DATE : 01-09-1997 1998-(104)-CRLJ -1288 -ALL
PENAL LAW MURDER AND CAUSING DISAPPEARANCE OF EVIDENCE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 300, 201 & 498-A – Causing disappearance of evidence of offence –
Allegation of killing deceased by her husband and his sister and placing her dead body between two lines of railway track – Even after marriage, there was constant demand of money by accused from parents of deceased – Which was a very strong motive for the murder of deceased – Case of accident by a running train is ruled out due to the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased – Circumstances establishing that the victim was murdered in the room of the accused and this also leads to a presumption of murder and not to a presumption of accident – Evidence on the record showing the presence of all the accused persons in the said room – It is fully proved that the murder had been committed by accused and her sister and they tried to screen themselves from legal punishment by placing the dead body in between two lines of the railway track – Constant demand of money and other Articles by the accused persons and when deceased was unable to fulfil the demand, she was being cruelty beaten and tortured – Accused persons rightly convicted for the offence under sections 300, 201 and 498-A.
Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder case – Award of death sentence – Case of circumstantial evidence – There is no direct evidence in the case – Therefore, it will not be safe to hang a person on the basis of circumstantial evidence only – Not a case rare of the rarest where death punishment only can be adequate penalty – Death sentence awarded to accused liable to be altered into imprisonment for life.
JUDGE(S) :
G P Mathur
K D Shahi
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
JUDGMENT
K. D. SHAHI, J. :- Appellant Ram Chandra Tewari has been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to death for having murdered his wife while appellant Smt. Munni Devi has been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. They have further been convicted under Section 201 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to five years’ R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. They have also been convicted under Section 498-A, I.P.C. and sentenced to 3 years’ R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for three months’ R.I. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The learned Sessions Judge has also made a reference for the confirmation of the death sentence awarded to appellant Ram Chandra Tewari.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the informant Prem Sagar Dwivedi, owner of Avadh Medicines Aminabad, Lucknow had wedded his daughter Smt. Samta alias Ranno Devi with appellant Ram Chandra Tewari son of Munshi Lal resident of village Gurdahi P.S. Sikandra district Kanpur Dehat. Mahendra Tewari is the younger brother of appellant Ram Chandra Tewari. Smt. Munni Devi appellant is the sister of Ram Chandra Tewari. The marriage took place, according to the informant, in 1985 and according to the accused persons in March, 1986. It is alleged that the marriage was solemnised with pomp and show and substantial dowry was given but still appellant Ram Chandra Tewari used to demand money from the informant. He also used to beat and torture Smt. Samta alias Ranno Devi. The informant always used to give money to Ram Chandra Tewari. Smt. Samta alias Ranno Devi had also written letters to the informant and other family members that she was being beaten and tortured by the accused persons.
3. It is alleged that the son of the informant had also brought ready made garments for the appellant Ram Chandra Tewari. With the help of the informant, appellant Ram Chandra Tewari carried on this business as well. At any rate, when he could not do anything, Mama of appellant Ram Chandra Tewari, who was a Constable at Lalitpur, took him to Lalitpur and there he used to drive a Tempo. He went to Lalitpur on 5-5-1993 and settled there as a tenant in one room measuring 6’x 9′ in the house of PW-5, Rama Shanker son of Suresh Chand. Mahendra Tewari and Smt. Munni Devi also resided with appellant Ram Chandra Tewari in the said room.
4. Prem Sagar Dwivedi, the informant, had one another daughter, namely, Lata Dixit. She was married with Vinod Dixit. Smt. Lata Dixit and Vinod Dixit were residing at 30-University Campus, Jhansi. Smt. Samta alias Ranno Devi had given birth to one son and one daughter before Ram Chandra Tewari had come to Lalitpur. Smt. Samta alias Ranno Devi also came to Lalitpur. She started residing with Ram Chandra Tewari, Mahendra Tewari and Smt. Munni Devi. At that time, Smt. Samta alias Ranno Devi was still pregnant and on 28-7-1993 she was left at the house of Smt. Lata Dixit for the delivery in Jhansi. On 20-8-1993, she gave birth to a twins. One died immediately and the other became ill and subsequently died on 11th September, 1993. Appellant Ram Chandra Tewari brought Smt. Samta alias Ranno Devi to Lalitpur from Jhansi. While coming to Lalitpur, Smt. Samta alias Ranno Devi was crying that she would be killed by the accused persons.
