Allahabad High Court
Ravindra Nath Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 23 August, 2024
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No.2024:AHC:135551-DB Reserved on: 09.08.2024 Reserved Delivered on: 23.08.2024 In Chamber Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2819 of 1986 Appellant :- Ravindra Nath Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- D.N. Wali,Araf Khan,Harihar Prasad Yadav,Lihazur Rahman Khan Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
(Delivered by Brij Raj Singh, J.)
1. Heard Sri Araf Khan, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Gyan Narayan Kanaujia, learned AGA-1 for the State.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated 24.10.1986 passed by learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Sessions Trial No.160 of 1985 thereby convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 IPC for life imprisonment.
3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Vinod Kumar Yadav lodged a report at police station- Didarganj on 09.03.1984 at about 06.10. A.M. that on the last night after taking dinner, he alongwith family members including mother and nephew (Bhanja) were sleeping in the Baithaka and his younger brother Ravindra Kumar Yadav was sleeping in his room alongwith his wife. Electric bulb was flashing in the house and Sahan. In the intervening night at about 01.00 A.M. 5-6 miscreants scaled the boundary wall and entered his house and began loot. His younger brother rushed to him and told that his wife was being beaten by the miscreants. They began to raise alarm, meanwhile, the miscreants exploded a bumb in the house yard. On hearing the bomb explosion and cries, Murli Yadav, Sitaram,, Lautu Yadav, Mishri Nai, Bhairav Nai, Ram Chandra Yadav, Vijay Pratap Nai, Ram Pher Nai and other many villagers came to the place of occurrence by flashing torch. The miscreants ran away from the house towards the western side of Channel. They were chased but could not be arrested. They recognized the miscreants in the torch light. When the complainant and other persons came to the house, they saw that Smt. Indu was lying dead on the ground. It is further mentioned in the report that miscreants had looted one pair of gold Kangan, One necklac, one pair jhalidar ear ring and some other ornaments.
4. On 09.03.1984, Ram Palat Yadav son of Jhingai Yadav had given an application to the Police in which he mentioned that his daughter Indu Devi was married with accused- Ravindra Nath Yadav, resident of village Dihpur on 05.06.1983. Ravindra Nath Yadav was not having good character and had illicit relation with another girl. When his daughter opposed the said illicit relation, son-in-law was annoyed with his daughter. He further mentioned that his daughter was killed by the appellant by stranguling her and false and fabricated report of loot has been lodged by him to save himself.
5. On the aforesaid report, the police registered a case under Section 396 IPC against unknown person.Case was investigated by Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer, on the basis of circumstantial evidence and statement of witness recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and looking into the postmortem report, submitted charge-sheet under 302 IPC against Vinod Kumar Yadav complainant and his brother Ravindr Nath Yadav. Thereafter the case was committed to court of sessions. Thereafter the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges on 01.08.1985 against the appellant under section 302 IPC. The appellant denied the charges and pleaded for trial .
6. The prosecution to prove its case, produced the following eight witnesses:-
P.W.-1 Murli P.W.-2 Sita Ram P.W.-3 Ram Palat P.W.-4 Ram Chet Singh P.W.-5 Parhottam Saraj Constable P.W.-6 Dr. S.K. Singh P.W.-7 Ram Bhal P.W.-8 Dr S.D.P. Gupta P.W.-9 Dhruv Singh, Investigating Officer
7. 24 exhibits were also produced by the prosecution side to prove its case.
8. The accused-appellants were confronted under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they deposed before the court that they were falsely implicated in the case.
9. Trial Court after examining the witnesses and adducing the evidence on record, convicted the accused-appellant- Ravindra Nath Yadav under section 302 IPC. Hence, the present appeal has been filed.
10. P.W.-1 Murli is the resident of village Dihpur and he is the Pradhan of the Village Dihpur. He deposed before the court that his house is situated at a distance of about 20 steps from the house of the accused-appellant. He deposed that at the time of occurrence he was present in his house. At about 11/12 in the night, dacoity was being committed at the house of accused-appellant. One Sitaram came to his door and on hearing cries he went to the house of Vinod Kumar where electric light was flashing . He saw the docoits at the house of Vinod Kumar. He further deposed that he did not file any affidavit to support the prosecution case
11. P.W.-2 Sitaram is also the resident of village Dihpur and he deposed that at the relevant date he had gone to the house of Vinod Kumar where he found that wife of Ravindra Nath was found dead. He further deposed that Ravindra Nath did not commit murder of his wife .He has seen the dacoits and lastly, he did not support the prosecution case.
12. P.W.-3 Ram Palat son of Jhingai Yadav is the resident of Village Didarganj. He deposed before the court that his daughter Indu Devi was married to Ravindra Nath Yadav of village Dihrpur and Vinod Kumar Yadav is brother of Ravindra Nath Yadav. Village Dihpur is situated at a distance of 3 kilometers from the village of Didarganj. After the marriage, his daughter went at her in-laws house and lived there for sometimes . She came to his house and again went to her in-laws house. He deposed that his daughter had complained that her husband Ravindra Nath Yadav had illicit connection with a girl. Ravindra Nath had doubt on the character of his daughter because after 7/8 months of the marriage a female child was born and she died. Ravindra Nath accused- appellant had douobt that his wife had given birth to a child out of illicit relation with another person. His daughter used to complain about the conduct and behaviour of Ravindra Nath. The relation was not cordial between husband and wife. He further deposed that on 09.03.1984, he received an information that his daughter was killed and thereafter he went to Dihpur where he heard a rumour in the village that Ravinidra Nath Yadav had murdered his daughter Indu Devi that is why he gave a written report Ext. Ka-2 to the police about the murder.
