STATE OF M P Vs. KAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHAMPABAI was the wife of respondent Kamal. Respondent no. 2 Smt. Chhitiya is the mother of appellant Kamal. Kamal lodged the report in the police station (Ex P. 14) on 3 -3 -1984 to the effect that he left the house on that day at 9.30 a.m. alongwith his mother and when they returned in the evening at 7.00 p.m. they found the door of the house closed from inside. Thereafter on breaking open the door the dead body of Champabai was found hanging inside the room. The police went to the spot, held inquest and sent the body for post -mortem examination. On receipt of the post -mortem examination report, a case under Section 302/34 IPC was registered vide Ex. P. 15 as the doctor had opined the death of Champabai to be homicidal in nature. The investigation revealed that respondent Kamal was not having happy relations with his wife. He as also his mother used to torture the deceased in various ways. Besides ligature marks on neck three other injuries were found on the body of the deceased suggesting that she was in fact beaten and then hanged. As per the post -mortem examination report (Ex. P. 2), besides the ligature mark around the neck there were injuries on both the knee region and one bruise on the right side of the chest. The respondents were tried and acquitted vide judgment dated 29 -9 -1984 passed in Sessions Trial No. 24/84 of Chhatarpur Sessions Division. This is State appeal against the aforesaid finding of acquittal.

(2.) IT was argued on behalf of the State that respondent Kamal was only the other inmate of the house where the deceased was residing. There is evidence to show that the deceased had -returned back to her parents house on account of harassment which she received in her marital home and was not inclined to come back to her husband but respondent Kamal went to his Sasural and pursuaded her to return. The evidence of mother of the deceased viz. Amanbai (P.W. 4) proved beyond doubt that the deceased was being mal -treated by both the respondents. The learned Deputy Government Advocate contends that there is no explanation for presence of injuries other than the ligature mark. These injuries have been produced only by assaults and this proves the theory that the respondents bad beaten Champabai and then hanged her. They thereafter concocted a false story which they gave out at the time of informing the police. In reply it was submitted that the doctor who performed the post -mortem examination, Dr. D.L. Soni (P.W.1) has not even mentioned the fact as to whether the injuries other than the ligature mark found on the deceased were ante -mortem or post -mortem. Then, in para -24 of his cross -examination, he has conceded that the abrasions on the knee region could have been caused as a result of the knee dashing against some wooden or iron surface and the abrasion on the chest region could have been caused by some wooden piece falling from the roof. Since the prosecution has not adduced evidence to show that the interior of the room where the dead body was recovered is such that these other injuries could not have been caused during the period the lady might have made attempts to save herself after the hanging no adverse inference can be drawn on that basis against the respondents. More so because it is not known as to whether these injuries were ante -mortem or post -mortem. Elaborating the reply, it was submitted that the impugned judgment is well reasoned from which it is seen that though the mother of the deceased was present at the time of inquest, she did not express any suspicion against the respondents at that time. It was only after three days on 6 -3 -1984 that she did so when her statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. was recorded. From para -29 of the impugned judgment, it is gathered that Amanbai, and her son Radhacharan have deposed about the beating of the deceased a few days prior to the incident on the basis of information given to them by Kamal's uncle Lakhanlal Chourasiya. Lakhanlal Chourasiya has not been examined. As such the said evidence of these two witnesses was rightly held by the learned Trial Judge as inadmsssible being hearsay. We are inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the defence that the cumulative effect of all these infirmities in the prosecution case, as held by the learned Trial Judge was sufficient for acquittal of the accused persons.