5. It has come in evidence that in the night of 22/23rd September, 1993 near about 11.00 P.M. or thereafter Smt. Samta alias Ranno Devi was killed in the said room and her dead body was placed by the accused persons between the two lines of railway track as shown at place ‘A’ in the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer. Smt. Lata Dixit got information about the death of Smt. Samta alias Ranno Devi on 23-9-1993 between 7 to 9 A.M. It has not been clarified as to who gave this information. She sent a telegram to her father at Lucknow. On receiving the telegram, the informant, brother of the deceased and others came to Lalitpur on 24-9-1993 and on the same day at 11.30 A.M. F.I.R. Ext. Ka-29 was lodged by Prem Sagar Dwivedi, father of the deceased at Police Chowki G.R.P. Lalitpur. By that time, the accused persons had cremeted the dead body of the deceased.
6. The Police registered and investigated the case. Ram Chandra Tewari was arrested on 27-9-1993. His statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer and he stated that he had killed the deceased in his room. He was taken to the room and there he opened the room and pointed out the place where he had murdered his wife. There blood stains were found on the cemented floor in a corner. Its samples were taken and sent for chemical examination. On chemical examination, the chemical examiner found human blood on this cemented floor which is item No. 6 in his report dated 25-5-1995.
7. After the investigation was complete, the police submitted a charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate and all the accused persons, Ram Chandra Tewari, Mahendra Tewari and Smt. Munni Devi, were committed to the Court of Session. The trial took place before Shri Sudhir Kumar Saxena, Additional Sessions Judge, Lalitpur, who by a detailed judgment found the accused persons, Ram Chandra Tewari and Smt. Munni Devi guilty of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. Section 201 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and Section 498-A, IPC. Ram Chandra Tewari was awarded death sentence for having murdered his wife. Smt. Munni Devi was given life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. They were also awarded imprisonment and fine under Section 201 read with Section 34, IPC. However, the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution failed to prove its case against Mahendra Tewari, brother of Ram Chandra Tewari and Dewar of the deceased. He, therefore, acquitted him of all the charges. Being aggrieved by the death punishment, convictions, sentences and fine, both the appellants have preferred this appeal while there is also a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge for confirmation of the death sentence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and gone through the records. The case was registered under Sections 498-A and 304B, I.P.C. and Section 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act by the Police. The business of the Police is to register the case and to write prima facie section under which the office is made out, but it is the duty of the Court to frame the charges under the Sections under which the offences are made out.
9. The deceased was married with appellant Ram Chandra Tewari in 1985 or in March, 1986 as stated by the appellant in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. Therefore, the marriage took place before 7 years of the death. It appears, therefore, that the charge under Section 304B, IPC was not framed for this reason and the accused persons were charged with the offences under Sections 302/34, 201/34 and 498-A, I.P.C. only.
10. It has come in evidence that the informant Prem Sagar Dwivedi died due to shock within a month of the death of Smt. Samta alias Ranno Devi. He was not alive at the time of evidence. Therefore, his statement could not be recorded by the learned sessions Judge.
11. In evidence, the prosecution examined PW-1, Mohd. Riyaz Khan. He was a resident of Nehru Nagar, Lalitpur. On 27-9-1993, he was going to latrine when Ram Chandra Tewari appellant was arrested by the Police. The Police took Mohd. Riyaz Khan and one Kallu and in their presence took blood stained plaster from the room of the accused appellant.
12. P.W. 2 Smt. Lata Dixit is the daughter of the informant and elder sister of the deceased. She stated that she got the information about the death of her sister and informed her father by telegram. She also proved how the deceased was tortured and cruely beaten and how the demands were being made from the accused side.
13. P.W. 3, Ajai Kumar Dwivedi is the son of the informant and he had proved the letters which exhibited torture, cruelty and demand of money by Ram Chandra Tewari and Smt. Munni Devi. He also proved that the letters had been written by Samta alias Ranno Devi and he was fully acquainted with the hand-writing of his sister.
14. P.W. 4, Dr. S. K. Singh, conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased at 4.00 P.M. The Doctor found the following ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased :-
1. L.W. 9 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the right side of skull 8 cm above the right ear underlying bone fractured.
