HANNA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Hanna was placed for his trial before a Special Court constituted under S. 12 of the Madhya Bharat Public Security Act on a charge under S. 302 I.P.C. for the murder of his wife. At the end of the trial, the learned presiding Judge found him guilty of the offence and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

(2.) THE prosecution case, briefly stated, was that the appellant Hanna suspected that this wife Raziya was unfaithful to him, he therefore, decided to kill her and with that intention he took his wife to Ambah from his village Mouja Dhori on the afternoon of 22nd June 1955, on the pretext of making some purchases in Ambah Raziya went on a horse -back. At Ambah the appellant Hanna purchased some cloth from P.W. 6 Kanhaiyalal and also got his razor sharpened at the shop of P.W. 5 Deviram. Hanna and Raziya then went, over in the evening to see P.W. 1 Budhram who also lived in Ambah. Budhram pressed Hanna and Raziya to spend the night in Ambah as his guests. But the appellant insisted on returning home. According to the prosecution, Hanna accompanied by his wife Raziya started for returning to his village Mouja Dhori late in the evening when it was dark and that when he was passing through some forest area on his way back home he gave two lathi blows to Raziya who was on a horse -back. Raziya fell down and thereafter, it was alleged by the prosecution, the appellant cut her throat and neck, and killed her. He then concealed the lathi and the razor at the place near the occurrence and went to Ambah Police Station and there lodged a report at about 10 P.M. on 22nd June 1953, giving an account of his movements since he left home and stating that be had killed his wife and that he had hidden the razor and the lathi at a place nearby. The Police then came to the place of occurrence taking the accused also with them. A panchnama of the recovery of the body of Raziya was prepared. It was stated by the prosecution that at the scene of the occurrence the accused stated that he had hidden the razor and the lathi in a place and that as it was dark it would not be possible for him to recover them at night but that he would point out to the police, the place where they had been kept next morning. A panchnama of this information given by the accused was also prepared by the police (Ex. P/4 -A). Accordingly on the morning of 23rd June 1955, the accused took the police to a field and pointed out there the place where the lathi and razor had been hidden by him. The two articles were found burried underneath the ground and were recovered therefrom. The post -mortem examination of the body of Raziya was conducted by Dr. Ataullah Khan on 24th June 1955. The doctor found the neck of Raziya "cut across right from outer surface to the back of neck cutting right through all the structures, nerves, muscles, vessels etc. and the incission passing through between 5 -6 of the cervical vertabrace." He also found the neck "attached to the body only by a small piece of skin of the back of neck". According to him Raziya's death was due to this injury and haemorrhage. A confession of the accused was also recorded by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate of Ambah on 28th June 1955.

(3.) THERE is no direct evidence of any eye -witness. But the circumstances established against the appellant amply prove his guilt. That the appellant left his village Dohri on the afternoon of 22nd June 1955, in the company of his wife and came to Ambah, that he made some purchases in Ambah from Kanhaiyal and later on saw Budhram in the evening and then went. It was dark, he and his wife started on their return journey but did not actually return home, are facts proved by the evidence of P.W. 1 Budhram, P.W. 6 Kanhaiyal and P.W. 4 Ramdin. These facts are not denied by the accused himself. That he went to Ambah Police -station and lodged some report there at about 10 p.m. in the night and thereafter he took the police to the place where Raziya was lying dead is proved by the statement of P.W. 3 Kripalsingh. This fact is also admitted by the accused. These circumstances show that the appellant was with Raziya when she was murdered and knew the place, the time and the manner in which she had been murdered. These facts were within the peculiar knowledge of the accused. Now, there can be only four possibilities as to the death of Raziya. They are: (i) that Raziya committed suicide, or (ii) that she met with an accident, or (iii) that she was murdered by some strangers, or (iv) that she was murdered by the appellant himself. The possibilities of accident or suicide are excluded by the medical evidence on record and the evidence as regards the nature and place of the occurrence and also by the fact that it is not the suggestion of the accused that his wife committed suicide or met with an accident. His specific plea was that she was robbed by some dacoits. But this plea is utterly and inherently unconvincing and is not supported by the material on record. The appellant gave no details as to how, when and where the dacoits met him and his wife and as to what exactly he did in his encounter which Raziya was wearing and the purchases which the appellant had made at Ambah were all found intact when the police visited the scene of the occurrence. If, then according to the accused he and his wife met some robbers it is difficult to understand why the robbers spared him alive taking nothing from him and murdered his wife without relieving her of any ornaments. The accused suggested that besides the ornaments found on his wife's body, there were other ornaments also such as silver Khangwari, one gold Tavjia which she was wearing and that she also carried Rs. 100 in cash, and that these things were missing. But according to the evidence of P.W. 4, Ramdin, who is a son of the accused, his mother did not possess any silver Khangawari or gold Tavjia and that the ornaments which were found on her body were the only ones she ever possessed. The story put up by the accused that his wife was robbed and that she was murdered by robbers is also negatived by the circumstances that while at Ambah the accused got his razor sharpened and that he gave information to the police, which led to the recovery of a razor and a lathi, saying that he himself had concealed those things. The appellant denied that he got any razor sharpened at Ambah. But on this point there is no reason whatever to reject the testimony of P.W. 5 Deviram who said that the accused accompanied by his wife came to his shop for sharpening his razor which he did on receiving a payment of four annas. The fact that the accused gave information to the police that be had hidden the razor and the lathi at a place near the occurrence and that this information led to the discovery of those articles is proved by the evidence of Kripalsingh, Budhram and Ram Sankai (P.W. 12). Mr. Hargovind Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the statement made by the accused that he himself concealed the razor and the lathi was not admissible in evidence under S. 27 of the Evidence Act. There is no substance in this contention, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramkishan Vs. State of Bombay (A.I.R. 1935 SC 104). According to that decision when a statement made by the accused person while in custody of a police officer leading to the discovery of certain incriminating articles hidden at a place, includes a statement by the accused with regard to the authorship of the concealment, as for example 'I have concealed' or 'I have hidden', then the statement of the accused as regards concealment is admissible in evidence under S. 27 of the Evidence Act. The fact that Deviram could not say whether the razor produced in the court belonged to Hanna or that no blood -marks were found on the razor does not in any way conclude the fact that the razor recovered was not one used by the assailant in murdering Raziya. Deviram was questioned as to the ownership of the razor and not on the point whether the razor produced was the one which he had sharpened. In may opinion, the circumstances that the accused was the only person with his wife Raziya when they were returning home from Ambah, that the appellant got his razor sharpened at Ambah, and that he gave information to the police leading to the recovery of a razor and a lathi saying that be had concealed them, taken together with the fact that the version given by the accused that his wife was robbed by dacoits is altogether false, only lead to the conclusion that it was the appellant who murdered his wife. These circumstances are incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused person.