The Allahabad High Court has dismissed an appeal observing that the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence that can suggest that the appellant had committed the murder of deceased (Asha Devi).
The Division Bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra-I and Justice Mayank Kumar Jain passed this order while hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by Smt Vidya Devi and Others.
The criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the order of sentence dated 29.11.1984 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Etah arising out of Case, whereby the Additional Session Judge had convicted the appellants Vidya Devi, Netrapal and Ram Kripal under Sections 302/34 IPC and 201 IPC and had sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment of three years along with a fine of Rs 2,000 each under Section 201 IPC. In case of default in the payment of the fine, they were sentenced to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for six months.
The facts of the case are that Shiv Raj Singh, father of the deceased Asha Devi, submitted a written report to Station House Officer, Sidhpura, District Etah stating therein that the marriage of his daughter Asha Devi was performed with the accused Ram Kripal s/o Netrapal around 3.5 years ago.
‘Gauna Ceremony’ was performed one year after the marriage post when she started to live with her in-laws. After some time, the accused-appellants Vidya Devi (mother-in-law), Netrapal (father-in-law) and her husband Ram Kripal started to blame his daughter for being of unsound mind, that she did not perform any household work and that she also stole bread. He held “Panchayat” in the village of accused-appellants two to three times but later he brought her daughter back with him.
On the occasion of Holi, Netra Pal, father-in-law of his daughter, took Asha Devi back with him after giving an undertaking that she would not be subjected to cruelty or ill-treatment anymore in the near future.
The Complainant continued to enquire about the wellness of his daughter. Some time later, the accused-appellants Vidya Devi and Netrapal asked the Complainant to marry his second daughter with their son Ram Kripal, failing which they would not keep his daughter Asha Devi with them. The Complainant refused to concede to the demand and asked them to send back Asha Devi to him, but they refused.
Two days before the date of the written report, the accused appellant Ram Kripal, Netrapal, Vidya Devi and Deo Singh had beaten his daughter and dislodged her from their house. Harvansh Singh, Shiv Lal, Ram Lal Singh, Suraj Pal Singh, Udaiveer Singh and others witnessed the incident and rescued Asha Devi. They had sent her back to her in-laws after mediating between them.
One day before the date of lodging the first information report, at around 11.00 am one Shiv Lal, a resident of Dhanakar came to him and informed him that Ram Kripal, Netrapal and Vidya Devi have caused the disappearance of his daughter during the preceding night. He along with Sukhram Singh, Allauddin, Bhikey Ali, Hari Shankar Tiwari, Sultan, Raj Kumar and others went to the residence of his daughter at around 5:00 PM. On enquiring about the whereabouts of his daughter, he was told that she was missing and the accused-appellants Ramkripal and Netrapal were absconding. He suspected that these people had killed his daughter and had caused the disappearance of her body. He believed that it was done due to the demand for dowry and the second marriage of Ram Kripal.
The Complainant had also filed one written report dated 04.01.1982 earlier with the Superintendent of Police Etah mentioning the dowry demand. He had then stated that his daughter Asha Kumari was married to Ram Kripal S/o Netrapal, resident of Dhankar, Police Station Sidhpura, District Bulandshahr. During the marriage, he had given ornaments made of gold and silver, clothes worth Rs 2,000/- and other articles worth Rs 5,000/- to her daughter. But after her marriage, her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law had been regularly demanding a motorcycle from his daughter, which was beyond his capacity. Asha Devi’s husband and her in-laws had been harassing her and threatening to kill her. Ram Kripal also threatened to kill his daughter to perform a second marriage.
The investigation was entrusted to S.I Tota Ram. He recorded the statements of the complainant and other witnesses. He rushed to the village Dhanakar. He recorded the statement of the appellant Vidya Devi. She told him that she along with her son and husband had committed the murder of Asha Devi. They had put her dead body in a gunny bag and after tying it, along with a piece of stone, threw it into a nearby well. On the pointing of the Appellant Vidya Devi, a gunny bag was pulled out from the well. A dead body of a female was recovered from this bag which the Complainant identified as of his daughter, Asha Devi.