2. Multiple abraided contusions 4 in number on the front of chest 6 cm below xiphistenum big 5 cm x 1 cm, small 1/2 cm x 1/4 cm.
3. Abraided contusion 1 cm x 1/2 cm. (sheet of assault has not been given in the postmortem report).
4. L.W. 2-1/2 cm x 1/2 cm x skin deep on the back of left elbow.
5. Multiple abraided contusion 5 in number on the outer aspect of back of right forearm, and elbow big 1-1/2 cm x 1 cm small 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm.
6. Multiple abraided contusion 7 in number on the whole right thigh, left and foot on front aspect in an area of 70 cm x 14 cm big, 6 cm x 3 cm, small 1/2 cm 1/2 cm.
7. Multiple abraided contusion 15 cm in number on the front of left thigh, leg foot (paper toxn) 14 cm big 6 cm x 2 cm x 1/4 cm.
8. Multiple abraided contusion in an area of 50 cm x 25 cm on the whole of back and left hip 6 in number big 11 cm x 6 cm small, 4 cm x 3 cm.
9. L.W. 4 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep just below the left posterior sup. iliac spine.
15. On internal examination, the Doctor found the right front perietal bone fractured. Thorax and vertebra were also found fractured. 7th rib was also fractured. He also found semi digested food in the stomach weighing 200 grms. In his examination, the Doctor proved the injuries and also stated that the death took place due to shock and heamorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries.
16. P.W. 5, Rama Shanker was the landlord of appellant Ram Chandra Tewari. He stated that on the fateful night Ram Chandra Tewari, Mahendra Tewari and Smt. Munni Devi along with the deceased were in the room. In the next morning at about 6.00 A.M. Ram Chandra Tewari informed him that Smt. Samta alias Ranno Devi was missing and she should be searched. He along with the accused persons went to search Smt. Samta alias Ranno Devi.
17. The other set of evidence is about recovery of the dead body. PW6, Jagan Tanai Darau was posted as Point man at Lalitpur Station. He was given a memo paper No. 26-Ka by the Station Master for being handed over at G.R.P. Chowki. He gave this memo at the Chowki at 6.17 A.M.
18. P.W. 7, Abdul Hakeem, Deputy Station Master, Lalitpur stated that three trains had passed on the down track at 6.10 A.M. He was informed by the Cabin-man Shri Shree Dutt that a dead body was lying on the down track of the railway line near the cabin between 10.36/3-4 Km. It may be removed so that the trains may pass. He, thereafter, sent the information through memo 26-Ka to G.R.P. Chowki, Lalitpur.
19. P.W. 8, Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Switchman saw the gathering at the track at 5.58 A.M. He marked this fact in the train register. He passed the trains through the loop line. He was in the cabin and from the cabin he informed about the dead body on the railway track to the Station Master.
P.W. 9, Kapoor Singh, took the dead body for postmortem examination. PW-10. Prakash Dwivedi is the nephew of informant Prem Sagar Dwivedi. He had also gone to Lalitpur along with the informant and had written the F.I.R., which was lodged by Prem Sagar Dwivedi.
20. P.W. 11, Gyan Prakash Verma, was the Investigating Officer of the case. He prepared the inquest report and the police papers. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. He took blood stained earth. He had also taken the plaster of the room which was blood stained. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses at Lucknow and Jhansi. PW-13, Chandra Bhan Singh, was the Investigating Officer, who submitted the charge-sheet in the case.
21. After the close of the evidence of the prosecution, the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. The accused persons admitted the relationship of the witnesses. Accused Ram Chandra Tewari stated that his marriage took place in March 1986. There was no demand of dowry etc. He denied the other allegations of the prosecution. In reply to question No. 14, he stated that Ranno Devi died in the morning of 21st September, 1993. This palpably appears to be a confused statement. He further stated that at 10 or 11.00 A.M. he had sent a telegram to Jhansi. On the same Day Smt. Lata Dixit and her husband had come to Lalitpur. His father-in-law also reached Lalitpur on 23-9-1993 at 9.10 A.M. This is entirely false statement. This question was not asked to any witness nor any such paper was produced or summoned to show that the accused had given information to the Police. In reply to question No. 18, accused Ram Chandra Tewari admitted that Smt. Samta alias Ranno Devi had come in the house of Railway colony, Lalitpur before two or four days of her death. She was ill. He further stated that he had slept at 1.00 P.M. Ranno Devi had got stomach problem and used to go to latrine for three or four times. He did not know when the occurrence took place. He also stated that the letters produced had not been written by Ranno Devi and he had been implicated because the informant and others were demanding jewellery and expenses of the marriage. It is hard to believe that after seven or eight years of the marriage one would demand jewellery and expenses of the marriage.
