused and found that his wife was
lying about 35 to 40 feet away from the house of Balaram. Accordingly,
when deceased and appellant alone were in the house in the intervening night
and the dead body of the Chandarbai was found in a pit burnt by use of
kerosene and kerosene was found from the Kurta(article-A) and Pyjama
(article-B) seized from the body of the appellant/accused and evidence of
children of the appellant/accused and close relatives namely Kalabai (PW-1),
Vikram (PW-2), Prakash (PW-3), Mayabai (PW-4), Manobai (PW-5),
Dayaram (PW-6) & Anitabai (PW-7) has stated the cruel behaviour of the
appellant/accused towards her wife denoting the motive of appellant/accused
to kill her wife and fact that appellant has miserably failed to show the reason
of death of his wife which had taken place when she was with
appellant/accused then the above proved circumstances complete the chain of
circumstances in all respects so as to indicate the guilt of the
appellant/accused and also exclude any other theory of the crime.
18. Non-examination of Kailash mentioned in line No.7 of para 01 of
Kalabai (PW-1) does not break the above chain. The trial Court has rightly
held guilty the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC by taking aid of
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872. The judgment of Raisingh
(supra) does not help the appellant/accused. In that case, the death of wife
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3155
10 CRA-128-2015
was caused by stick normally available in each and every house and there
was no previous enmity between the appellant and deceased and the relations
were also not strained and when they were living together dispute arose
suddenly and the appellant assaulted his wife by means of stick. Whereas in
this case, the relation were strained and appellant/accused had a motive to
cause the death of his wife and the death was caused in a planned manner.
Accordingly, conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and
sentence of life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default
stipulations does not call for interference. Appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed. The judgment and conviction of the trial Court is upheld. Also,
the copy of the judgment be supplied to the appellant/accused through Jail
Superintendent, Central Jail, Ujjain.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
akanksha