The trial court framed charges against the appellant/accused Ram Kripal, Netra Pal, Smt Vidya Devi under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 I.P.C. and charges under Section 201 IPC against the accused Netrapal, Ram Kripal, Vidya Devi, Deo Singh, Rakshpal and Rajpal.
Being aggrieved by the impugned judgement, the accused-appellant has preferred the criminal appeal.
The Court said that, on the basis of the evidence available on record, it has to be determined as to whether the accused-appellant had committed the murder of Asha Devi and with the intention to cause the disappearance of the evidence, threw away her dead body into the nearby well.
Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that Vidya Devi, the surviving appellant, has falsely been implicated in the case. Admittedly, she is the mother-in-law of the deceased Asha Devi. There is no direct evidence at all thus, the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. There is no eyewitness account of the alleged incident since none has seen the appellant committing the murder of Asha Devi. The alleged statement of the appellant made before the police is not admissible in the eye of the law since the appellant Vidya Devi had not been arrayed as an accused and had not been taken into custody till the time of making the alleged statement about the fact that she along with other co-accused had thrown the dead body of the deceased Asha Devi into the nearby well of their house.
Therefore, the information relating to the discovery of the dead body of the deceased Asha Devi cannot be considered to be the information as provided under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
To make his submission good counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the information relating to the discovery of the dead body is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act only if the accused is in the custody of a police officer while making such statement leading to any recovery.
Per contra Additional Government Advocate argued that the marriage of the deceased Asha Devi with the son of the appellant is admitted. The relations between deceased Asha Devi and the appellant were not cordial. The prosecution has proved the motive and circumstances by cogent evidence which resulted in the conviction of the appellant by the trial court. To fulfill their demand for dowry, the appellant along with other co-accused used to harass the deceased Asha Devi and made false allegations against her that she was a lady of unsound mind, she did not perform household work, and she used to steal bread. The appellants often used to beat her and for no reason, dislodged her from their house. To mount pressure upon the complainant and Asha Devi, the present appellant along with the other accused Netrapal (since died) and Ram Kripal (since died) asked the complainant to perform the marriage of his second daughter with Ram Kripal, their son, while the accused Ram Kripal was already married to the deceased Asha Devi.
“In view of the aforementioned facts, it is required to be noted that the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence that can suggest that the appellant had committed the murder of Asha Devi.
“On the basis of the above discussion, we conclude that all the circumstances clearly indicate that the appellant with the other co-accused committed the murder of her daughter-in-law Asha Devi. The motive of the incident is also proved by the prosecution with the evidence of Shiv Raj Singh and Sukh Ram. The evidence of Udaiveer connects the chain of events as he saw appellant Vidya Devi with other co-accused carrying the body of deceased Asha Devi in a gunny bag which was later thrown into the nearby well by them to remove evidence. The dead body of Asha Devi was recovered on the pointing out of the appellant Vidya Devi. The medical evidence is quite consistent with the prosecution case and there is no material available on record to disbelieve the medical evidence adduced by Dr R. S Gupta.
“Moreover, the appellant Vidya Devi and the other co-accused did not offer any cogent explanation that they have not committed the murder of deceased Asha Devi. The appellant failed to discharge her burden as cast upon her u/s 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872. All this evidence indicates that appellant Vidya Devi along with the other co-accused is the author of the crime and she committed the murder of her daughter-in-law Asha Devi.
The prosecution has succeeded to bring home the charge against the appellant u/s 302/34 and 201 IPC beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant Vidya Devi. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of the trial court do not require any interference and are liable to be affirmed,” the Court observed while dismissing the appeal.
“The Appellant is on bail. Her personal bonds and surety bonds are cancelled. She will be taken into custody forthwith and be sent to jail to serve out the remaining part of the sentence”, the Court ordered.