State of U.P. vs Jeetendra Sharma and Others

The State of U. P. has preferred this appeal against judgment and order dated 20.10.1993, passed in Sessions Trial No. 68 of 1988 by the then II Ird Additional, Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad. By the impugned judgment and order the accused-Respondents have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 306 and 302, I.P.C. A revision was filed by informant, Dharam Pal Sharma against the said acquittal. Mahila Dakshata Samiti filed a miscellaneous case for expunging the remarks made by the trial Judge in paragraph 55 (a) to (d). All the three matters are being decided by this common judgment.

Sri S. K. Pal, learned A.G.A. for the State, and Sri P. N. Misra, learned senior counsel, for the Respondents have been heard and record has been perused. None turned up from the side of the revisionist and applicant in criminal revision and misc. criminal case respectively.

The fact in issue is the death of Tripta Sharma. Respondent, Jeetendra Pal Sharma, is the husband of the deceased, Jagdish Sharma is the jeth, Sumitra Rani is the mother-in-law and Usha Rani is married nanad of the deceased. Surendra Mohan Kalhan was nandoi, who died during trial and the case was ordered to abate against him on 15.11.1991.

The deceased was working as Panch Operator in Central Ordinance Depot, Delhi. Her colleagues were Sneh Prabha P.W. 4, Vimlesh Pushkaran P.W. 5, Smt. Vijay Sharma P.W. 9 and Savitri Bhuttan C.W. 6.

On 30.5.1986 at 9.50 a.m. Mahabir Singh P.W. 2, District Commandant, Home Guard, Ghaziabad, was told by his sweeper, Ram Ashrey P.W. 3, that the deceased was lying in house No. III-D 40, Nehru Nagar in burnt condition. Mahabir Singh informed the police. Office of the Home Guard is near the house where the deceased was lying in burnt condition. C.W. 1 Raj Kumar, C.W. 2 Sukhbir Singh and C.W. 3 Ajai Singh Rana, who were also working in the Home Guard Office, too, stated about the deceased lying in the house in burnt condition. Telephonic message was entered in G.D. at serial No. 21 on 30.5.1986 at 9.50 a.m. at police station Sihani Gate. Sub-Inspector, Rajendra Singh Verma P.W. 10, prepared inquest report of the dead body and sent the same for postmortem examination. P.W. 12 Jeetendra Kumar took photograph of the deceased. On 31.5.1986 at 5.15 p.m. a written report was given at the police station by Dharam Pal Sharma P.W. 7, brother of the informant, whereafter the case was registered. In written report, suspicion was expressed against the Respondents that they had caused the murder of the deceased. Further investigation was made by Uma Nath Singh P.W. 11 from 24.6.1986. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet u/s 306, I.P.C. was submitted. By direction of the Supreme Court some witnesses were examined as Court witnesses and the accused-Respondents were also charged u/s 302, I.P.C. in the alternative.

The accused-Respondents denied the charges. The defence case was that the deceased was suffering from mental depression due to which she committed suicide. Accused Jeetendra Pal Sharma and Jagdish Sharma denied their presence at the time of occurrence in house No. III-D 40, Nehru Nagar. Accused Surendra Mohan (since dead) had also denied his presence at the time of the occurrence. The defence case was also that accused Sumitra Devi, more than 75 years of age and Usha Rani were present in the house. It was also the defence case that no demand of money or pay of the deceased was made. The defence examined Dr. Mrs. Asha Mata Pulkar as D.W. 1, who examined the deceased on 8.2.1983 at Safdargunj Hospital, New Delhi and found that the deceased was in depressed condition. D.W. 2 Dr. Satyawati Devi also examined the deceased on 19.5.1986 at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, Delhi. The deceased was brought to the hospital by her husband. She also found that the deceased was under depression. The defence also filed pass books of the deceased.

It may be stated that this is not a case of direct evidence. Instead, it is case of circumstantial evidence. The witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution as well as those who have been examined as Court witnesses stated that they found the deceased in a room of house No. III-D 40 Nehru Nagar in burnt condition. The fact that the deceased sustained burn injuries and died of the same is not in dispute. P.W. 7 Dharam Pal Sharma has mentioned in the written report that the deceased told him that her husband commanded her that she should live with her brother and that he would meet her on Naglerai Bridge to take her pay. The deceased refused to do so. It has come in evidence that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs. 1,500 per month. It has also come in evidence that nanad of the deceased, Sudesh was also working in the same office and she used to draw the salary of the deceased on the basis of authority letter and did not give the same to her. Dharam Pal Sharma further stated that the deceased told him that her husband Jeetendra Pal Sharma asked her to bring Rs. 25,000 because he wanted to run a shop. It may be mentioned that none of the above facts were mentioned by the informant Dharam Pal Sharma in his written report and they were also not stated by the witness before the Investigating Officer. Moreover, no authority letter has been produced. Sneh Prabha P.W. 4, who was working with the deceased in the same office, stated that Sudesh used to take the pay of the deceased and did not hand over the same to the deceased. The witness had not stated this fact to the Investigating Officer. On the contrary, P.W. 5 Vimlesh Pushkaran, who was also a colleague of the deceased, says that whenever the deceased was on leave she took her pay and handed over the same to the deceased at her house at Janak Puri, Delhi. It has come in evidence that the deceased was living with her husband at Janak Puri prior to the occurrence as has been stated by the landlady, Smt. Santosh, P.W. 14. The deceased had two accounts wherein money was deposited and in one account which was operated three days prior to the occurrence an amount of Rs. 7,136.15 p. was standing to the credit of the deceased. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the prosecution case that the deceased was deprived of her salary was not convincing and acceptable. Moreover, if accused persons were interested to get the salary of the deceased, then the deceased should have been allowed to live and they would be the last persons to cause her death. It has come in evidence of Padmawati Bist, P.W. 1, who was neighbour of the deceased at her house at Nehru Nagar, that she did not observe any quarrel between the deceased and her mother-in-law, P.W. 14 Smt. Santosh, who was landlady of the deceased at Janak Puri house, has also stated that she never saw any quarrel between the deceased and her husband. The trial court has rightly found that motive was not proved in this case.

