8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and
the court below has wrongly convicted and sentenced the appellant.
He would also raise the following points in his submission-
(i) There is no report of any harassment and torture
that was meted out to the deceased prior to lodging
of the FIR in the instant case.
(ii) According to the prosecution, the throat of the
deceased was cut, but no weapon of offence was
ever recovered.
(iii) The Forensic Science Laboratory report did not
detect blood on the soil that was picked up from the
place of incident.
(iv) The statements of PW3 Buddh Ram and PW6
Krishna Chandra are hearsay evidence.
(v) There is no eyewitness to the incident.
(vi) PW2 Smt. Chanda Devi says that she had seen knife
at the place of incident, but PW8 Sub Inspector,
Kevlanand Arya did not find any knife at the place
of incident. It further doubts the prosecution case.
(vii) According to the PW2 Smt. Chanda Devi sugarcane
had grown up to her height. In such a situation, it is
argued that it was not possible that she could see as
to what had happened in the sugarcane field from a
distance. Therefore, her testimony is not reliable,
which doubts the entire prosecution case.
9. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that
PW1, Pawan Ram, PW2 Smt. Chanda Devi, and PW5 Munna Lal have
supported the prosecution case. The appellant was seen running from
the sugarcane field after killing the deceased. Soon after the incident,
the witnesses reached at the spot and saw the deceased dead on the
sugarcane field. The dead body was still lying on the field when the
FIR was lodged at 11.30 a.m. It is a prompt FIR, which records the
details of the incident. There is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution
case. The witnesses have stated that the appellant was in the habit of
beating and harassing the deceased. She had burnt injuries on her
person when the post mortem was conducted and the witnesses have
stated about it. The appellant absconded after the incident. The charge
sheet was filed showing him absconder. He was arrested on
30.11.2012. This conduct is also relevant.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that mere
because the appellant could not be traced for a long may not be a
ground to make any inference. He cites the principles of law, as laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sekaran Vs. State
of Tamil Nadu, (2024) 2 SCC 176. In the case of Sekaran (supra), on
the aspect of absconding of an appellant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that this itself cannot establish the guilt of the guilty conscience.
In para 30, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-
"30. Although not brought to our notice in course of
arguments, it is revealed from the oral testimony of PW 11 that the
appellant could be apprehended 3 (three) years after the incident from
Puliyur road junction in (1 km away from Ambalakalai) in Kerala after
vigorous search. However, abscondence by a person against whom an
FIR has been lodged and who is under expectation of being
apprehended is not very unnatural. Mere absconding by the appellant
after alleged commission of crime and remaining untraceable for such
a long time itself cannot establish his guilt or his guilty conscience.
Abscondence, in certain cases, could constitute a relevant piece of
evidence, but its evidentiary value depends upon the surrounding
circumstances. This sole circumstance, therefore, does not enure to
the benefit of the prosecution.
11. PW1 Pawan Ram is the informant, who is brother of the
deceased. According to him, the deceased Rekha and the appellant
were married in the year 2001. But after marriage, the appellant
would torture her. They were blessed with two children. 3-4 days prior
to the incident, the appellant had burnt the stomach, hands and feet
of the deceased. Thereafter, the deceased had visited her parental
home. On 10.07.2011, the appellant visited his matrimonial home and
tendered apologies, assuring that in future, he would not repeat such
mistakes. He was seeking pardon. On that night, the appellant stayed
with his wife in the room in the house of this witness. According to
PW1, on 11.07.2011 at about 9:00 in the morning when she went out
in the sugarcane field of Munna Singh to answer the call of nature, the
appellant followed her. After a while, this witness heard shrieks of the
deceased. This witness, his mother PW2 Smt. Chanda Devi saw the
appellant running out from the sugarcane field towards the road.
From there he boarded a vehicle and ran away. When this witness
reached in the sugarcane field, he saw that the deceased was killed by
slitting her throat. PW1 Pawan Ram also says that the villagers had
also seen the appellant running from the place. Many persons
assembled there. Thereafter, this witness PW3 Buddh Ram, PW5
Munna Lal and PW6 Krishna Chandra went to the police station to
lodge the report. The report was written by PW6 Krishna Chandra on
the dictation of the PW1 Pawan Ram. This witness proved the FIR, Ex.
