Allowed

Smt. Puspa and Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Mar 2020CRLA/694/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court acquitted the appellant Smt. Puspa of murder charges. The bench held that circumstantial evidence was insufficient to prove guilt, no motive existed, and the lower court erred in convicting based on no material evidence, rendering the judgment perversely flawed.

What did the court decide?

Appellant acquitted from offence under Section 302/34 IPC; impugned judgment set aside; appeal allowed.

Smt. Puspa and Others Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Reserved on 11.02.2020 Delivered on 04.03.2020

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 694 of 1996 Appellant :- Smt. Puspa And Others Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- M.C. Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

The Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 09.04.1996 has held the appellants Smt. Puspa, Smt. Devi and Lalloo, all residents of village Kutubpur guilty of committing murder of Ram Vilas @ Ram Lakhan by poisoning him under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and has ordered for their life imprisonment.

¶6

The aforesaid judgment and order of conviction has been challenged by the appellants in the present criminal appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants No. 2 and 3 Smt. Devi and Lalloo were reported dead and the appeal was dismissed as against them as having abated vide the order of the Court dated 18.12.2019. Thus, the appeal now survives in respect of appellant No.1 Smt. Puspa only.

¶7

The Court had appointed Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari as Amicus Curiae as no counsel had responded on behalf of appellant No.1 and after the non-bailable warrant could not be served upon her as it was reported that she had left the village 15-16 years ago and her whereabouts are not known.

¶8

The appellant Smt. Puspa is the widow of the deceased Ram Lakhan. The other two appellants Smt. Devi and Lalloo were her parents i.e. mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased. The deceased at the time of his death was living with his in-laws in their house in village Kutubpur.

¶9

¶10

Devi Charan, the brother of the deceased at around 11 AM on 15.05.1994 lodged an F.I.R. at Police Station Korara, District Hamirpur against the wife of the deceased, his mother in law and father in law alleging that his brother was married to the appellant No.1 Smt. Puspa about 5 years ago. The wife of his brother has stopped living in the village of his brother for the last 1 ½ years and had started residing with her parents in her native village Kutubpur. She declined to return despite several requests. His deceased brother for the last 2-3 months, specifically from the month of Magh (which happens to be the month of January according to English calendar), has also started living with his wife and his in-laws. However, he used to visit his own village and during these visits, he had disclosed that his wife is having extra marital affairs with some people of her village and it is for this reason she does not want to come and live in the village of her husband. On receiving information that his brother has been murdered, he immediately went to the village Kutubpur and upon reaching there at 9.30 a.m., he found the dead body of his brother kept on “Charpai” in the house of his in-laws.

¶11

He believes that his brother has been poisoned by his wife and his mother in law & father in law together.

¶12

The post mortem report discloses that the deceased died due to poisoning and that aluminium phosphate was found in his stomach, small intestine, liver, gallbladder, kidneys and spleen. Accordingly, an opinion was expressed that he died of poisoning.

¶13

As many as six witnesses were examined as PW-1 to PW-6 which included the informant i.e. Devi Charan, the brother of the deceased, one Santosh Kumar, Mahavir, Dr. H.R. Aazmi who conducted the post mortem examination, Pati Ram who prepared the chik report and Raghu Raj Singh, Sub Inspector who investigated the matter.

¶14

¶15

No evidence was adduced or led from the defence side. However, the statement of the accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They admitted that the deceased died in the night of 14/15.05.1994 and that in the ordinary course, he might have taken dinner at their house or at the house of Rameshwar and Siyawati from where he had returned at about 9 PM to their house and was feeling unwell. He died while they were preparing to take him to the hospital.

¶16

Devi Charan, PW-1 in his statement repeated the allegations which he had made in the F.I.R. and stated that the deceased Ram Lakhan was his younger brother who was married to the appellant No.1 Smt. Puspa about 5 years ago. He died on 15.05.1994 in the house of his in-laws in the adjoining village Kutubpur where he had started living since the month of Magh (i.e. January). His wife had not visited or lived in the village of the deceased for the last over 1 ½ years. His brother used to tell him that she is having some illicit relations with some of her villagers and it is for this reason she is not in favour of living in the village of the deceased. He had received the information of the death of his brother in the morning of 15.05.1994 from Mahaveer son of Bulaka resident of village Bilauta who had personally come to him to break the said news of the murder of his brother by the appellants by poisoning.

¶17

In his cross-examination he also stated that his brother had a daughter of about six months who died about eight days earlier to his death. Since he had not received any information of her death, he had not gone to village Kutubpur.

¶18

Santosh Kumar, PW-2 is a resident of village Bilauta. He stated that he knew the deceased and that he has been murdered in his sasural . He reiterated that the wife of the deceased was living in her village Kutubpur for the last 1 ½ years and that the deceased for the last three months had also started living in his sasural . The deceased had told him that his wife

¶19

¶20

is having illicit relationship with some persons of her village. On the information of Mahavir, he had accompanied Devi Charan to village Kutubpur on 15.05.1994 where the dead body of the deceased was kept on “Charpai” in the courtyard of the house. He also stated that Mahavir had told that the deceased had been killed by the appellants by poisoning.

¶21

The aforesaid Mahavir was examined as PW-3 and he admitted divulging of the information of the death of the deceased to Devi Charan at around 7-8 in the morning on 15.05.1994 but he expressed his ignorance about the cause and manner of his death and about any affair of the wife of the deceased with other persons.

¶22

The aforesaid witness was declared to be hostile.

¶23

Dr. H.R. Aazmi who was examined as PW-4 proved that he was a Senior Medical Officer of the District Hospital Hamirpur. On 16.05.1994, he had conducted the post-mortem of the deceased in the noon. The deceased was aged about 25 years and his dead body bored the symptoms of decay. His wind pipe was congested and so was his lungs. In the stomach, there was about two ounce of digested food. The small intestine was also congested and the large intestine was full of waste. The liver was half full and spleen and kidneys were congested. The urinary bladder was empty. He stated that in his opinion the deceased died due to asphyxia which normally occurs due to poisoning.

¶24

Nothing material was stated by the PW-5 Pati Ram except to admit that Devi Charan had produced a written report (Exhibit Ka-1) on 15.05.1994 and on its basis he had prepared the chik F.I.R. (Exhibit Ka-3) which bears his signatures. He had send the chik but had not mentioned the date on it.

¶25

The Investigating Officer Raghu Raj Singh was examined as PW-6. He proved the chik report (Exhibit Ka-3) and his signatures on it. He proved the panchayatnama (Exhibit Ka-5) and his signatures on it and the

¶26

¶27

other documents in relation thereto which were marked as Exhibit Ka-6, Ka-7 and Ka-8 and that the dead body was sent by him for the postmortem. He stated that the accused were arrested on 16.05.1994 and a charge sheet (Exhibit Ka-10) was submitted against them on 19.06.1994 by the Officer V.K. Chaturvedi which bears signatures of the said Officer and he recognizes his signatures.

¶28

In view of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and the evidence, it is implicit that the deceased Ram Lakhan died in the night on 14/15.05.1994 in the house of his in-laws in village Kutubpur where he was residing with his wife along with her parents for the last over three months. There is no dispute over the fact that his death occurred due to poisoning.

¶29

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and Ms. Meena, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.

¶30

The only issue before us is as to who administered the deceased poison or whether he committed suicide.

¶31

There is no direct evidence that he was poisoned by any of the appellants except for drawing an inference that they are involved as he died in their house. Thus, it is only the circumstantial evidence which is available to prove the offence.

