Dwarka Prasad vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by judgment dated 28.12.2006 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge,

Raisen in S.T. No.141/1999, whereby the appellant has been found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and have been

sentenced to Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- with a stipulation of a further period of 6 months R.I. in case of default of deposit of fine.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant committed the murder of his wife Jashoda Bai on 30.3.1999 at 6.00 O''clock in the morning

by inflicting an injury on her head with a stone that was about 10 Kgs. in weight. According to the prosecution, P.W-2 Lakshman Singh, who is the

Kotwar of the village, informed the police about the incident. According to Lakshman Singh (PW-2), at around 4.00 O''clock in the morning

Narayan Singh (PW-9), cousin brother of the appellant, informed him that the appellant had committed the murder of his wife Jashoda Bai who

was lying dead in the house of the appellant whereupon Lakshman Singh (PW-2) went to the house and saw Durjan Singh (PW-1), Kashibai

(PW- 4) mother of the deceased, Mullu (PW-6) father of the deceased and one Hari Singh sitting in the house of the appellant and several other

villagers had collected outside. Lakshman Singh (PW-2) informed the police that when he reached there and asked the appellant as to who had

committed the murder of his wife, the appellant informed him that he had done so as she had given him some poisonous substance.

The trial court, on examining the statement of the witnesses, specifically the statement of Kashibai (PW-4) and Mullu (PW-6), mother and father

of the appellant respectively, the statements of Dr. R.G. Malani (PW-3) and M. S. Tomar (PW- 8) the Investigating Officer, has recorded a

finding of guilt against the appellant.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that all the witnesses, before whom the appellant had said to have confessed to the

commission of the crime, have been declared hostile. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the statement of Durian Singh

(PW-1) who is said to be one of those before whom the appellant had orally confessed to the crime and points out that the said witness has not

supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. The learned counsel for the appellant has also stated that the appellant was infact

mentally unstable and, therefore, the trial court has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence on record in its proper perspective.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having carefully perused the statements of the mother and father of the appellant namely;

Kashi Bai (PW-4) and Mullu (PW-6) it is apparent that both these persons have categorically stated that while they have not seen the appellant

committing the crime, however, the appellant had clearly confessed to the commission of the crime before them.

Having gone through the judgment of the trial court, we are of the considered opinion that the trial court has rightly recorded a finding to the

effect that there is no oral or documentary evidence on record to establish the fact that the appellant was of unsound mind at the time when the

incident occurred or that he committed the murder in a fit of insanity. On the contrary, the trial court has recorded a finding to the effect that the

appellant was understanding and properly replying to the questions put to him before the court and did not appear to be either mentally ill or of

unstable or of unsound mind. A perusal of the statement of Dr. R. G. Malani (PW-3) indicates that the deceased died on account of a depressed

injury on the fronto parietal region of the head which resulted in cardio respiratory failure. The trial court has also rightly recorded a finding to the

effect that the appellant was staying in his own house with his wife but has not come up with any explanation regarding the death of the deceased.

In the circumstances, we find no reason to take a different view than that which has been taken by the trial court or to disbelieve the extra

judicial confession given by the appellant to his parents Kashi Bai (PW-4) and Mullu (PW-6) and, moreso as their statements in this regard are

consistent, reliable and are of sterling and unimpechable quality.

In the circumstances, the appeal filed by the appellant being meritless is, accordingly, dismissed. The Judgment of the trial Court dated

28.12.2006 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen in S.T. No.141/1999 and his conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code, is accordingly upheld and confirmed.

It is informed that the appellant is in jail. It is directed that he shall remain incarcerated to undergo the remaining part of the sentence.

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.