THAKKAR, - (1.) 'Suicide' is excluded concludes the trial court. 'Suicide' is not excluded says the High Court. This is in the context of the tragic, unnatural death of a wife (Veena; A First Class First M.Sc. in Botany from Patna) by burning on the night between 11-12th Sept. 1984, within barely nine months of her marriage with a doctor husband. The husband and his sister viz. Dr. Narendra and Meera respectively were convicted by the trial court for the murder of the wife under S. 302 read with S. 34 of Indian Penal Code. The husband was sentenced to death, The sister was sentenced to imprisonment for life. They appealed The High Court has set aside the order of conviction and sentence as against both holding that 'suicide cannot be excluded'. These companion appeals, by the father of the wife and by the State, arise from the said order of acquittal. The death of Veena occurred in the kitchen of the two bed room flat of the husband of which he with his wife and his sister Meera were the only occupants at about 4.00 a.m. At 7.00 am. the milkman repeatedly knocked as the ringing of the call bell did not evoke any response. Meera opened the door. Smoke was seen coming out and the dead body of Veena was found in the kitchen. That is how the occurrence came to light.
(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution the root cause was the licentious conduct of the husband (Dr. Tewari) who indulged in extra marital relations with other women. It was alleged that Dr. Tewari had illicit, incestuous relations with his 22 year old niece, Ms. Sunanda Chaturvedi a medical student who was admittedly nominated by him as beneficiary on the death of the insured in a 25 years life policy1 of Rs. 50,000.00 taken out by Dr. Tewari on his own life on 28-3-1984 within less than 11/2 months of his marriage with deceased Veena (a marriage which fetched him a dowry of Rs. 50,000.00. It was also alleged that Dr. Tewari had illicit, incestuous relationship with his sister Meera. The trial court accepted the prosecution version regarding promiscuous conduct of the husband. The High Court was of the opinion that it was not established. The trial court concluded that accident' and 'suicide' were excluded and that the unnatural death by burning was homicidal. The High Court on the other hand was of the view that 'suicide cannot be excluded. That is why the trial court convicted the husband and his sister2 whereas the High Court acquitted them. The matrimonial life of deceased Veena and accused Narendra was of a very short duration for about 7 months. The marriage took place on 17th Feb. 1984. Veena died an unnatural death by burning on 12th Sept. 1984. Even during the short span of 7 months they lived together for a very short time. After the bridal party returned with the bridge on Feb. 18,1984 Veena was not brought' to her husband's flat (Flat No. 37 in the Teachers Flats) in the campus of Banaras Hindu University (BHU) in Banaras. She was taken to the house of her husband's parents at Dildarnagar where she remained for about four days. On Feb. 22, 1984 she returned to Patna. The husband's explanation in his statement under S. 313, Cr.P.C. is that he had left his wife at Dildarnagar because of the illness of his brother-in-law Dr. Gorakh Nath Chaturvedi (father of Sunanda with whom it was alleged that the husband of the deceased had illicit, incestuous relationship). Dr. Chaturvedi died on Feb. 27, 1984. Veena however was not brought to Banaras from Patna. It was only on 9/04/1984 that she was brought back to Banaras. For about a week or so she remained at Dildarnagar and then she was brought to her husband's flat at Banaras. The flat was occupied by Veena's husband and her sister-in-law Meera (sister of Dr. Narendra). These three were the only occupants of the flat. Veena remained at the flat for nearly two months. On 9/06/1984 she went to Dildaragar with her belongings to her in laws' place and from there to Kodasaha, the place of Devendra, the stepbrother of her husband. She had left half of her luggage at Dildarnagar and the remaining half at Kodasaha. The letter writen by her on 14/06/1984 mentions that her connections with Banaras were virtually severed She remained at Kodasaha for some time. In the first week of July, 1984 she returned to her parental house at Patna. She remained at Patna till Aug. 23, 1984. On that day she was brought back to her husband's flat at Banaras. Within 20 days thereafter she died of burns on the night between Sept. 11 and 12,1984, between midnight and 7.00 a.m. (accepting the Doctor's opinion the High Court formed the opinion that the death occurred at about 4.00 a.m.).
(3.) SHE remained with her husband for only 2 months from 9/04/1984 to 9/06/1984 and later on for about 20 days from 23rd Aug. 1984 till her death on Sept. 12, 1984. Thus, though the matrimonial life stretched for 7 months, in reality they stayed together for less than three months. There is ample evidence to show that there was discord between the husband and the wife and that she was unhappy and that the relations between the husband and the wife were extremely strained. It is unnecessary to examine the cause of the discord at this juncture. It is sufficient for the present purpose to briefly indicate that according to prosecution it was the conduct of the husband who indulged in, extra marital relations with other women which was the cause of this discord. Be that as it may the fact that she was brought back only in Aug; 1984 and that there was discord. between the husband and wife has, been sufficiently. established The real question is as to whether she committed suicide because her matrimonial life was disturbed or whether she was physically eliminated by her husband who was not happy with the matrimonial tie. It will be convenient at this juncture to advert to the evidence as to how the occurrence came to light. P.W. 2Ram Prasad was a milkman who was supplying milk to accused Narendra. He started supplying milk from Sept. 2, 1984 that is to say some ten days prior to the ocurrence. On the day of the occurrence he had gone to deliver milk to the flat of accused Narendra, at 7.00 a.m. He pressed the call-bell as was his usual practice. The bell did not evoke any response and the door was not opened. He knocked at the door. Still the door was not opened. He waited for some time and again he knocked at the door., A short while thereafter accused Meera opened the door. When the door was opened he found that smoke was coming out from inside of the house. He asked Meera as to what was the matter. Meera looked back and called her brother. Accused Narendra then came out He started weeping. P.W. 2 told accused Narandra, that the fire should be extinguished first. When he took two steps inside he saw that a dead body was burning in the kitchen. He came out and shouted The people living in the adjoining flats started coming out and somebody gave him a bucket of water. The dining room and the adjoining kitchen were filled with smoke. The door of the kitchen was opened. He splashed water from the bucket on the burning body. He categorically stated that he did not see any stove in the kitchen. In cross-examination it has been stated by P.W. 2 that when he enquired from Meera as to how the smoke was coming she looked towards the kitchen and shouted. Then, she had gone to fetch Narendra. After two minutes Narendra had come out. Meera was weeping. Narendra appears to be in a perplexed condition and started consoling Meera- It was suggested to him that the people who had collected there had prevented accused Narendra from going near the dead body but he denied this. That is how the occurrence came to light.;