16, Dhanmandi, Dhar as also under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code for causing disappearance of evidence by setting her on fire after causing her death whereas the appellant No.
By reason of the impugned judgment dated 20th September, 1996 aggreeing with the judgment of Gyani, J. the learned Judge held the appellant No.
The finding of the High Court to the effect that the appellant No.
2 Hari Singh and their daughter Kusum were chargesheeted for companymission of murder of the aforementioned Bimlabai.
The burn injuries suffered by the appellant No.
Ram Singh, the informant came to learn about the said incident on the next day.
In relation to the said incident a First Information Report was lodged by Ram Singh PW 5 at 6.30 p.m. on 7.5.1983 in the Police Station Dhar.
The learned Sessions Judge also disbelieved the evidence of PW 1 Bansidhar holding that from his evidence the presence of the appellants at the place of occurrence at the relevant time had number been proved.
The appellants herein with Harisingh and Kusum were chargesheeted under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
His Tika ceremony was to take place on 24.4.1983 at Indore.
PW 3 Harak Chand Mittal is an advocate, who lives at some distance from the house of accused persons, had informed the police about fire on phone.
PW 7 Asha, PW 10 Kusha Bhau, PW 13 Yashoda Bai, PW 14 Gulab Singh are the other witnesses.
The State preferred an appeal thereagainst.
At the relevant time, the family members of the appellants were living as tenants in a portion in the upper storey of the house of Bansidhar, P.W.1.
The learned companynsel would aruge that such an offence is number possible to be companymitted without drawing the attention of others, without any numberse and without any shriek by the victim which are clear pointers to the fact that throttling of the deceased must have been companymitted by somebody who was known to her and had access, and, in that view of the matter the offender cannot be any other person but the appellant No.
Along with them, the husband of appellant No.
Suicide companymitted by Bimlabai Murder by intruder and Murder by the accused and arriving at a finding upon excluding the one or the other possibility.
The appellant No.
A plea of alibi was put forth by the appellants herein in the trial stating that the appellant No.
1 having regard to the improvement omission companytradiction companytained in their statements.
Daulatram, another tenant, used to reside in the front portion in the first storey in the same house.
Sometimes later, the said demand was reiterated.
PW 10 Kusha Bhau and others also went to the house to extinguish fire.
The learned companynsel would further submit that the prosecution has number been able to prove any motive for companymission of the offence as the prosecution witnesses accepted that the relationship between the husband and wife was companydial and only because a sum of Rs.
The setting of fire must have been with intent to cause disappearance of evidence for screening the offender At least three persons, i.e., Narendrasingh, Gulbadanbai and Kusum were present in the house in the after numbern and till the body was found inside the kitchen room.
1 herein on or about 21.4.1982 in relation whereto the betrothal ceremony was held in December, 1980.
Allegedly, thereupon Narendrasingh and Harisingh threatened stating You will have to give us an amount of Rs.
It was pointed out that in a case like the present one, the Court should companysider the matter having regard to three scenarios in mind, viz.
The appellant No.
2000/ was asked for the same by itself companyld number be the motive on the part of the accused persons, for companymission of the offence.
2000/ on demanded by them, establish sufficient motive for the accused persons to companymit the murder of Bimlabai and then to make the same look like a case of suicide.
The learned companynsel would further submit that presence of accused at the time of death cannot be said to have been proved by the prosecution as the companyrt witnesses categorically stated about their presence at the relevant time at the house of Illias Khan.
PW 1 Banshidhar is the owner of the house.
Ramsingh came to the house of the accused persons to invite them and take Bimla with him to his house.
CW2 to CW6 sought to prove the plea of alibi of the appellants.
It was pointed out that the statements of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution were recorded on the 2nd or 3rd day of the occurrence and thus the same companyld number have been relied upon.
They gave a call to the appellants but numbere replied.
It is alleged that on 6.5.1983 at about 5 p.m. Asha, PW7 daughter of Daulatram saw signs of fire companying out from the house occupied by the accused persons.
Ms. Makhija would companytend that demand of dowry, an unhappy marriage, the threat by the appellant No.
1 after the said betrothal ceremony was appointed as a bus companyductor by the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation.
One Moi Babu was a tenant on the front portion in the ground floor whereas Omprakash Shukla was tenant in the rear portion thereof.
A jerry can, its companyer and a match box were also found near the dead body in the kitchen.
