Keshulal vs State of M.P.

I.S. Shrivastava, J.—This Appeal has been preferred by the appellant Keshulal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 03/04/2001 passed by the Court of Shri N.S. Azad, Sessions Judge, Indore in S.T. No. 744/2000, by which the appellant has been convicted u/s 302 of the IPC and sentenced with life imprisonment. According to the prosecution story, on 26/07/2000, complainant Laxmibai lodged a report at police station - Aerodrome, Indore that in the morning at about 8 am, she went for labourship leaving her daughter Kavita aged 3 years and her husband Keshulal at home. At about 7 pm, when she returned to home, she found that her house was locked from the outside and her mother, father and maternal aunt were sitting at the outside of the house. They told her that they received news of the death of Kavita on telephone, hence they came there. Thereafter, complainant Laximabai took out a key of the lock from the usual place where it was kept by her husband and after opening the lock, she saw inside the house that Kavita was lying on the bed covered with blanket. After lefting the blanket, she found Kavita dead and she was having blackish marks at different places of the body. On inquiry, neighbour told that they saw at about 2 pm that Keshulal, after locking the room from the outside, was going and Kavita was not with him. Her husband Keshulal had murdered Kavita by assaulting and pressing her mouth. Earlier two times, he assaulted Kavita as she did not talk with him and after tiding her hands and legs, he also hanged her upside down. Hence on report, Crime no. 224/2000 was lodged at police station - Aerodrome, Indore and after investigation, challan was filed against the appellant Keshulal and after trial, he has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned herein above.

It has been argued by the appellant''s counsel that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. There was no motive that why the appellant shall murder his daughter of tender age. There was no evidence that how the parents and maternal aunt of the complainant received the massage of death of Kavita by telephone. The details about the death of Kavita was not given. The person who received the telephone call was not examined. As per medical report, the cause of death of Kavita was asphyxia as a result of smothering, but there is no evidence in this regard that the appellant is responsible for the death of Kavita or he pressed the neck of his daughter Kavita, hence the trial Court has wrongly believed in that appellant Keshulal gave massage to his mother-in-law and father-in-law about the death of Kavita. The above witnesses did not inform the police immediately about the death of Kavita. The trial Court has wrongly believed in the statements of the witnesses that Kavita was under the impression of obsession and due to which, the accused/appellant committed murder of Kavita. In the FIR and before the death of Kavita, this fact was not disclosed by complainant Laxmibai to anyone. But the trial Court believed it that the person who believes in ghosts to get rid of it shall beat the affected person, hence the appellant has murdered his daughter Kavita. The appellant has been convicted on the basis of the evidence of last seen. There was no evidence to convict the appellant, hence the appeal be allowed.

It has been argued by the respondent''s counsel that the appellant has been rightly convicted and sentenced, because he was with the deceased Kavita on the date of the incident and Kavita was found dead and she was having near about 22 injuries on her body, due to which she died. There is ample evidence that earlier to this incident, the appellant was having suspicion that deceased Kavita was under the impression and control of some ghost, therefore, he used to beat her and told this fact to others. The behavour of the appellant was suspicious and leaving the dead body of Kavita in the room, he ran away after locking the door of the house. His conduct was also suspicious in this regard as he was missing for seven days after the incident and he was arrested after seven days. All these circumstances lead to the guilt of the appellant, hence this appeal being devoid of merits, be dismissed.

Considered the arguments and record of the Trial Court perused.

From the statement of Laxmibai PW-4, it reveals that on the date of the incident at about 8 am, she went for labourship in village - Rijlaye leaving her daughter Kavita and accused/appellant Keshulal at home. In the evening at about 7 pm, when she returned, she found her mother, father and maternal aunt at the house. On inquiry by her that how they come there, they asked " where is Kavita; they have received the massage that Kavita died". Thereafter, she opened the lock of the room and saw that Kavita was sleeping below the blanket. After removing the blanket, she saw her dead. Kavita was having marks of beating on her body. Thereafter, she lodged the report Ex.-P/1 at the police station. Ramcharan PW-1 has confirmed that on the date of the incident at about 12 pm, accused Keshulal came his shop with Kavita aged three years and he gave a banana to Kavita. The accused stopped there for half an hour and thereafter, the accused returned to the home with Kavita. He came to know the fact of death of Kavita at about 6 pm i.e. after the death of Kavita. This shows that Kavita was in the custody of the accused Keshulal on the date of the incident.