22. The case of the other accused persons is that of total denial. Smt. Munni Devi stated that she was not present in the house. The prosecution also examined D.W. 1, Tirjugi Narain, to prove that there was no demand of dowry etc. He, however, proved the statement of the accused that Ranno Devi was married in 1986. He stated that it was wrong to state that Ranno Devi was married in 1985. He also supported the prosecution to some extent that from before one and a half years of the death of Ranno Devi, accused Ram Chandra Tewari had shifted to Lalitpur and before that he used to carry on food grain business in village Gurdahi. Ram Chandra Tewari had got no agricultural plot. The witness was unable to say why Ram Chandra Tewari had come to Lalitpur. He also admitted that Prem Sagar Dwivedi had got agricultural land and he used to give it on Batai. He had got a shop in Lucknow. He also stated that Ranno Devi was educated upto Class X.
23. We have discussed the entire evidence on the record and we have to see whether there was any motive for the accused persons to murder Smt. Samta alias Ranno Devi and whether this was a case of murder or accident. According to both the parties, this was not a case of suicide. According to the prosecution, this was a deliberate murder while according to the accused side, the victim went to the railway track where she was dashed by some train and died. We have also to see if this was a case of murder; where it took place and who had murdered the victim.
24. As regard the motive, this is not a case of dowry death. This is a case where even after marriage, there was constant demand of money by accused Ram Chandra Tewari. In this connection, there is specific evidence of the prosecution which we would deal with soon after, but the status of the parties also shows that there might have been demand of money. How marriage took place is a different thing because marriage is admitted, but there appears a long gap of status between both the parties. Prem Sagar Dwivedi, father of the deceased, was a resident of village Nadguwan district Etawah as admitted by D.W. 1, Tirjugi Narain. This has also come in evidence that Prem Sagar Dwivedi had got a medicine shop in business centre like Aminabad in Lucknow. His nephew Prakash Dwivedi had got a furniture shop. The informant side appears to be affluent person. To the contrary, DW-1, Tirjugi Narain, himself admitted that there was no agricultural land with accused Ram Chandra Tewari. His grandfather did only Panditayee. He further stated that accused Ram Chandra Tewari used to sell grains in village Guardahi, but he had shifted to Lalitpur. It is admitted fact that at Lalitpur accused Ram Chandra Tewari had not his Mama and there he used to drive Tempo. It has also come in evidence that the landlord PW-5, Rama Shanker, stated that Ram Chandra Tewari Mahendra Tewari and Smt. Munni Devi used to reside in a room measuring 6′ x 9′. There were two living children also to Ram Chandra Tewari. This shows the wretched condition of Ram Chandra Tewari. It is also clear that the informant side was comparatively well off. It has also come in evidence that accused Ram Chandra Tewari left his village and had gone in the shelter of his Mama only for the sake of his livelihood. Therefore, the demand of money from the parents of the deceased was not unnatural when according to the own admission of the accused in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. there were two living children, Ranno Devi was pregnant, she gave birth to twins and both of them died subsequently. Ranno Devi used to keep ill health and treatment was going on. In these circumstances, the demand of money from the Sasural side was rather natural. Not only this, there is specific allegation in the F.I.R. lodged by the informant Prem Sagar Dwivedi that there was constant demand of money by Ram Chandra Tewari. This fact has also been proved by Smt. Lata Dixit, sister of the deceased and Shri Ajai Kumar, brother of the deceased. These witnesses were cross examined, but they stood the test of cross-examination like a rock. The accused could not make out any case contrary to the allegations of the prosecution. It is also the admitted fact that when Ranno Devi was about to give birth, she was left at the house of Smt. Lata Dixit, her sister at Jhansi. This also shows that the accused Ram Chandra Tewari was not in a position to arrange for the delivery of his wife and, therefore, he left his wife at the house of her sister. It is also the admitted fact that she was brought to Lalitpur only 3-4 days before her death. In the circumstances enumerated above, accused Ram Chandra Tewari was in dire need of money and when the need of the accused was not fulfilled, he proceeded to kill Smt. Samta alias Ranno Devi.
