HARICHAND Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant No.1, Han Chand is the father of appellant No. 2, Meerabai. Both have been convicted for committing murder of one Samnabai sometime between 4.00 p.m. on 16.2.1982 and 10.00 a.m. on 17.2.1982. 2. Deceased Samnabai lived in village Vijaypani. Saniyarobai (P.W. 3) was with her on 16.2.1982. Appellant No. 2 Meerabai who bad some acquaintance with the deceased went to the house of Samnabai on 16.2.1982 and took Samnabai with her. Thereafter Samnabai did not come back even during the night. Enquiries were made from Meerabai, appellant No. 2 but no satisfactory answers were given by her. On 17.2.1982 the dead body of Samnabai was found in a field. She had injuries on her person, which could be caused by sharpedged weapon. Report was then lodged by Badgu (P.W. 1) at about 10.00 a.m. That report is Ex. P-i. After the appellants were taken into custody, Samnabais dead body was sent for postmortem examination, which was performed by Dr. N.H. Pashine (P.W. 2). His injuries report is Ex. P-2. Dr. Pashine opined that the death was homicidal and the injuries could be caused by a cutting weapon were all ante-mortem. Appellant No. 1 Harichand gave the discovery memorandum (Ex. P-6) on the basis of which certain ornaments were seized vide seizure memo. Ex. P-7. These all ornaments were identified by Saniyarobai (P.W. 3) in the identification conducted by Rambharose (P.W. 5) vide identification memo. Ex. P-13. On these basis both the appellants were tried on the charge of committing murder of Samnabai as also on the charge of committing robbery. Both of them have been convicted of the aforesaid charges. On the first count a sentence of imprisonment for life and on the second for a term of seven years have been imposed on each of them. Both the appellants challenged all the findings of the lower Court and contend that they have been falsely implicated.

(2.) Samnabais dead body was found lying in the field on 17.2.1982. Saniyaro Bai (P.W. 3) has deposed that the deceased left the house with her (appellant No.2) at 4.00 p.m. on 16.2.1982. She has also deposed that at the time of her departure, the deceased was wearing a silver Hash (article A), golden rings (article C-i and C-2) and silver bangles (article B-i and B-2). Badgu (P.W. 1) and Saniyaro Bai (P.W. 3) have also deposed that the deceased used to wear those articles quite often. Hardly any challenge has been made to this part of the story although in examination under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code both the appellants have denied these facts. In absence of any effective cross-examination of these two witnesses i.e. Badgu (P.W. 1) and Saniarobai (P.W 3) we do out see any reason why the lower Court can be said to be in error in accepting their testimony. It may be seen that these two witnesses with whom deceased was living at the relevant time bad occasion to see her wearing those ornaments.

(3.) It is also proved beyond any doubt that Samnabai died a homicidal death on receiving certain injuries as were found on her person by Dr. Pashine (P.W. 2). No challenge has been laid to this part of the prosecution story as well. True it is that there is no eye-witness to the incident but in our opinion, the circumstances proved in the case are sufficient to remove all doubts and to hold the appellants guilty of causing death of Samnabai. First of these circumstances is that Samnabai left her Saniyaro Bai's home with appellant no. 2, Meera Bai on 16.2.1982 where after she was only seen dead. This is proved by Saniyaro Bai (P.W. 3). She has also deposed that after Samnabai did not return she made enquiries from appellant No. 2, Meerabai who first hesitated but ultimately disclosed that Samnabai had left her house. This witness was confronted with her statement recorded by police during investigation where this fact does not find mention. However, we find that this witness (P.W. 3) had made a very innocent statement in Court. She is a rustic village woman and there seems to be nothing on the record to show that she has been tutored to improve her statement. It 13 also worth mentioning that she has not been cross-examined at all on the question of enquiries from Meerabai. (P.W. 1) also stated that Saniyaro Bai (P.W. 3) had told him that Samnabai had left with the appellant Meerabai and that she had not returned. This witness further deposed that 1 e made a search of Samnabai but could not trace her out. This evidence of Badgu (P.W. 1) supports the version of Saniyaro Bai (P.W. 3) that Samna Bai had left with Meerabai on 16.2.1982 and thereafter did not return. This circumstance, in our opinion, is a strong indication and points towards the guilt of the appellants.