GEETA BAI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a young widow, is being tried for an offence punishable Under Section 302 I. P. C. for the murder of her husband-Munna alias Jagdish Singh, in the Court of Shri D. N. Joshi, Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar and has approached this Court to invoke its extra-ordinary jurisdiction to quash the said charge as the same amounts to abuse of the process of the Court.

(2.) THERE is no dispute that the petitioner Geeta Bai was married to Munna alise Jagdish Singh in 1986. On 16 8. 1987, the said Munna was found dead in his house at about 7 P. m. It is alleged that Munna died because of strangulation. The post-mortem examination of the dead body revealed that the deceased was a healthy young man of stout-built and aged about 23 years. Ligature marks in front of neck just above thyroid-exertilage were also found present. According to medical opinion, the death was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. It appears that the petitioner was in the house at the time when the dead body was recovered. She was asked as to what had happened to Munna on which she had told that the deceased was reading a book and had told her to prepare food. She had, therefore, gone to the kitchen and was preparing the food. A nylon string, which is alleged to have been used for strangulation was seized from the spot during investigation. Statements of witnesses recorded during investigation indicate that the petitioner's relationship with her husband was not cordial from the beginning, and an attempt had been made by her earlier to burn the cot used by the deceased. This fact is brought out in the statements of Maiti Bai and Maihar Bai. There is, however, no evidence on record to indicate anything done by the petitioner to the deceased at the relevant time. Inder Singh, the brother of the deceased has stated that when he reached home, he found the deceased lying on the floor out side the room. There was no string on his neck. He found the petitioner standing at the door. According to him, he and Kanchedi could not understand the situation. Both of them with the help of Onkar arid Delan Singh lifted the deceased and put him on a cot. Malti Bai the wife of Indra Singh has stated that the petitioner and deceased Munna had been fighting frequently and Munna had beaten the petitioner several times. According to her, Geeta Bai had threatened that whenever Munna went to his father's house she will get him fixed through the Gunda. She was not in the house at the time of incident but claims to have learnt from some one that the petitioner had illicit relationship with one Godan Singh and had become pregnant with him before her marriage. According to her, the petitioner wanted to live happily with Godan Singh and has, therefore, conspired to kill the deceased. Maihar Bai the mother of the deceased has stated that she had gone to the filed for work and returned in the evening when she was told by several persons of the village that Munna was dead. According to her, the petitioner told her nothing. She states that in the morning Delan Singh came to her house and asked the petitioner whether there was any string attached to the neck of the deceased. The petitioner is alleged to have told him that there was string which she had cut and thrown in the Court yard. Kamal searched the nylon string and found the same lying in the Court yard. The said string was identified by the petitioner and thrown inside the room at the instance of the petitioner. Narayan Singh has stated that he was told by the petitioner that the deceased had been asked to prepare dinner and, therefore, she was busy in the kitchen. Rajendra Singh is another brother of the deceased and has stated that in the evening Munna was sitting in the room and the petitioner was standing at the door of kitchen. After some time he saw Inder on the spot and saw Munna lying on the ground. He and others carried the deceased to the hospital. Nirmal is another important witness and has deposed that on the date of incident Godan had come to the village. In the evening he saw Munna lying in the room and the petitioner crying. He found nothing on the neck of Munna. According to him, he went to call Indra Singh and therefore, not only Inder Singh but several others come on the spot. Inder Singh had become unconscious. According to him, the petitioner told him nothing. He did not see the nylon string also. Hs further states that the petitioner did not move out of the house. Panchnama of the dead body indicates that witnesses felt that the deceased died of because of strangulation and, therefore, recommended postmortem. This is the total evidence collected during the investigation. In the opinion of the Investigating Officer, the petitioner remained in the house but did not given any clear explanation. According to Investigating Officer, there was difference between strangulation and hanging and, therefore, it was not a case of suicide, but a case of murder. He, however, felt that since the petitioner had removed the string from the neck of the deceased there was suspicion of her involvement. It appears that Dy. Superintendent of Police Sagar also applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and found that the conduct of petitioner Geeta Bai was suspicious. He, however, found nothing specific and clearly involving the petitioner with the crime. It does not appear that any further evidence could be collected. The challan has been filed indicating the aforesaid evidence. Though the incident had taken place on 16. 8. 1987 petitioner Geeta Bai was arrested on 25. 4. 1988. It was submitted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the material on record does not justify putting the petitioner on trial, and there was nothing on record to justify framing of charge Under Section 302 I. P. C. The learned Judge rejected the aforesaid and therefore this application.

(3.) BEFORE considering the legal aspect of the matter, it must be noticed that a young widow in the Indian society is a cursed creature. She and her ill-luck is usually blamed for the death of her husband and her widowhood is on trial every day of her life. It is, therefore, be a bad policy to put her on trial in a Court of Law without there being any material on record. Even otherwise it is the obligation of this Court to save an innocent from the harassment of a criminal trial. Inspite of it, it is not normal or usual for this Court to exercise its inherent powers to quash proceedings at an interlocutory stage. In Radhey Shyam v. Kunj Behari (AIR 1990 S. C. 121) it has been held that though the interest of justice requires the High Court to go into the merits of the evidence, meticulous examination of evidence or material is not done at the stage of framing of charge. Adequacy and inadequacy of evidence is also not a criteria. Inspite of it in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (AIR 1977 S. C. 2018), the Court held that mere suspicion is not enough to put a person on trial or frame charge against him. According to the Court, suspicion alone can not take the place of proof and therefore, matter must be beyond the stage of mere suspicion to justify framing of the charge. In Nirmaljit v. State of W. B, (AIR 1972 S. C 2639) and Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Base alas Chabi Bole (A. I. R. 1963 S. C. 1430) the Court held that test was whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there was sufficient ground for conviction and observed that when there was prima facie evidence, even though the person charged of an offence might have a defence, the matter had to be decided by an appropriate forum at the appropriate stage. If the evidence was intrinsically untrustworthy and does make out a prima facie case the Court would be justified in interfering. The matter will therefore require examination on the basis of aforesaid legal principles, and while so doing this Court will accept the evidence as it is and would not evaluated it. the evidence collected during the investigation, however, does not in the opinion of the Court, justify putting the petitioner on trial. Except for two circumstances there is nothing against the petitioner in the matter. The circumstances are: (i) her previous relationship with the deceased which is said to be bitter because of her involvement with Godan Singh. Maiti Bai's statement would indicate that it was Godan Singh who was responsible for killing. Godan Singh has, however, not been put on trial. Indeed nothing what-so-ever has been found during investigation against him. Under the circumstances, this evidence would not be enough to connect the petitioner with the crime, and (ii) the petitioner's inability to explain the reasons for death of the deceased. This would in the opinion of this Court point to nothing. She claims to have been in kitchen and would, therefore, not know the actual cause of death. The submission that she had moved the nylon string from the neck of the deceased points nothing because it is not alleged that she made any effort to hide the string. Even if the distinction between strangulation and hanging is to be kept in view it does not appear probable that a young lady like the petitioner would be able to over power her husband and strangulation made parently therefore, the evidence does not go beyond the stage of mere suspicion. The entire reading of the evidence, would point the needle of suspicion towards Godan and not the petitioner.