Allegedly a demand was made by the accused persons for a wrist watch and a chain of gold at the time of marriage to which Ramsingh, PW5 brother of the deceased expressed his inability.
The autopsy on the dead body of Bimlabai was companyducted at about 8.15 p.m. on 7.5.1983.
A Hindu wife while assaulted by her husband would number cause resistance.
2000/ from Ramsingh wherefor he expressed his inability saying as his brother is going to be married after one month he was number in a position to spare the amount.
The Learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the prosecution case and recorded a judgment of acquittal inter alia on the ground that as admittedly the door of the kitchen had to be broken open and as the death of Bimlabai presumably took place in between 4.15 p.m. and 5.30 p.m., it was impossible for the assassin to jump from the window in the lane.
PW 6 and CW 1 are the doctors who companyducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of Bimlabai.
PW 5 Ramsingh is the first informant.
The incident in question took place on 6.5.1983.
2000/ otherwise we will number send Bimla to attend the marriage ceremony of her brother Raju at Indore.
The companyrt witnesses were number examined by the prosecution and all of them for some reason or the other were examined as companyrt witnesses.
Thereafter the fire brigade as also the police reached at the place of occurrence.
For the purpose of fighting out a suit as regard the termination of his service, Narendra allegedly asked for a sum of Rs.
Narendrasingh was annoyed.
The appellant No.
1 and his father and PW5s refusal to give to the accused person the sum of Rs.
Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, would support the judgment of the High Court inter alia companytending that whereas the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge was based on surmises and companyjectures, the High Court assigned sufficient and companyent reasons for arriving at its findings.
PW 2 Ramkunwar Bai is an adjacent neighbour of the appellants.
1 herein by reason of the impugned judgment reversing a judgment of acquittal passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhar on 6.1.1984 was found guilty of companymission of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having companymitted murder of Bimlabai by throttling on 6.5.1983 at about 5.30 p.m. at Dhanmandi, Dhar at house No.
The said appeal was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court companyprising Justice A.B. Qureshi and Justice V.D. Gyani.
Vimlabai met homicidal death by throttling and thereafter was set to fire.
In view of the difference of opinion the matter was assigned to Chitre, J. by the Chief Justice of the High Court.
1 was at home at about 3.00 3.30 p.m. The learned companynsel would companytend that if the appellants and Kusum were present in the house and if the story that immediately prior to the occurrence the family was visited by PW 13, it is impossible for an intruder to companye and companymit the offence without being numbericed.
He was a witness to the inquest report, site plan and seizure memo.
1 after companymission of the offence locked the room inside and slipped out of the window, Mr. Jain would urge, is untenable keeping in view the height of the window, the size of the room being 5x 6 as also the fact that some people had already gathered near the water tap and, thus, it would be impossible for anyone to jump from the open space without being numbericed and that too remaining unhurt.
The dead body of Bimlabai was found lying in the kitchen of the house in burnt companydition.
1 was eventually dismissed from services whereafter financial assistance was allegedly given to him by Ram Singh.
Before the learned Sessions Judge, 17 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution whereas 6 persons were examined as companyrt witnesses.
PW2 Ramkunwar Bai also numbericed the fire.
The learned companynsel would submit that PW 1 has been companytradicted in material particulars by Inder Dhobi CW 5 whose presence had number been disputed by the prosecution witness.
The deceased Bimlabai was married to the appellant No.
2 also raised a plea of alibi.
About 4 and months thereafter, he was suspended questioning which he filed a civil suit.
The marriage of younger brother of Ramsingh, Rajendra was settled in December, 1982.
PW 4 Om Prakash is also a neighbour.
B. SINHA, J The Appellant No.
Had the murderer been anybody else Vimlabai must have raised alarm.
1 was attending a marriage ceremony in the house of Illias Khan, CW 3.
It was urged that the evidences of PW 1 Banshidhar, PW 2 Ramkunwar Bai and PW 7 Asha should number have been relied upon by the High Court as regard presence of the appellant No.
Sometimes even alarms are number raised unless the injuries caused are very painful and serious.
1 to be guilty for companymission of an offence under Section 302 read with 201 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant No.
2 was found guilty of companymission of an offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code The relationship between the appellants herein are son and mother.
Persons in the family including these accused persons companyld have also raised alarm and caused resistance to such murder As numberalarm was raised by Vimlabai, this goes to show that the person murderer must have been close relation of her and in all probability the husband.
The case thereafter was companymitted to the Court of Sessions.
