SHARMA, J. - (1.) SMT. Kesanti was axed to death in the morning of July 18, 2000 while she was residing with her husband (appellant ). Learned Additional Sessions Judge Gangapur City tried the appellant and convicted and sentenced him under Section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, with default stipulation.
(2.) IT is the prosecution case that on July 18, 2000 at 11. 30 AM informant Darbab Singh (PW. 1) submitted a written report (Ex. P. 1) at the Police Station Gangapur City to the effect that on the said day around 7 Am one Lakhan Singh came to inform his wife (who was Sarpanch at the relevant time) that Ramji Lal (appellant) has killed his wife Kesanti. Since Sarpanch was not present in the house. Darab Singh and Lakhan Singh rushed to the house of Ramji Lal where they found Kesanti lying dead having injuries on the neck whereas Ramji Lal was filed down by him family members. On that report a case under Section 302 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. After usual investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Gangapur City. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the accused, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 10 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellant claimed innocence. The defence of appellant was that he was not at home at the time of incident and he did not commit the murder of his wife, he was falsely implicated in the case. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and with the assistance of learned counsel we have gone through the evidence on record. There is no eye witness of the occurrence and the prosecution case rests on the circumstantial evidence. The circumstances that were found established against the appellant are as under:- (i) Homicidal Death; (ii) Motive; (iii) Demise of Kesanti was a custodial death; (iv) Appellant was seen standing near the dead body and axe stained with blood was lying nearby; (v) Appellant was tied with rope and confined by the villagers after the incident; (vi) Appellant raised false plea of alibi in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. We now proceed to deal with each circumstance independently in order to examine as to whether the circumstances are capable of supporting the exclusive hypothesis that the appellant is guilty of the crime of which he is charged. HOMICIDAL DEATH: The prosecution is able to establish that death of Kesanti was homicidal. As per post mortem report (Ex. P. 18) she received following ante mortem injuries:- 1. Incised wound & fracture 7 cm x 3 cm above left ear on left temporal region of skull. 2.Incised wound 8 cm x 5 cm on left side of neck. According to Dr. Shiv Kumar Gupta (PW. 9) the cause of death of was due to head and neck injuries. MOTIVE:
(3.) IT appears from the record that the appellant had suspicion about the character of Kesanti. Ramkesh (PW. 2) in his cross examination stated that there was rumour in the village about the bad character of Kesanti. Even Bhajan (PW. 3), the father of appellant, in his cross examination admitted that the character of Kesanti was not good. Although these witnesses did not support the entire prosecution story and they were declared hostile, their testimony provides clue as to what could have been the motive of the appellant. From the evidence of Ramkesh and Bhajan it is established that Kesanti was a woman of easy virtues and this possibility cannot be ruled out that the appellant wanted to get rid of Kesanti because of her bad character. DEMISE OF KESANTI WAS A CUSTODIAL DEATH: From the facts appeared this possibility cannot be ruled out that the appellant's behaviour with Kesanti was cruel since he was having doubt about the character of Kesanti as is clear from the evidence of Bhajan (PW. 3) father of the appellant and Ramkesh (PW. 2) a resident of the same village. It is apparent that demise of Kesanti was a custodial death. When the death occurred in the custody of appellant he was under an obligation at least to give a plausible explanation for the cause of death. It was obligatory on the appellant to show as to what was the immediate cause for the death of Kesanti. In Ganeshi Lal vs. State of Maharashtra (1993 Criminal Law Reporter (SC) 311), the Hon'ble Supreme Court indicated as under:- (Para 11) ``. . . . When the death had occurred in their custody the appellant is under an obligation in Section 313 Cr. P. C. statement at least to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death. '' No such attempt was even made excepting denying the prosecution case by raising false plea of alibi. APPELLANT WAS SEEN STANDING NEAR THE DEAD BODY AND AXE STAINED WITH BLOOD WAS LYING NEARBY: From the testimony of Lakhan (PW. 5) it is established that on hearing shrieks when he reached to the house of Ramji Lal he saw Kesanti laying dead under a Neem-tree having injuries on her head and neck. At that time appellant was standing nearby and the axe stained with blood was also lying at a distance. Lakhan was the neighbour of the appellant and related to him. We see no reason to disbelieve his testimony which stands corroborated by Kalyani (PW. 4) who removed the dead body of Kesanti. APPELLANT WAS TIED WITH ROPE AND CONFINED BY THE VILLAGERS AFTER THE INCIDENT: ;