25. The letters written by the victim also proved that the accused persons always tortured and cruely beat the victim. The entire allegations in these letters are against her husband and Smt. Munni Devi. The accused had denied that these letters are in the hand-writing of Ranno Devi, but did not specifically put any question to any of the prosecution witnesses. Admittedly, Ranno Devi was residing along with the accused persons. They must be in possession of some paper written by Ranno Devi. They did not produce any such paper to prove that the letters produced by the prosecution were not in the hand writing of the victim. These letters specifically proved that the accused persons always tortured and cruelly beat the victim and could have killed her at any time.
26. In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that there was a very strong motive for the murder of Smt. Samta alias Ranno Devi wife of accused Ram Chandra Tewari. It is not necessary that for every murder, there should be enmity. Sometimes, poverty, inability to provide medicines to the ailing wife are the causes of murder and may constitute motive which motive is fully established in this particular case.
27. The vital question in this case is whether this was a case of accident or a case of murder. It was admitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that this was not a case of suicide. The injuries of the victim and the postmortem report fully prove that this was a case of brutal murder.
28. We have first to take up the case of accident. By no stretch of imagination, we are able to arrive at a conclusion that there might be a dash or impact of some moving train and the victim had fallen down in between the two lines of one track. If she had fallen down in between the two lines of a track on account of dash or impact of some running train, her body would have been dragged and the entire body would have been torn. There would have been cutting of the body into pieces. The body would not have remained identifiable. There was only typical contusions and fractures on the person of the deceased but in case of train accident numerous grievous injuries would have been caused. Besides this, profuse bleeding at the place of occurrence would have been the natural consequence. There is no evidence that any blood was found on the track where the dead body was found. The Doctor has reported about haemorrhage and if the present injuries had been by a train, falling of blood on the railway track would have been the natural consequence. If a dead body is lying in between the two lines of one track, there may not be any damage to the dead body by a running train, but if a person is alive and falls in between the two lines of a track as a result of dash or impact of the train, his body will move due to life in it and necessarily due to the movement of the body it shall be cut into pieces. It shall not lie like a rock in between the two lines of the track.
29. The case of accident can be judged from another angle. If a person is dashed from side by a running train, he shall be thrown either on the right side or the left side of the train and in that case major injury may not come, but if the body is thrown in between the two lines of the track, it is but natural that there shall be vast damage to the body and not simply fracture of the parietal bone, fracture of the ribs and other contusions only. There shall be also cutting of the body into pieces. If it is presumed that due to dash by the running train, the victim fell down in between the two lines of the track by the side of the belly and the face on the ground, then also on account of hard substance such as bricks, stones lying on the track, numerous injuries would be sustained, but there is no such injury on the person of the deceased in this particular case. Therefore, the case of accident by a running train is ruled out due to the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased. Not only this, learned counsel for the defence while cross-examining the witnesses was conscious enough of this fact and, therefore, he did not dare to cross-examine the Doctor on the point whether these types of injuries could have been caused by train accident. It is apparent that the injuries were not caused by train accident and if the case of accident is eliminated, the irresistible conclusion is that Smt. Samta alias Ranno Devi was killed and the dead body was planted so that it may appear that it was a case of accident. Lota was also placed at some distance from the track to show that Smt. Samta alias Ranno Devi had gone to ease herself, but the theory of going to ease herself is also falsified in view of the fact that the site plan shows that there was a latrine in the house where accused Ram Chandra Tewari was residing. There was absolutely no suggestion to the witnesses or the statement of the accused persons that they used to go towards railway side to ease them selves and they were not allowed to use the latrine. The landlord, namely, P.W. 5, Rama Shanker, in his statement tried to help the accused persons. He could have very well been asked whether the accused side was not allowed to use the latrine and they used to go to railway side to ease themselves. No such question was put to the landlord. The site plan shows that there were vacant plots towards east and west side of the house of the landlord. If the victim was ailing and she had got stomach problem, then she would naturally go either to the latrine or to nearby place to ease herself and not towards railway track to suffer accident. Therefore, the theory of going towards railway track to ease herself is totally falsified from this fact alone.
