MANNU LAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the Appeal being called for hearing no one appeared on behalf of the Appellant to press the appeal. Considering that the appeal was of the year 1999, we did not consider it proper to adjourn the matter further awaiting appearance of the Counsel and requested Shri Tarik Haidar, Advocate, who was present in the Court and is also a Panel Lawyer of the High Court Legal Services Committee, to assist us in hearing and deciding the appeal. Learned Counsel Shri Haider and the State Counsel have ably and fairly assisted us with regard to the materials and evidence on record. The Appellant stands convicted under Section and 302 IPC to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In the event of failure to pay the fine he was required to undergo two years further rigorous imprisonment as ordered by the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial. No. 479 of 1997 on 26.3.1999.

(2.) Merg, Exhibit P1, was lodged by CW1, Dr. U.S. Kodapurkar for the death of the deceased, who was the wife of the Appellant, at the Hospital where she was brought in an Ambulance by the Appellant himself who was also in an injured condition. The FIR, Exhibit P5, was then lodged by the Police Constable Anujram, PW9. Exhibit P7 was the inquest report proved by PW10, the Investigating Officer. Exhibit P10, the spot map was also proved by PW10, as inside the bedroom of the Appellant. The postmortem, Exhibit P11 was conducted by PW11, Dr. R.S. Kanwar who found five incised wounds on the occipital region, bone deep, right side of the middle of the neck, right side of the thoracic region, over the back of the left shoulder cutting the artery and veins and over middle third and back of left rib. The injuries were opined to have been caused by hard and sharp object. The sixth, seventh and eighth ribs on the right side were fractured. There were chips of fracture on the left shoulder joint which was also dislocated.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the deceased was his own wife. He did not assault her. The assault on the deceased was made by two intruders, a defence also taken by him under section 313 Cr.P.C. His minor son, Vijay, PW7 also stated that two unknown intruders had entered the house and killed his mother. They had also assaulted his father. PW7 had denied having given any statement to the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., marked Exhibit P3 that his father had assaulted his mother. Merely because the deceased may have died inside the bedroom cannot shift the burden straightaway on the Appellant under Section 106 of the Evidence Act unless the prosecution first establishes a prima facie case. Merely because he may not have lodged a police report with regard to the intruders having assaulted his wife and him cannot lead to completely disbelieving his defence. His conduct in taking his wife to the hospital was incompatible with the allegations if he had desired to kill her. The defence taken by the Appellant was a plausible one which has not been considered properly. He is therefore entitled to acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt.