RAMDEV Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the appeal being called out, no one appeared on behalf of the Appellant despite the fact that we had granted bail to him on the assurance and undertaking of the Learned Counsel that he would be properly represented. Since the appeal was of the year 2000, we were not inclined to adjourn the matter. Shri G.P. Kurrey, Panel Lawyer of the High Court Legal Services Committee who was present in Court was requested by us to render his assistance in consideration of the appeal. Shri Kurrey has given us valuable assistance on the basis of which we have been able to adjudicate and dispose the appeal. The Appellant stands convicted under section 302 IPC to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/- and under section 201 IPC to seven years rigorous imprisonment. In the event of failure to pay fine, he was required to undergo two years further rigorous imprisonment ordered by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Surguja on 03.12.1999 in Sessions Trial No. 375 of 1996.

(2.) The deceased Dokra Bai was the wife of the Appellant Bodhan, PW-1, the father of the deceased lodged a Rojnamchasanha on 15.3.1994 that the Appellant had kept the deceased as his wife. The witness received information in the evening on 13.3.1994 that she had died. Visiting her matrimonial home, he found her lying on the ground and saw injury marks. He asked the Appellant not to dispose the body as he was going to call the villagers. The Appellant is alleged to have nonetheless disposed the body. FIR was registered on 12.4.1994 as Crime No. 52 of 1994, marked Exhibit P-6, proved by N.P. Upadhyay, PW-11, the Investigating Officer. PW-11 visited the site where the body of the deceased was alleged to have been burnt. The spot map marked Exhibit P-10 was proved by PW-11 who seized pieces of broken bangles, a broken stick, marked Exhibit P-4 alongwith burnt coal, ashes and bones of the deceased as also a can of kerosene oil marked Exhibit P-3 in presence of independent witnesses Suddhulal, PW-8 and Pandit Singh. It was sent to a Doctor in the Anatomy department for opinion, marked Exhibit P-8, who did not give any opinion and opined that it be sent to an Orthopedic for proper opinion.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. The prosecution witnesses have stated that relations between the deceased and the Appellant were cordial and they lived peacefully as man and wife. More than one prosecution witness has stated that the deceased had a weak constitution, was ill and that the Appellant was having her treated. There is no voluntary extra-judicial confession by the Appellant which in any event is a very weak piece of evidence requiring corroboration. The possibility that the deceased died a natural death due to illness cannot be ruled out. There is no medical opinion with regard to the seized bones, whether they were human or not much less that the ashes were human. The bones were never sent to the Orthopedic as opined by the Doctor at the hospital where PW-11 had sent it apparent from Exhibit P-14, proved by PW-11. In the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of evidence available, no conclusive opinion is possible that the deceased died of any assault attributable to the Appellant and that the bones allegedly recovered were human in nature. There is no explanation given for the delay, of one month in registering the FIR which itself is fatal to the prosecution case. It cannot be said that the prosecution has established beyond all reasonable doubt that the Appellant is the assailant of the deceased. The Appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.