Sushil Kumar Singh vs State of Jharkhand

By Court:

By the impugned judgment, the trial court on finding the Appellant guilty for committing murder of his wife Bindu Devi convicted him u/s 302 and also 201 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-with default clause for offence u/s 302 and further to undergo simple imprisonment for five years for offence u/s 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

The case of the prosecution is that on 20.6.1990 at about 8 A.M Soni Devi next door neighbor of the Appellant when found smoke coming out from the house of the Appellant, she informed about it to Baldeo Singh (P.W.1). Upon it, Baldeo Singh came rushing to the house of this Appellant and found the door closed. When it was knocked at it was opened by the Appellant. Baldeo Singh when came inside the room, he found the Appellant pouring water by a bucket on his wife, who was burning and was naked. He immediately came out of the room and then the door was again closed by the Appellant. After coming out of the room, Baldeo Singh informed about the occurrence to Chakradhari Singh, father of the Appellant.

Further case of the prosecution is that in the evening of 20.6.1990, Police Officer of Sindri Police Station came to know through rum our that someone in B.I.T Colony has burnt his wife to death. One A.S.I, Shiv Nandan Sah (P.W.4) came to the quarter of the Appellant where Baldeo Singh (P.W.1) disclosed to him about the fact what he had seen in the morning. Thereafter they on getting the door opened, searched the house. During search, the Investigating Officer found some playing cards, grains of rice and other materials scattered over there, out of which smell of K. Oil was coming out. Those materials were seized under seizure list (Ext.3/1). The Investigating Officer also seized from the place of occurrence a container of Kerosene Oil, pieces of burnt out sari etc. under seizure list (Ext.3). Thereupon the said A.S.I who is also the Investigating Officer (P.W.4) gave such information to the Officer-in-Charge of Sindri Police Station, upon which a case was lodged.

During investigation, when Investigating Officer came to the hospital, he found the deceased dead. Upon holding inquest on the dead body, it was sent for post mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Binod Kumar (P.W.5), who on examination found deep burn all over the body except back of head. At the same time, he also found smell of K. Oil coming out of the hair of the deceased. Doctor issued post mortem examination report (Ext.5) with an opinion that death was caused due to shock, as a result of extensive burn injury.

On submission of the charge sheet, this Appellant was put on trial for the charges under Sections 302, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code along with his father Chakradhari Singh charged u/s 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

During trial, the said Baldeo Singh was examined as P.W.1, who has narrated about the fact what he had seen in the morning of the occurrence. Apart from him, Doctor was examined as P.W.5 whereas informant, A.S.I, Shiv Nandan Sah, was examined as P.W.4. Rests are the formal witnesses. The trial court recorded the order of conviction on the following circumstances.

The Appellant had closed the door of the room where the deceased was found burnt.

The materials collected from the room such as playing cards etc. were emitting smell of K. Oil.

Even the Doctor found smell of K. Oil coming from the hair of the deceased.

One container of K. Oil was also found at the place of occurrence.

On the aforesaid circumstances, the court recorded the order of conviction u/s 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted this Appellant from the charge u/s 120B of the Indian Penal Code. At the same time, Chakradhari Singh was acquitted of all the charges. But the court while recording the order of conviction against the Appellant did not take into consideration several material facts appearing in the case. In this respect, it would be worth while to note here that it is the case of the prosecution itself that Baldeo Singh on coming to know that smoke is coming out from the room of the deceased, came rushing over there. After getting the door opened, when entered into the room, he found this Appellant pouring water upon the person of the deceased, who was burning. The deceased neither was found shouting for help nor did she make any complaint to said Baldeo Singh. Had there been culpability on the part of the Appellant, natural conduct of the deceased would have been to raise an alarm and even to make complaint to Baldeo Singh. That apart, motive for committing offence of the Appellant is also not there. Neither the evidence is there that relationship in between the wife and husband was bad, rather it has been recorded by the learned Sessions Judge that it were accused persons who had brought the deceased to hospital.

Under the circumstances, possibility of committing suicide cannot be ruled out. Therefore, when the circumstances are there showing possibility of deceased committing suicide, any smell coming out of the person of the deceased or from the materials collected from the place of occurrence cannot be said to be the circumstances pointing unerringly towards the guilt. The other circumstance of closing door by the Appellant seems to be natural on the part of the Appellant, as the wife was quite naked in the room and hence, it can also not be taken as incriminating circumstances against the Appellant.

Thus, having taken into account all these facts, we do find that the circumstances upon which the order of conviction was recorded never points unerringly only towards the guilt of the Appellant and hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court is hereby set aside. Consequently, the Appellant is acquitted of all the charges. Accordingly, the Appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

Thus, this appeal is allowed.