Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Saroop Singh Warkade on 5 November, 2015
MCRC-16384-2015
(THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs SAROOP SINGH WARKADE)
05-11-2015
Shri Brahmadatt Singh, Government Advocate for the
applicant/State.
Heard on leave application.
The State has preferred an application for grant of leave to appeal
against the judgment dated 12.6.2015 passed by the Second
Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in ST No.134 of 2013 whereby,
the respondent has been acquitted of the charge under section
302 of I.P.C.
The prosecution's case in short is that on 15.8.2013 the deceased Indravati, wife of the respondent, was residing in the respondent's house at Village Kodiya (Police Station Barghat, District Seoni). At bout 8.00 p.m in the night the respondent made an allegation against the deceased Indravati that she stole a sum of Rs.100/-. Indravati had also consumed liquor. A quarrel initiated and thereafter, the respondent held the head of the deceased Indravati and dashed it on the wall for so many times. Thereafter, he assaulted her with fists. Again thereafter, he assaulted her with a semi burnt log. Basanti Bai (PW1), Shevanti Bi (PW6) and Banshiram (PW4), the children of the deceased, tried to save their mother, but the respondent also raised his hand to assault them and therefore, they went to house of their uncle Raju Varkade. On the next morning when they came back to the house they found that their mother Indravati expired. Basanti Bai had lodged a dehatinalishi Ex.P/1. After due investigation a charge sheet was filed and case was committed.
After considering the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate and the evidence recorded by the prosecution, it appears that the eye witnesses viz. Basanti Bai (PW1), Banshiram (PW4) and Shevanti Bai (PW6) have turned hostile. They did not support that they were the eye witness when the respondent assaulted the deceased Indravati. The witnesses like Chain Singh (PW2), Raju (PW5) and Suresh Kumar (PW7), Mehtar (PW8) and Amarlal (PW9) etc. have turned hostile. Biharilal (PW12) and Laxman (PW15) did not corroborate the story of the prosecution. Hence, there is no ocular evidence in the case. Basanti Bai (PW1) and Raju (PW5) have accepted that the respondent was going to work in a brick factory and he was also engaged as a watchman to remain at that place in the night and therefore, these two witnesses have withdrawn the evidence of last seen of the respondent with the deceased. Though the deceased Indravati, wife of the respondent, was found dead in the house and death of Indravati was homicidal in nature according to Dr. Yogesh Agrawal (P13) but if the witnesses have a proof of alibi of the respondent that he was not present in the house in the night of the incident then factum of last seen has not been proved. Though the wooden log has been seized from the respondent but in the Forensic Science Laboratory's report Ex.P/33 no blood stain was found on that log. Under these circumstances, chain of circumstantial evidence is also broken.
On the basis of the aforesaid discussion there was no reason so that the respondent could be convicted for murder of his own wife Indravati. There is no reason for any interference in the findings given by the trial Court. If leave is granted then the appeal filed by the State shall not succeed. Under these circumstances, leave application filed by the State is hereby dismissed. Copy of the order be sent to the Courts below along with its record for information.
(S.K. GANGELE) (N.K. GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE