AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal has been preferred by the appellants being
aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.12.2007 passed by Sessions Judge,
Chhindwara in Sessions Trial No.118/2007, whereby the appellants were
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 201 of the
IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and R.I. for two years with fine
of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively. In default of payment of
fine, further one year R.I. and two months R.I.
It is not in dispute that the appellants are husband and wife
and they are parents of the deceased (Anita).
According to the prosecution case, on 21.03.2007 at village
Ghorad the daughter of the appellants was missing. On 22 nd March 2007
at about 1:45 p.m., when appellant Godri was returning back to his home
after searching the deceased Anita, he found dead body of Anita in the
field of Obedur Rahman. She was pregnant about 22-24 weeks. On the
intimation of the appellant no.1, merg report was registered by the Police
Station Bichchua, District Chhindwara. After inquest, it was found that
death of the deceased was caused by the appellants by throttling her
neck. They confessed their guilt before some villagers. Therefore, FIR has
been registered against the appellants for offence under Sections 302 and
201 read with Section 34 of the IPC. After completion of investigation,
charge sheet was filed before the competent Court. The case was
committed to the trial Court.
Learned trial Court framed charges for offence under Sections
302 & 201 of the IPC against the appellants for committing murder of
their daughter. The appellants abjured guilt and claimed that they are
falsely implicated. However, no defence witness has been examined.
The trial Court after considering the evidence and material
available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned
above, on the basis of their extra judicial confession and testimony of
their other children namely Manu Bai (PW-5) and Chetram (PW-12).
The aforesaid findings have been challenged by the appellants
on the ground that they are innocent and falsely implicated by the police.
There were so many drawbacks in the investigation, which were ignored
by the learned trial Court. Learned trial Court has also ignored the cross-
examination of minor witnesses namely Manu Bai (PW-5) and Chetram
(PW-12). Further, no definite opinion has been given by Dr. Naresh
Lachwani (PW-10) about the cause of death. Panchnama (Ex.P/4) is not
admissible as per law under the definition of "extra judicial confession" of
the accused persons. The police failed to investigate about the person
responsible for the pregnancy of the deceased. Role of Obedur Rahman
was suspicious, whereas the dead body of the deceased was found in his
field. Hence, the appellants prayed to set aside the impugned judgment
and they be acquitted from the charges levelled against them.
Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State has
submitted that the appellants have rightly been convicted. The judgment
does not deserve to be interfered with.
Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned counsel
for the parties at length, the record of the trial Court perused.
The main point for determination in this appeal is that-
whether the trial Court has committed any illegality in convicting and
sentencing the appellants under Sections 302 & 201 of the IPC.
It is not in dispute that the appellants were parents of the
deceased. The deceased was about 18 years old unmarried girl. It is also
not in dispute that as per the testimony of Dr. Naresh Lachhwani (PW-10),
the deceased was killed by throttling of her neck and at that time she was
pregnant for about 22-24 weeks. Therefore, definitely there was a motive
behind the incident to kill the deceased. It is surprising that the dead body
of the deceased was found in field nearby residence of Obedur Rahman
(PW-1). As per opinion of Dr. Naresh Lachhwani (PW-10), he conducted
the postmortem of the deceased''s body on 23.3.2007. At that time, the
dead body of the deceased was almost decomposed. Therefore, Dr.
Naresh failed to give a definite opinion with regard to the cause of her
death. He found a ligature mark over her neck. Thus, Dr. Naresh opined
that death of the deceased may be caused by throttling of her neck.
Generally, it is very difficult for any parents to cause death of their own
daughter in such a manner. Definitely, there was some reason behind the
incident, therefore, it was necessary for the investigating authority to find
out the person, who was having physical relation with the deceased.
The fact narrated by Ramlal (PW-7) in Ex.P/4 is that on 21 st
March, 2007 at about 10:00 p.m., the appellant slapped the deceased and
next day early morning, Manu Bai (PW-5) informed Ramlal about throttling
of neck of the deceased by the appellant Godri. Ramlal (PW-7) was
working under Obedur Rahman. Dead body of the deceased was found at
about 9:30-10:00 a.m. and on the same day, at about 5:00 a.m., Ramlal
knew some part of incident from sister of deceased Manu Bai (PW-5). It is
unnatural conduct of Ramlal (PW-7) that he had not tried to verify about
the condition of his niece Anita just after the information.
