Galmuni Ram vs The State of Bihar

The appeal has been preferred by two appellants, who are

father and son, against the judgment and order dated 24.2.1994 passed

by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 114

of 1991/121 of 1991. The appellants have been convicted under

Section 302 read with Section 34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

The prosecution case is that appellants, who are father and

son, went to the informant''s village, Basudewa on 14.11.1990 in the

morning and inquired from him about the whereabouts of the

informant''s daughter Eatwaria, whether she had come to the house.

They informed that the daughter-in-law had fled and they were searching for her. Eetwaria was daughter-in-law of appellant No.1 and

wife of appellant No.2. The informant informed them that the

deceased had not come to their house and subsequently when on

15.11.1990 informant along with some other villagers went to the

village Dubawalia and searched for her daughter, he was informed by

villagers that the deceased had been buried on the bank of the river.

The dead body was thereafter discovered, which was identified to be

that of the daughter.

The prosecution produced nine witnesses. The defence

was that the deceased had gone to the field to cut grass and her dead

body was discovered along with some grass, khurpi, basket and at

instance and advise of the villagers, appellants supposedly helped

bury the body near the river bank.

It is made clear that there are no eye-witnesses and

whatsoever is the cause of death. The post mortem indicates that the

death happened due to strangulation but there has been no evidence to

link the two appellants with the death of Eatwaria, who no doubt

happened to be daughter-in-law of the family.

Even the prosecution witness, specially witness No.5 has

stated that dead body of the deceased was found in the field and it was

at the instance of suggestion of the villagers that the dead body was

buried on the bank of the river. The conviction of the two appellants is

based on the ground that the death had happened within three years of the marriage and since she happened to be daughter-in-law of

appellant No.1 as well as wife of appellant No.2, onus was upon them

as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to explain the same.

The death had happened in the field not in the house of the

two appellants. Anything could have happened which led to the

murder of Eatwaria. Even the so-called investigation could not link

the two appellants directly with the crime. It is a case of

circumstantial evidence but the circumstances are not strong enough

to lead to the only conclusion that the two appellants alone would be

responsible for the death of Eatwaria.

7.It is significant that even the I.O. in this case was never

examined and merely on the basis of the fact that daughter-in-law of

appellant No.1 and wife of appellant No.2 had died and post mortem

indicated that it is a case of strangulation, the suspicion formed the

only basis of the conviction. No motive as such has been attributed for

proved.

The case is based on circumstantial evidence and

conviction is based on circumstance that no explanation for death of

deceased was given by the appellants and death is due to throttling.

How those circumstances have not been put to the appellants in their

statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., which is mandatory and

Hon''ble Apex Court has also held so in judgment of Manu Sao vs.

State of Bihar, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 310. Hence, defence has

failed to get a chance to explain the circumstances.

Thus, we find that the circumstances do not add up to

convict the appellants for life by holding them guilty.

The appeal, therefore, is allowed. The two appellants

stand acquitted. The bail bonds executed by them stand discharged.

The judgment and order dated 24.2.1994 passed by 3rd Additional

Sessions Judge, Gopalganj stands set aside.