A1. According to him, the Investigating Officer prepared the site plan
in the case in his presence.
12. PW2 Smt. Chanda Devi is mother of the deceased. She
has also corroborated the statement of PW1 Pawan Ram.
13. PW5 Munna Lal has also corroborated the statements of
PW1 Pawan Ram and PW2 Smt. Chanda Devi.
14. PW3 Buddh Ram and PW6 Krishna Chandra reached at
the spot after the incident. According to PW3 Buddh Ram, as soon as
he reached at the place of incident, he was told by the villagers that
the appellant had killed his wife and ran away. He had seen the dead
body. He proved his signatures of the inquest report. According to him,
the police had taken blood stained and plain soil in his presence and
recovery memo of it was prepared.
15. PW4 Constable Puran Singh has written chik FIR Ex.A2
and lodged the case at the police station. He proved the extract of GD
Ex. A3.
16. PW7 Dr. Pradeep Singh, conducted the post mortem of the
deceased on 11.07.2011. According to him, he found injuries on the
person of the deceased.
17. According to PW7 Dr. Pradeep Singh, the cause of death
was ante mortem injuries leading to shock. He has proved the post
mortem report Ex. A4. According to him, he has sealed the clothes of
the deceased and given to the police, who took the dead body.
18. PW8 Sub Inspector, Kevlanand Arya, took up the
investigation. After lodging of the FIR, he prepared site plan Ex. A5
and also took into custody blood stained and plain soil from the place
of incident and prepared the recovery memo Ex. A6. Thereafter, the
investigation was transferred from this witness. It was continued by
PW10 Inspector, Ganesh Prasad Bothiyal. According to him, the
appellant was absconding. Processes under Sections 82 and 83 of the
Code had already been executed against the appellant. Thereafter, he
submitted charge sheet Ex. A12 against the appellant as absconder.
19. PW9 Sub Inspector, Dharam Singh is the Police Officer
who prepared inquest Ex. A7. He has proved other documents also.
20. In the instant case, nobody has seen the appellant killing
the deceased, his wife. What is stated is that soon after the incident,
the appellant was seen running away from the place of incident and
the deceased was found dead. The prosecution has also alleged that
the appellant was not happy with his wife. He would beat her quite
frequently and some 3-4 days prior to the incident, he burnt her
stomach, hands and feet of which marks were present on the person of
the deceased.
21. This Court had raise a few questions during the course of
hearing with regard to the presence of the appellant in his matrimonial
home in the night of 10.07.2011. As to what other material was
collected by the Investigating Officer to establish the fact that the
appellant had stayed in the house of PW1 Pawan Ram on the previous
night? If the height of sugarcane was at the height of PW2 Smt.
Chanda Devi, how could PW2 Smt. Chanda Devi was able to see from
the distance that the appellant is running from the place of
occurrence?
22. PW1 Pawan Ram is quite consistent. He has proved the
FIR and stated about the incident. In his cross examination, as such,
nothing has been extracted, which may, in any manner, doubt his
credibility. He tells that the appellant would torture the deceased. In
first paragraph of his cross examination, he states that the appellant
would beat the deceased after consuming liquor. This is what PW2
Smt. Chanda Devi has stated.
23. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that PW5
Munna Lal is not reliable because in the site plan it has not been
shown as to from which place he has seen the incident. He is a
villager. Even it is not in doubt that his house is not situated in the
vicinity. Merely because the Investigating Officer has not shown the
place from where he could notice the incident, does not create any
doubt in the testimony of the PW5 Munna Lal or the entire
prosecution case. In fact, at page 4 of his statement, PW5 Munna Lal
has stated that the appellant would beat up the deceased after
consuming liquor.
24. The inquest report Ex. A7 records that there were marks
of burn on the person of the deceased. This is what PW7 Dr. Pradeep
Singh has stated that he had noted burnt marks on the person of the
deceased. It corroborates the statements of PW1 Pawan Ram, PW2
Smt. Chanda Devi and other witnesses.
25. It is consistent case of the prosecution that the appellant
would harass, beat and torture the deceased. She had burnt marks,
which have been proved by the prosecution. The deceased had come to
her parental home 3-4 days prior to the date of incident. Why did she
come? According to PW1, because of atrocities she had come.
