ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ashok Kumar and his father Ghasiram have challenged their conviction under Section 306, I.P.C., and sentences of R.I. for five years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default R.I. for six months each.

(2.) Deceased Shilabai was married to Ashok Kumar about two and half years before and gaona ceremony took place two years before the date of incident i.e. 2-8-1987. Accused Ghasiram informed police station Kirnapur in district Balaghat that his daughter-in-laws dead body was seen in a well. According to him, the deceased after fetching 4 or 5 pots of water, did not return and, therefore, he made a search for her. On suspicion he went to the well and found her dead body in it. The report was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha No. 48, dated 2-8-1983 and on its basis a Marg intimation (Ex. P .9) was prepared. After holding inquest (Ex. P. 3), the police sent the body for postmortem. Dr. H.K. Kamde (P.W. 10) could not give any opinion as to the cause of her death in his report (Ex. PA). He found multiple abrasions, postmortem in nature, on the medial side of her right breast. He preserved the viscera for being sent to the Chemical Examiner. On request (Ex. P.13) by police, the Chemical Examiner found organa phosporus pesticide demicron as per report Ex. P. 14. The police made further enquiry vide Ex. P.6, from the doctor who gave his reply (Ex. P. 6A) that the pesticide found in her body is poisonous and the fatal dose is about 100 Mg., which could cause death within half an hour to three hours. Patwari Narain Bisen (P.W. 11) prepared as spot map (Ex. P.7), while another map (Ex. P. 35) was prepared by station Officer Ajit Kumar Patel (P.W. 18). The police also recorded F.I.R. (Ex. P. 34) and filed charge-sheet against the appellants and Mst. Shakubai (since acquitted). Charges under Sections 306 and 201, I.P.C., were framed against all the accused persons. They denied commission of any offence. Both the appellants pleaded that while pulling water from the well, the deceased may have slipped into the well. They did not examine any witness to defence. The learned trial Court acquitted all the accused of the charge under Section 201. Accused Shakubai was also acquitted of the charge under Section 306, I.P.C. The two appellants were however convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Question for decision is whether ShilabaiTs death was suicidal or accidental. There is no direct evidence to prove it. Sewanbai (P.W. 6), who lives near the well stated that she had seen Shilabai twice but not the third time, going to the well to collect water. Appellant AshokTs cousin Bhimabai accompanied the deceased. At about 7 -8 A.M. she learnt that the deceased died in the well. Bhimabai (P.W. 7) stated that she fetched 4-5 pitchers of water from that well along with Shilabai. Even though she stated that Shilabai died due to fall in the well, she admitted that the well is not visible from her house and had stopped fetching water in order to do house hold work. Shilabai continued collecting water from the well. She did not see her either jumping or falling into the well. She also admitted that Shilabai was hale and hearty, was not depressed nor she made any complaint to her. Shakubai, AshokTs mother, enquired from Bhimabai why Shilabai had not returned. She did not find her at the well. Bhimabais statement is that her pot was at the well, does not appear to be truthful since no other witness deposed about it. Had there being any such pot at the well, Shakubai was bound to bring it back, when she found no trace of the deceased. Shakubai made no such statement to her.