LAWS(MPH)-2013-1-38

NARBADI BAI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On January 09, 2013
Narbadi Bai Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 preferred by the accused/appellants has been directed against a Judgment dated 15th May, 2006 delivered in Sessions Trial No. 112/2005 by the Additional Judge, Ganjbasoda, district Vidisha (M.P.) convicting thereby both the accused,namely, Premnarayan and his wife Smt. Narbadi Bai for committing murder of Sajid Khan s/o Munnawar Khan aged 26 years, which is an offence punishable under Section 302 and 302/34 of I.P.C. and sentencing them to suffer life imprisonment with amount of fine of Rs. 500.00 (Rs. Five Hundred only), in default of payment of which, they were directed to serve additional rigorous imprisonment of 15-15 days. However, accused-appellant No.2-Sanman Singh was found guilty for causing disappearance of evidence which is an offence punishable with death/life imprisonment under Section 201 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer five years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500.00, in default of payment of which he was directed to serve 15 days' additional rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE facts in short relevant for the decision of this appeal are that on 9th March,2005, Shri Narayan s/o Pyarelal, Gate Man deputed at Railway Gate No. 2908 informed the Dy. Supdt. (Railway), Ganjbasoda that dead- body of some unknown person in a gunny bag is lying in a culvert of railway line. Accordingly, the Dy. Supdt. informed in writing vide memo Ex.P/1 to SHO, P.S. Kotwali, district Vidisha. On the basis of such an information, Marg No. 9/05 was registered. During Marg inquiry, the dead body of unknown person was identified by his father Munnawar Khan (PW-5). Accordingly, the identification memo of the dead-body was prepared as per Ex.P/7. The dead body was sent for autopsy. On the postmortem report and the finding of marg inquiry, FIR (Ex.P/24) was registered. Case-diary statements of material witnesses and other neighbouring persons were recorded. During inquiry, it was gathered that the deceased developed an illegal relations with accused Narbadi Bai, who was not found available by the police in her residence since the date of incident. It was also collected by evidence that after committing the incident of killing, by all the three accused, accused Sanman, who is brother of Narbadi Bai with an intention to screen the offence, took a dead body of the deceased on a hand-cart and thew it in the culvert. So, the involvement of the accused in crime was clearly appeared. The weapon of crime (Stone) as well as other incriminating articles, to wit, wearing clothes of the deceased stained with blood, hand-card used in lifting the body and wooden plate of a cot were recovered from vide Ex.P/11,12, 16 and 17. On 10th March, 2005 accused Narbadi Bai was arrested while other accused Sanman and Premnarayan were arrested on 12th March, 2005. After arrest of the accused, charge-sheet was filed before the criminal court. After trial, the accused/appellants were convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. Hence, the appeal before this court.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence against the accused. It is contended by her that the material witnesses though were declared hostile by the prosecution, but they supported the prosecution version in its entirety. It is further argued that in the present case, just after missing a person, a dead-body was found lying in the culvert of the railway line and the accused Smt. Narbadi Bai remained absconded for a considerable time, which by itself is a strong circumstance for establishing a guilt against her. Furthermore, after incident the weapon which was used in the alleged crime was recovered from her residence. No plausible explanation was submitted by the accused to show their innocence. The medical evidence also supported the prosecution case. Therefore, on the basis of the above grounds, it is prayed that by dismissing the appeal, the judgment of conviction and sentence be confirmed.