Learned trial Court convicted the appellants on the basis of
the extra judicial confession. They confessed before Obedur Rahman (PW-
1). Obedur Rahman (PW-1) has stated that in the month of March, at
about 9:30-10:00 a.m., his servant Yashwant informed him that a body of
woman was lying in his orange field, then he along with Natthu and
Ravishankar went to the place of incident. Since the dead body of the
deceased was found in the field of Obedur Rahman therefore, suspicion
was created against the land owner also. It is important to note that, for
the corroboration of his testimony, the police neither examined Yashwant,
Natthu, Ravishankar nor any lady as stated by Obedur Rahman (PW-1) in
his statement. There is also some material defect in the investigation,
which was ignored by the learned trial Court.
Obedur Rahman (PW-1) deposed that he went to lodge the
report at police station even then, the deceased was his neighbour. He
has deposed that firstly he failed to identify the dead body of deceased
Anita but he never informed the aforesaid facts to the parents of the
deceased, who were his neighbour as shown in the spot map Ex.P/18. He
has also deposed that in his presence, appellant Godri father of the
deceased also came to the police station. It is important that upto this
juncture, none of the appellants confessed their crime before any
witnesses or villagers. Obedur Rahman (PW-1) has deposed at paragraph
6 that after lodging the report or next day, the police came at village and
interrogated the appellants before him. In presence of police, the
appellants confessed that they caused death of their daughter by
throttling of her neck by means of a rope. In the presence of police, such
type of extra judicial confession cannot be legally accepted to hold the
appellants guilty.
We are of the opinion that extra judicial confession/
Panchnama was prepared by Obedur Rahman (PW-1) with some intention
on 22nd March, 2007. Obedur Rahman (PW-1) deposed that dead body of
the deceased was seen by him and other witnesses at about 9:30-10:00
a.m., and an intimation was given to the police as per Ex.P/13 on 23 rd
March, 2007 by the appellant Godri. The wordings of extra judicial
confession of the appellants written by Obedur Rahman himself in the
following format:-"
"VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"
The aforesaid Panchnama was given by Obedur Rahman to the police. Obdur Rahman (PW-1) has deposed in paragraph 12 of his cross-
examination that contents of Ex.P/4 were not stated by the appellants
personally to him but the aforesaid Panchnama was prepared in a lengthy
way and also signed by four witnesses and appellants Godri and Sukri has
put their thumb impression. For the corroboration of testimony of Obedur
Rahman (PW-1) and the proceeding of Panchnama Ex.P/4, the statements
of Anand Rao (PW-3) and Ramlal (PW-7) clearly indicates that Ex.P/4 was
written by Obedur Rahman (PW-1) in presence of the police.
In the statement of Manu Bai (PW-5) and Chetram (PW-12), it
is found that Ramlal is their uncle and he was working in the field of
Obedur Rahman and Obedur Rahman threatened the appellants to
confess that they had caused death of their daughter, otherwise they
would not be allowed to live in the village. The witnesses have also stated
that Obedur Rahman (PW-1) is the "Patel" of their village. He held his
influence over the villagers. In such circumstances, Ex.P/4 is not found
reliable. We are of the opinion that Ex.P/4 is not a reliable document to
hold the appellants guilty for committing murder of their daughter.
There is no eyewitness of the incident. Manu Bai (PW-5) and
Chetram (PW-12) turned hostile. No other reliable evidence has been
adduced by the prosecution against the appellants. Therefore, we come to
the conclusion that learned trial Court wrongly convicted the appellants
for committing murder of their elder daughter (Anita).
On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the present appeal filed
by the appellants is hereby allowed. The conviction and sentence passed
by the trial Court against the appellants is set aside. They are acquitted
from the charges of offence punishable under Sections 302 & 201 of the
IPC. If the appellants have deposited the fine amount before the trial
Court, the same shall be refunded to them.
The appellant No.2 is on bail. Her presence is no more required before the Court. Her bail bond stand discharged. The appellant
No.1 is in custody. It is directed that the appellant no.1 Godri be released
immediately, if he is not required in any other case.
Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court along with its
record for information and compliance.