As regard to motive of murder, Ramcharan PW-1 has deposed that accused Keshulal used to come to him and told that his daughter Kavita was under the influence and control of ghost and in dream, she threatens him. Kalabai PW-3, mother of the complainant Laxmibai deposed that Keshulal used to beat Kavita and her daughter and threatened them. Bapu PW-2, father of the complainant Laxmibai deposed that her daughter was married with appellant Keshulal. Deceased Kavita used to fear with Keshulal, because he used to beat her. This fact was told to him by Kavita. His daughter complainant Laxmibai told him that when Keshulal came in the house, then Kavita seeing him, hided herself Laxmibai PW-4 in this respect has told that Keshulal was drug addict and used to beat Kavita; due to which, Kavita was not talking with him due to fear. Therefore, Keshulal used to beat Kavita. Whenever Laxmibai saved Kavita, accused Keshulal also beat her. Once, the accused after beating, hanged Kavita upside down by tiding her hands and legs. On her interruption, he released Kavita. In cross-examination, she deposed that 3 - 4 times in the village, Keshulal assaulted Kavita. She complained about this to her parents; they advised her to leave the house of Keshulal, but she did not follow their advice saying that Keshulal is her husband.

From this fact, motive of the murder of Kavita is established that as the appellant was having suspicion that Kavita was under influence of ghost, therefore, this was the reason, due to which, he murdered his daughter Kavita. The observation of the Court in this regard is not irrelevant, because normally, those persons who are under influence of ghost etc, they are beaten for their treatment. Therefore, if the appellant has assaulted his daughter Kavita, then it is not a irrelevant factor, therefore the motive is established.

It has been argued by the appellant''s counsel that this fact has not been narrated in police statements of the witnesses.

Considered the arguments. From the police statement Ex.-D/l of Ramcharan, it reveals that on the date of the incident, appellant Keshulal came to his pan shop. He gave a banana to Kavita and thereafter, Keshulal returned with his daughter Kavita. In the evening, he came to know about the death of Kavita. Keshulal told him that Kavita feared from him and did not talk with him. Keshulal also told him that he used to assault Kavita. Keshulal was very much superstitious. From the police statements of Bapu & Kalabai Ex.-D/2 & Ex.-D/3 respectively, it reveals that Keshulal used to beat Kavita, due to which, she did not talk to him. From the police statement of Laxmibai Ex.-D/4, it reveals that Keshulal used to beat her daughter Kavita, because she did not talk to him and feared from him. Once, Keshulal hanged Kavita upside down after tiding her hands and legs. She also deposed that on consumption of cannabis, Keshulal used to beat Kavita. Though all these witnesses have not deposed in their police statements that Keshulal had suspicion that Kavita was under the influence of some ghost, but if this fact is not relied, even then this fact is confirmed by the police statement that Keshulal used to beat her daughter Kavita on the point of not talking her with him. She feared from him. Therefore, the argument in this respect is not acceptable.

From the statement of Dr. Surendra Dubey PW-5 who conducted postmortem of Kavita and gave postmortem report Ex.- P/2 & Ex.-P/2-A, it is clear that the deceased Kavita was having 22 injuries on her body which were fresh and within 24 hours and ante-mortem in nature. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of smothering. Smothering means to suffocate. This shows that the murder of Kavita was brutal. She was not only beaten, but suffocated also.

The appellant has not given any plausible explanation about the death of his daughter while it was expected from him. In reply to question-15 that his wife left him with deceased Kavita at about 8 am while she went to labourship in the village, the appellant/accused has replied that he left the house at 7 am in the morning, but from the statement of Ramcharan PW-1, it was proved that the appellant at about 12 am, went to his pan shop with deceased Kavita where he gave banana to Kavita and after half an hour, the accused returned to the home, therefore, the explanation given by the appellant in statement of accused u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. is not reliable and satisfactory. The conduct of the appellant was suspicious after the incident. He was not available just after the incident, but he was arrested on 01/08/2000 vide arrest memo Ex.-P/4. He was not present at the time of panchanama of dead body Ex-P/10 and other proceedings. This shows the guiltiness of mind of the appellant.

In the case of Phundi Vs. State of M.P. [1993 JLJ, 200], it has been held that;

" accused is supposed to give plausible explanation of cause of death, failure may be treated the circumstances against him".

In the case of Ganeshlal Vs. State of Maharashtra, it has been held that;

"when death caused while deceased is in the custody of the accused, accused is obliged to give a plausible explanation for the cause of death in his statement u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C."

In the case of State U.P. Vs. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, , it has been held that;

"presence of accused/husband in the company of the deceased/wife in the room on the previous night as well as presence of accused in the room next morning, proved motive of murder, shown false pleading of alibi taken by accused instead of giving any plausible explanation for the custodial death, traditional external visible features of strangulation and other internal injuries found, held, chain of circumstances lead to the only conclusion of the commission of the offence by the accused".

In this case, it is proved that the deceased Kavita was in the custody of the appellant at the time of the incident. His conduct was suspicious because he ran away after locking the room from the outside. Dead body of deceased Kavita was found lying on the bed covered with blanket in the room; there were 22 injuries on her body and the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of smothering. The appellant failed to give plausible explanation in the statement u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. the motive was proved. Therefore, all the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the appellant committed murder of deceased Kavita, therefore, chain of circumstances lead to the only conclusion of the commission of murder of Kavita by the accused/appellant. Under these circumstances, the appellant was rightly convicted by the trial Court.

Accordingly, this appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.