C.W. 4 Dr. S. N. Agrawal had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 30.5.1986. The doctor found that the eyes were closed and tongue was protruding. The doctor found 100% burn on the whole body. He also found line of redness and blisters present at places. Nothing abnormal was detected in larynx, trachea and bronchi. Lungs were found congested. No soot or carbon particles were found. According to the doctor, the death was due to shock resulting from extensive burn injuries. The report does not show that any microscopic examination took place or blood was examined. The trial court examined this aspect elaborately, considering the opinion of the authorities that absence of soot or carbon particles in the trachea and lungs by itself does not establish that the deceased was murdered and thereafter set on fire. The doctor stated that there was line of redness present which was suggestive that the deceased was alive when she was burnt. Vesication (formation of blisters) was found but the doctor has not opined whether they were true or false. In case of burns when asphyxia is caused, tongue may protrude. In case of throttling or strangulation corresponding injuries should also be found. The doctor did not find fracture on larynx, trachea, carotid arteries or muscles of the neck of the deceased. The discussion on this point by the trial court is exhaustive and the finding that the deceased sustained burn injuries during her life time is cogent and convincing. The room where the body of the deceased was found was bolted from inside. P.W. 13 Mohammad Suhel stated that he and Usha Respondent accused, forcibly broke open the door of the room. He stated that he called Usha for getting the door of the room opened. The statement of P.W. 13 Mohammad Suhel shows that deceased was all alone inside the room where she caught fire and succumbed.

The male accused denied their presence at the time of occurrence. It has come in evidence that at the time of occurrence nanad of the deceased, namely, Usha Rani accused and her mother-in-law Sumitra Rani were present. Smt. Kanti Singh C.W. 5 has stated that Usha Rani was cleaning the house with the help of broom-stick at 6 a.m. C.W. 3 Ajai Singh Rana stated that at the house there was another lady and nanad of the deceased. Accused Sumitra mother-in-law of the deceased, was aged about 75 years and was hard of hearing. The entire evidence which has been adduced in this case does not show that male accused were present at the time of occurrence. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the accused Jagdish Sharma, Sumitra Rani and Usha Rani on 8.6.1986. The trial court found from perusal of case diary that the accused Jeetendra Pal Sharma had gone to Haridwar to immerse the remains of the deceased in the Ganga. P.W. 7 Dharam Pal Sharma has stated that on 30.5.1986 while he was at his office he received telephonic call from his wife Indu Bala P.W. 8 that deceased was done to death by her-in-laws. This fact shows that information regarding death of the deceased was given to the relatives of the deceased. The first Investigating Officer Rajendra Singh Verma P.W. 10, who visited the spot, expressed no suspicion about the murder of the deceased. It has been mentioned above that P.W. 13 Mohammad Suhel was called by accused Usha Rani and the door was pushed and opened inside which the deceased was lying in burnt condition.

It has come in evidence of the deceased''s colleagues, namely, Sneh Prabha P.W. 4, Vimlesh Puskaran P.W. 5 and Savitri Bhuttan C.W. 6 that in the office the deceased used to remain sad and worried and that she used to weep on repeated enquiry. The landlady of the deceased of Janak Puri house, Smt. Santosh P.W. 14 stated that the deceased used to remain silent and did not indulge in excessive talking. P.W. 6 Janak Ram Sharma, who is also brother of the deceased, has stated that two elder sisters of the deceased, namely, Chint Purn and Santosh were not mentally well. The marriage of the deceased took place on 22.11.1983. The statement of D.W. 1 Dr. Mrs. Asha Mata Pulkar of Safdarganj hospital shows that even prior to her marriage on 8.2.1983 she found the deceased under sad and depressed condition. D.W. 2 Dr. Satyawati Devi of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. (Wilington Hospital) Delhi, is psychiatrist. A few days before the occurrence, i.e., on 19,5.1986, the deceased was checked by her, who was brought by her husband. History sheet of the deceased has been filed. The doctor has stated that the deceased was in depressed condition. The testimony of two doctors examined by the defence as well as the testimony of the colleagues of the deceased indicated that the deceased was mentally ill and was in depressed condition which might have prompted her to commit suicide. The conclusion of the trial court that the deceased committed suicide is a possible view which is based on the evidence on record. The chain of circumstances is not complete and the evidence is not quantitatively such that on every reasonable hypothesis, the conclusion must be that the accused is guilty, as has been held in the case, Pinkibasra Vs. State of Punjab and Others, .

In view of the aforesaid discussion the order of acquittal of the accused-Respondents, which is based on cogent and convincing reasons, calls for no interference. The Government appeal as well as the revision preferred by Dharam Pal Sharma are liable to be dismissed.

So far as Criminal Misc. Application No. 3866 of 1994 is concerned, the trial court has appreciated that Mahila Dakshata Samiti is doing its duty, but out of zeal it has been exaggerated. This observation is not adverse. The observation that the case has been prolonged by certain interested persons does not refer to Mahila Dakshata Samiti. Therefore, this miscellaneous application is also liable to be dismissed.

In the result, Government appeal, revision and the miscellaneous application are hereby dismissed. The accused Respondents are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged.

Send a copy of the judgment to the trial court for incorporating necessary entry in the concerned Register under intimation to this Court within two months.