¶32

The circumstancial evidence may suggest that the deceased may not be having cordial relations with his wife as she had started living separately with her parents for the last 1 ½ years. Nonetheless the same does not appear to be the correct situation. Both of them have lived together for four years after the marriage. The wife had started living separately for the last 1 ½ years. The deceased then had started living with his wife in his sasural for the last three months. In case of any strained relationship with the wife, he would not have opted to live with her leaving his own village. Thus, it cannot be said that his relationship with his wife or his in-laws was not normal. This fact further finds support

¶33

¶34

from the fact that from the wedlock of both, they had six months’ daughter who died eight days before the date of incident. It also shows that they had normal relationship.

¶35

The evidence indicates that the brother of the deceased who had lodged the F.I.R. was keeping two wives and that the wife of the deceased was not in good terms with him. It may be the reason of her leaving the village of her husband and to shift to her own village.

¶36

The allegations that the wife of the deceased was having some illicit relationship with persons of her village is too general and vague with no supporting material. The entire evidence is completely silent regarding any specific person with whom she may be having an affair rather the fact that despite knowing of any such relationship, the deceased had opted to live with her, belies the above story. It indicates that there is no truth in such an allegation.

¶37

This apart, she had lived with the deceased in his house and village for about four years after the marriage reveals that she had severed all her contacts in her village otherwise if there was any truth in the said allegation, she would have preferred to stay and live in her village from the very beginning.

¶38

There is no evidence on record that the deceased actually had the food on the fateful day with his in-laws or in their house. On the contrary, the suggestion is that he might have had food with Rameshwar and Siyawati and that he had returned thereafter at around 9 PM to his sasural .

¶39

It is the prosecution that is alleging that the deceased was killed by poisoning by the accused persons as he died in their house but without asserting that any fact relating to his death was especially within the knowledge of the accused persons. Therefore, the burden to prove the death of the deceased due to poisoning by the accused persons strictly remains upon the prosecution and does not get shifted under Section 106

¶40

¶41

Cr.P.C. The prosecution did not proceed in the trial on the footing that the facts were especially within the knowledge of the accused persons. Therefore, the principle of Section 106 Cr.P.C. would not apply so as to shift the onus to prove that they were innocent and were not involved in the murder of the deceased.

¶42

The appellant had no motive to kill him. They were not personally benefited in any manner by his death. It has not come on record that they gained any advantage after his death. When their relations with the deceased were normal, there appears to be no reason for the accusedappellant to kill her husband.

¶43

The mere fact that as the deceased had died in the house of the accused persons and they had not lodged the F.I.R. by in itself is not sufficient to prove them as guilty of the murder of the deceased. The deceased had felt unwell and died before he could be taken to hospital might have given an impression that his death was natural. It was only on the lodging of the F.I.R. by the brother of the deceased on the very next morning that the story of the foul play, if any had come into light. Therefore, non-lodging of the F.I.R. by the accused cannot be said to be so fatal so as to convict them.

¶44

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is hardly any evidence to prove the appellants guilty of committing the murder of Ram Lakhan. The learned Trial Court has not been able to appreciate the evidence in a legal way and has recorded the finding of conviction on the basis of no material evidence on record. Hence, the impugned judgment is perverse, illegal and not sustainable under law.

¶45

Accordingly, we hold the accused-appellant “not guilty” and acquit the appellant Smt. Puspa from the offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. for murdering her husband Ram Lakhan. The judgment and order of the

¶46

¶47

Sessions Judge dated 09.04.1996 is set aside and the appeal stands allowed .

¶48

Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned Amicus Curiae has assisted the Court with ability and sincerity. We provide that he shall be paid appropriate fee as admissible. The State Government is directed to ensure payment of aforesaid fee to him through Additional Legal Remembrancer posted in the office of Advocate General at Allahabad, without any delay and, in any case, within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶49

Let a certified copy of this judgment be sent to the Court concerned, along with lower court record for information and necessary compliance. Order Date - 04.03.2020 (Nirmal Sinha)

¶50

Smt. Puspa and Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Puspa and Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arpita Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Seebu and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Yovraj Pathak and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Maya Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jokhu Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Bhajan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others