Although, at one stage, he has stated that there was some function in
the house of Pratap Ram, therefore, the deceased had come to join
that function.
26. On behalf of the appellant, arguments were raised that the
reasons for the deceased to visit her parental home are distinct.
Therefore, it is not reliable. It is not any material contradiction. It is
not disputed that the deceased was in her parental home. It is also
established by the prosecution that she had burnt marks. Prosecution
has also proved that the deceased was harassed by the appellant.
27. The place of incident is sugarcane field, which is in the
northern side of the residence of PW1 Pawan Ram and PW2 Smt.
Chanda Devi. The distance of the place of incident is about 300
meters. The sugarcane field starts from a distance. PW1 Pawan Ram
has stated in page 6, beginning paragraph of his statement, that the
sugarcane had grown up to 3 feet height though PW2 Smt. Chanda
Devi, in page 4 of her statement, in the last but 2nd line tells that the
sugarcane was grown up to her height.
28. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
State submits that in District Udham Singh Nagar sugarcane grows
little late and in the month of July it could grow only 2-3 feet. That is
what PW1 Pawan Ram has stated. The statement of PW2 Smt. Chanda
Devi does not doubt the prosecution case. From a distance she could
definitely have seen a person running from the sugarcane field. This is
what PW1 Pawan Ram, PW2 Smt. Chanda Devi and PW5 Munna Lal
have stated.
29. It is argued that blood stains were not found in the
Forensic Science Laboratory report. It is true that plain and blood
stained soil were taken into custody, from the place of incident. Blood
was not detected on it, but it does not doubt the prosecution case in
any manner. At times, it could have been fatal to establish the place of
incident. This is because the dead body was still in the field when the
FIR was lodged by the PW1 Pawan Ram. This is what is stated in the
FIR. FIR was lodged at 10:30 a.m. and inquest begun at 11:00 a.m.
Inquest report records that the dead body was in the sugarcane field.
The place of incident is not in doubt.
30. Insofar as, recovery of any belonging of the appellant from
the house of PW1 Pawan Ram is concerned, it does not gain much
importance because this has been stated by PW1 Pawan Ram and
PW2 Smt. Chanda Devi that on 10.07.2011, the appellant stayed in
their home and this has not been doubted. Not even a single question
was asked to the witnesses, in their cross examination, so as to
discredit their testimonies on this aspect. Even no suggestions were
given that the appellant did not stay in the house of PW1 Pawan Ram
on 10.07.2022.
31. It is also argued that weapon of offence has not been
recovered. In all cases, recovery of weapon of offence is not necessary
to bring home the guilt of the accused. It is true that PW2 Chanda
Devi in page 5, bottom lines of her statement has stated that the
appellant has left the knife on the spot. PW8 Kevlanand Arya, the
Investigating Officer has said that he looked for the weapon of offence,
but he could not find it (Statement of PW8 Kevlanand Arya, the
Investigating Officer, page 5 middle paragraph). But, it appears that
the statement of PW2 Smt. Chanda Devi is little exaggerated. Her
statement to the extent that the knife was lying on the place of
incident is not reliable, but it also does not falsify her entire
statement.
32. What is more important is that the appellant absconded.
After lodging of the charge sheet, he was not traceable. The processes
under Section 82 and 83 of the Code were taken out. His belongings
were attached. He did not appear. He was arrested long after the date
of incident. He was arrested on 30.11.2012. This conduct per se in
itself is not sufficient to convict the appellant, but, for conviction in
the instant case, there are other sufficient material. This conduct is
also relevant. The statements of PW1 Pawan Ram, PW2 Smt. Chanda
Devi and PW5 Munna Lal are corroborating and they inspire
confidence. It has further been corroborated by the statement of PW3
Buddh Ram, PW6 Krishna Chandra. Medical evidence also supports
the prosecution case.
33. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
view that the prosecution, in fact, has been able to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. The court below has
rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant by the impugned
judgment and order, which calls for no interference. Accordingly, the
appeal deserves to be dismissed.
34. The appeal is dismissed.
(Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
15.12.2025
Jitendra