30. There is yet another circumstance which rules out the possibility of going to ease herself towards the railway track in the early morning. The postmortem report shows that there was 200 grams semi digested food in the stomach of the deceased. The food becomes semi digested within 2 or 3 hours of its taking. There is also no case that the victim took food at 2 or 3.00 A.M. The accused were residing with the victim in the house. It has also come in the statement of the witness Rama Shanker (P.W. 5) that in the morning the accused persons started to search Smt. Samta alias Ranno Devi. This shows that in the night both husband and wife were in the room. Therefore, the accused Ram Chandra Tewari is presumed to know when the victim took food. This case had not at all been taken that the victim took food before early morning at about 2 or 3.00 A.M. The natural presumption is that all of them took food in the night at about dinner time and within 2 or 3 hours she was killed. Thus, the case of the prosecution is fully established that she died at about 11 or 12 mid night. After all accused Ram Chandra Tewari was in the shelter of his Mama who was a Police Constable at Lalitpur. From 11.00 P.M. to 5.00 A.M. the accused got full opportunity to consult his Mama or to think himself how to get rid of the dead body and to plant the dead body at the railway track so that it may appear a case of accident.
31. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants and it has also came in the statement of Ram Chandra Tewari that if he had to plant the dead body at the railway track, he would have placed it on the line itself so that it may be cut into pieces. This argument may appear to have some force, but no body could sit in the mind of the accused. He may also have thought it to place the dead body in between the two lines of the track to show his bona fide that if he had to do it, he could have placed it on the railway line. It was also argued that the accused persons could have thrown the dead body at some dark place away from the railway line. If the dead body had been thrown at some dark place, then no defence would have been created in view of the injuries sustained by the deceased and the murder would have automatically been proved. It was further argued that there was light every where in the railway colony how the dead body could be thrown on the railway track. There is no evidence either way that the light was there and there was no electric failure and the accused persons were not in a position to bring the dead body towards the railway line. The accused Ram Chandra Tewari had got ample time to bring the dead body towards railway line with the help of his brother and sister. The accused persons might have taken the dead body themselves because the place where the dead body was planted was not far away from the railway colony where the accused persons were residing. Not only this, it has also come in evidence that accused Ram Chandra Tewari along with his brother and sister went to PW-5 Rama Shanker and requested him to search for Smt. Samta alias Ranno Devi. The accused persons themselves are the witnesses of this fact as to how they placed the dead body on the railway track either in the early morning or at any other time in the night after 11.00 P.M. The prosecution must be unable to produce any such evidence. There are also circumstances to show that the acts of the accused persons were not at all bona fide and may lead to natural presumption that the victim was murdered at the hands of the accused persons. The place Lalitpur is well connected with Lucknow by telephone. In the manner the information was given to the sister of the deceased, in the same way information could have been given to the father and brother of the deceased, but the accused persons preferred to cremate the dead body without waiting for parents of the deceased. They might have given the information to Smt. Lata Dixit, the sister of the deceased, but if their conduct was bona fide they could have given information to the parents of the deceased also and only after their arrival they could have cremated the dead body.
32. It is true that confession to the Police is not relevant, but under Section 27 of the Evidence Act no such statement is relevant which leads to some recovery or discovery and such statement can be proved. In this case, accused Ram Chanra Tewari stated before the Investigating Officer that he could show the place where he had murdered the victim. He went to the room, opened the room and there blood stains were found on the floor. The Investigating Officer took the plaster and sent it for chemical examination. The Chemical Examiner found human blood which fully proved the place of murder. The finding of human blood on the floor without any explanation from the accused side also proved the place where the victim was murdered. The Doctor also stated that there was heamorrhage of blood. If the two facts are taken together, this fully established that the victim was murdered in the room of the accused and this also leads to a presumption of murder and not to a presumption of accident. The circumstances fully reveal that the victim was murdered. The facts lead to irresistible conclusion that this murder took place inside the room where the victim was residing along with her husband Ram Chandra Tewari. The facts also conclusively prove that the death of the victim did not take place by accident at about 5 or 6 A.M. The presence of semi digested food in the stomach of the victim shows that death took place some where between 11 or 12 midnight. There is no case of the accused that the victim died at the railway track between 11 or 12 midnight. Therefore, she was necessarily murdered in the room. Now the question is who is responsible for this murder.
