SUMERA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two appeals preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') the three accused persons, namely, Sumera, Bhujlo and Gulau, have assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara convicting them under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity 'the IPC') and sentencing each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. We may at the outset state that Sumera and Bhujlo, the parents of accused Gulau, have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 711/ 91 and the accused Gulau has preferred an independent appeal forming the subject-matter of Criminal Appeal No. 714/91. Needless to emphasise the appeals are directed against the composite judgment passed by the learned trial Judge.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the marriage of accused Gulau, the son of accused Sumera, was solemnized with the deceased Rajkumari 7 to 8 years prior to the date of occurrence i.e. 4.5.1990. The deceased Rajkumari and the accused Gulau belonged to the same village. Rajkumari was in the habit of staying some time in her parental home and some time in her matrimonial home. The accused Gulau had gone out for a period of two years and after return he stayed for some time in the village but, thereafter, again left. Eleven days prior to the date of occurrence Rajkumari had given birth to a male child who did not survive and expired on the next day morning. Thereafter, Gulau came to the village, at about 10.00 p.m., he reached the house of his in-laws and asked for some drinking water. Samanivabai, PW 7, the elder sister of the deceased Rajkumari, gave him some water to drink. The accused Gulau after quenching his thirst left the house, but again returned and expressed his desire to have a dialogue with the deceased Rajkumari. PW 7 did not accept the said request of the accused Gulau to have a talk with the deceased at the place where he desired and suggested him to discuss with his wife at the door-step only. Accepting such a suggestion the accused Gulau proceeded towards door-step and asked the deceased Rajkumari to accompany him to Haryana. The deceased showed her disinclination under the plea that she was physically weak as she had recently undergone the process of procreation. The accused caught hold of the hand of the deceased and dragged her. At that juncture the mother of the deceased Bindiyabai, PW 8, restricted him. When the matter stood thus, help from the local Sarpanch was sought but as he was not available the brother of the Sarpanch, I W 3, arrived at the spot and calmed down the accused Gulau and took him back. As the prosecution story proceeds, next day at about 12 noon the accused again came to the house of the deceased and reiterated his demand for accompanying him to Haryana which was bluntly refused by the deceased. The refusal of the deceased did not smother the indefatigable proclivity of the accused and in the night the accused again came and persisted the deceased to accompany him but she remained embedded in her approach and declined to go with him. On the date of occurrence at about 8.00 a.m. the accused came armed with 'Ballam'. His parents, namely, Sumera and Bhujlo, had also conic with him. The accused Gulau, exhibited his attitude of a dominating husband and put a blunt question to the deceased whether she was inclined to proceed with him or not. The deceased Rajkumari did not agree to accompany him as a consequence of which the accused raised the 'Ballam' and assaulted her. Being scared the deceased Rajkumari took to her heels. Samaniyabai, PW 7, tried to save but the accused undaunted proceeded and gave a push to PW 7 and chased the deceased Rajkumari. There is allegation that the parents instigated the accused to assault the wife. In this chase the accused was able to reach the deceased and in front of the house of Ramcharan Bhuriya got hold of the deceased, made her fall down and inflicted blows with 'Ballam' on her legs and buttocks as a result of which there was profuse bleeding and the deceased Rajkumari was almost in a pool of blood. PW 7 ran to the spot and got hold of the 'Ballam' and tried to snatch it away from the accused. As alleged, the accused Gulau ran away through the shurbs which were behind the house. Thereafter, PW 7 reached the police station and lodged an FIR, Exhibit P3. The deceased Rajkumari was sent for medical examination. Dr. S.S. Choudhary, PW 10, examined her and declared her dead and accordingly intimated the Investigating Agency. Thereafter, a 'Marg' Intimation Report was prepared vide Exhibit P6A. The Investigating Agency did 'Panchnama' of the dead body and seized the weapons used in the crime as per the seizure list contained in Exhibit P2. Eventually, post-mortem was conducted by PW 10. The wearing apparel of the deceased was seized and sent for examination to Forensic Laboratory, Sagar. The blood stained weapon and unsoiled earth were also sent for medical examination. The Investigating Agency prepared the spot map as Exhibit P12. After examining witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Investigating Agency filed the charge-sheet before the competent Court which, in its turn, committed the matter to the Court of Sessions, and eventually matter was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Chhindwara.

(3.) The accused persons took the plea of complete denial and pleaded innocence.