33. Learned Sessions Judge had acquitted accused Mahendra Tewari. He is Dewar of the deceased and brother of accused Ram Chandra Tewari. It is unfortunate that there is no State appeal against his acquittal and, therefore, by reversing the finding of acquittal, Mehendra Tewari cannot be convicted. However, there is consistent evidence, which we will discuss soon after, that all the accused persons, namely, Ram Chandra Tewari, Mahendra Tewari and Smt. Munni Devi were residing in the said room along with Smt. Samta alias Ranno Devi. If one is murdered in the said room, the other three are either murderers or witnesses. Ram Chandra Tewari and Munni Devi or Mahendra Tewari never came forward to say that he had seen some body committing murder of Ranno Devi and, therefore, he or she was a witness and not the assailant. As discussed above, these three accused persons were residing along with the deceased in a room measuring 6′ x 9′. In the circumstances, none of the accused persons could say that the occurrence took place in the room but he could not known about the assailant. Therefore, each and every accused shall be responsible for the murder. Now the question is as to who was residing in the said room at that particular time. Smt. Munni Devi in her statement tried to say that she was not residing in the room at that time. She did not state where she was if not in the room. She did not state that she was in her Sasural at that particular time, but the evidence on the record fully established that she was present in the said room.
34. Coming to the actual participation of the three accused persons, the evidence on the record shows the presence of all the accused persons in the said room, but Mahendra Tewari has already been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge. There is no Government appeal against his acquittal. Therefore, discussion about him shall be only of academic interest.
35. As regards appellant Ram Chandra Tewari he is the husband of the deceased. He has been named in the F.I.R. Admittedly, he had received the dead body after postmortem examination and had cremated the dead body. In his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. he nowhere stated where was he on the fateful night if not in the room. He himself had admitted that he gave the telegram to Jhansi at 10 or 11 a.m. He further stated that his father-in-law and brother-in-law came to Lalitpur in the morning at about 9 or 10 O’Clock. In reply to question No. 17 of his statement, he stated that it was he who gave information to the G.R.P. and in reply to question No. 20 of his statement, he specifically stated that he slept at about 10 O’Clock in the night. He did not state that he slept on the fateful night somewhere else than the room. His landlord, namely, Rama Shanker (P.W. 5) has specifically stated that in his room Ram Chandra Tewari, his brother Mehendra Tewari and the wife of Ram Chandra Tewari, namely, Smt. Samta alias Ranno Devi were residing. Regarding Smt. Munni Devi, he was specific that she was also there. In the second para of his statement, he stated that in the morning Mahendra Tewari, Smt. Munni Devi and Ram Chandra Tewari all were present. It was Ram Chandra Tewari who awoke him and told that Bhabhi (deceased) was not in the house and all of them went to search the victim. Thus, it is clear that not only Ram Chandra Tewari, but Smt. Munni Devi and Mahendra Tewari were there in the said room on the said night. It has also come in the statement of Lata Dixit who was residing in Jhansi, the neighbouring district of Lalitpur, that when Ram Chandra Tewari had taken the house, he had called for Mahendra Tewari and Smt. Munni Devi and the deceased as well and they were all residing in the said room. PW 3 Ajai Kumar Dwivedi, also stated that Smt. Munni Devi was also there at Lalitpur at the time of the occurrence. In the cross-examination, he stated that after the occurrence Smt. Munni Devi had run from the house. This evidence specifically shows that all the three accused persons were present at the time when the occurrence had taken place.
36. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants was that Smt. Munni Devi was a married lady. She must be residing in her Sasural. Why she should reside at the house of the accused Ram Chandra Tewari. It is true that she was married, but it is also true that the deceased was ailing. She had given birth to twins only a few days before the occurrence. It is also an admitted fact that only before 3-4 days of the occurrence, she was brought from Jhansi. Necessarily ladies suffer from post delivery diseases which can be looked after by ladies only. Therefore, there is no improbability in this fact that Smt. Munni might have been called for that purpose and the evidence shows that she was there in the room. All the letters specifically show that Smt. Munni Devi was the main here to torture and cruelly beat the victim and it was she from whom the victim had got always fear of life. The participation of Mahendra Tewari has been disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge. Even if that case is taken to be correct, then also it is not physically possible to assault the victim and then to take the dead body singly towards the railway track. The way in which the murder had been committed and the dead body had been removed, it is most natural and probable that the number of assailants must be two or three. The mere denial of Smt. Munni Devi and her mere marriage will not go to show that she was purely innocent lady and she had nothing to do with this brutal murder and the placing of the dead body at the railway track. Not only this, in her statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. Smt. Munni Devi had only stated that she was not present at the said occasion. She did not utter a single ward where she was on the fateful night if not there with Ram Chandra. She did not state that she was in her Sasural in the said night. D.W. 1, Tirjugi Narain, the defence witness is not a witness of this fact that Smt. Munni Devi was not there in the room of accused Ram Chandra Tewari. He only stated in para 5 of his statement that Smt. Munni Devi had been wedded near village Rajpur. This fact is no where denied. In the Circumstances, it is fully proved that the murder had been committed by accused Ram Chandra Tewari and Smt. Munni Devi and they tried to screen themselves from legal punishment by placing the dead body in between two lines of the railway track.
37. There was constant demand of money and other articles by the accused persons and when Ranno Devi was unable to fulfil the demand, she was being cruelly beaten and tortured. Therefore, the offence under Section 490-A, I.P.C. is fully established against them. There is clinching circumstantial evidence which fully connects both the appellants with the murder of the deceased. Both of them are guilty of the offence under Sections 302/34, I.P.C. as well. They have tried to remove the dead body to screen themselves from legal punishment. Therefore, they are also guilty of the offence under Sections 201/34, I.P.C. The charges are fully established against the accused persons and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted them under the three heads of the charges which were levelled against them.
38. It is true that there are certain observations and inference by the learned Sessions Judge which may be off the record and on surmises and conjectures, but the ultimate result on which the learned Sessions Judge has arrived at is absolutely correct.
39. We have discussed the entire evidence on the record and all the aspects of the case. In a case like the present one, there cannot be direct evidence. The volume and quality of evidence also differs from case to case and in this particular case the circumstantial evidence on the record is clinching and totally convicting and leads to no other conclusion except that there are the accused persons who have killed the victim.
40. Now coming to the sentence, the learned Sessions Judge has awarded death sentence to appellant Ram Chandra Tewari. He is the husband of the deceased and the circumstances in which this murder has been caused and if one goes by sentiment, the death punishment cannot be said to be excessive. The legal position is that this is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence in this case. Therefore, it will not be safe to hang a person on the basis of circumstantial evidence only. This is not a case rare of the rarest where death punishment only can be adequate penalty. In these circumstances, the death sentence awarded to appellant Ram Chandra Tewari is liable to be altered into imprisonment for life.
41. In addition to life imprisonment Smt. Munni Devi has been imposed a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. Appellants Ram Chandra Tewari and Smt. Munni Devi are to suffer imprisonment for life. They shall remain in Jail. The murder has also been caused mainly for the greed of money. There does not appear any possibility that the money may be realised from her. Therefore, it is meaningless to impose such a heavy fine upon her. In the circumstances, the order imposing the fine upon Smt. Munni Devi is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. Both the appellants shall undergo imprisonment for life for the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C.
42. As regards the sentence under Sections 201/34, I.P.C., the learned Sessions Judge has rightly awarded rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- to each of the appellants. The sentence for the offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. is also appropriate. Therefore, the sentences under these sections are maintained.
43. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The convictions of the appellants under all the three sections are confirmed. However, the death senence awarded to appellant Ram Chandra Tewari is altered into imprisonment for life. All the sentences, shall run concurrently.
44. The reference for confirmation of death sentence awarded to appellant Ram Chandra Tewari is accordingly rejected.
45. Appellant Smt. Munni Devi is on bail. Her bail bonds are cancelled and the sureties are discharged. She shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentences awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Appellant Ram Chandra Tewari is in jail. He shall undergo imprisonment as awarded by this Court.
46. The office is directed to send a copy of this order to C.J.M. Lalitpur within a week. The C.J.M. is directed to submit compliance report to this Court within three months of the receipt of a copy of this order.
Appeal dismissed.