13. P.W.-4 Ramchet Singh is the resident of village Khetapatti and his agricultural plots are also situated in the area of village Dihpur. He deposed that he knew the accused. He deposed that postmortem of the deceased Indu Devi was conducted in his presence. He further deposed that the accused-appellant confessed before him that he committed murder of Indu Devi. Ravindra Nath Yadav told that he doubted the character of Indu Devi, that is why he strangulated her and murdered her. He further deposed that Ravindra Nath Yadav had confessed that deceased had given birth to a female child which was born out of illicit relation with other person. Vinod Kumar Yadav also confessed about the incident and told that deceased was killed by hatching a plan.
14. P.W.-5 Parshottam Saroj, Constable is formal witness of the case and he deposed that dead body of Indu Devi was taken to hospital to conduct the postmortem and he proved the documents which has been prepared by the prosecution side.
15. P.W.6 Dr. S.K. Singh had conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Smt. Indu Devi and found the following ante-mortem injuries on the person:-
" 1. Multiple abrasion 8 cm x 5 cm on right side neck.
2. Abrasion 1 cm x ½ cm on left side of fact with swelling."
Cause of death is asphyxia as a result of anti-mortem injuries (throttling).
Doctor opined that cause of death was due to throttling .and he proved the postmortem report.
16. P.W.-7 Ram Bhal son of Mata Bux resident of village Dihpur. He deposed that Investigating Officer came to investigate the case after death of Indu Devi. The ornaments were found on the dead body of Indu Devi which were taken off and were given in the supordagi of Ravindra Nath Yadav. He prepared the fard and it was signed by him. The fard was also signed by Ram Murat and Vinod Kumar. He also deposed that he narrated the names of ornaments.
17. P.W.-8 Dr. S.D.P. Gupta examined the injuries of Ravindra Nath which are given below:-
"1 Traumatic selling in an area of 2.2 cm x 1.2 cm on back of right index finger.
2. Complain of pain on right hand left thumb but no mark of injury seen."
He deposed that injuries could be caused while throatling and he proved the injury memo.
18. P.W.-9 Dhruva Singh is the Investigating Officer. He deposed that on 09.03.1984 Vinod Kumar had lodged a written report and a case under Section 396 IPC was registered. After lodging of the report, he went to the place of occurrence and prepared Panchyatnama. He took the possession of ornaments lying on the dead body of the deceased, prepared its fard. While preparing Panchayatnama, accused Ravindra Nath Yadav told him that his thumb and index finger had sustained injuries. He sent him to the hostpial for medical examination. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of Rambhal witness and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He investigated the place of occurrence and prepared site plan. He also prepared fard of blood stained soil, plain soil and prepared fard of torches of Vinod Kumar and Sitaram. He also prepared fard of Newar and Patti of the cot of the deceased and recovered blood stained chadar and prepared its fard. He also recovered fire cracker and its splinters and prepared its fard. He collected scattered articles from the house of the accused and prepared its fard. During the course of investigation, Smt. Gita Singh a Village Health Worker handed over an application in which she had written that the deceased had given birth to a female child prior to the date of occurrence. He recorded the statement of Smt Gita Singh. During the course of investigation, accused Ravindra Nath handed over a letter to him and fard was prepared. During the course of investigation he obtained affidavit of Sitaram and Murli.These witnesses corroborated the contents of the prosecution case by filing affidavits. It came to the light from the evidence collected during course of investigation that case was made out for committing an offence under Section 302 IPC and not under Section 396 IPC, therefore, case was converted under Section 302 IPC and entry in the General Diary was made. He recorded the statement of Murli and Sitaram under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
Sri Araf Khan, learned counsel for the accused-appellant has made the following submission:-
19. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there are two diametrically opposite version of the incident, first one appears from the defence side while other one has been propounded by the prosecution. He submitted that two diametrically opposite version of the same incident, it would be unsafe to record the conviction. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Arun Bhakta Alias Thulu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2008) 17 SCC 367 and Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2023) 5 SCC 350.
20. He also submitted that FIR was lodged by Vinod Kumar ( acquitted accused)on 09.03.1984 at 06.10 A.M. but Ram Palat ( P.W.-3) gave a complaint to Investigating Officer making allegation of murder against the appellant. P.W.-1 and P.W-2 had categorically deposed that their affidavit dated 20.03.1984 were taken by the Investigating Officer forcefully and they deposed before the Court that dacoity had been committed in the house of Vinod Kumar Yadav and during dacoity deceased was killed.
21. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there are two uncertain motive (a) appellant had illicit relation with a girl; (b) appellant had suspicion on the character of the deceased as baby girl was born within 7 months of marriage.
22. He has submitted that dead body after postmortem was received by P.W.3 whereafter he performed the last rites in the presence of the in-laws of his daughter .
23. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that P.W.4 is the Pocket witness of the police and his extra judicial confession is being narrated for the first time before the court which means that he is not reliable witness.
24. He has further submitted that the appellant has sustained injuries on his thumb and middle finger which indicates that he received the same while miscreants were looting his house.
25. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Vinod Kumar Yadav co-accused has been acquitted on the same evidence but the appellant has been convicted , thus interference is required in the judgment of trial court. In support of his arguments he relied upon the judgement of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Jodhraj & others Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2020) 14 SCC 205.
26. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that incident of blast inside the house was found true during investigation but remains were never sent for FSL.
27. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that Ext. K-22 has been shown to be recovered from the appellant's pocket at the time of arrest on 18.03.1984 but no one has been produced to prove the author or handwriting of this letter.
Sri Gyan Narayin Kanaujiya, learned A.G.A. for the State has made the following submissions:-
28. It has been submitted by learned A.G.A. that Ram Palat P.W.3, father of the deceased has reported that his daughter was married on 05.06.1983 and she was not happy with conduct and behaviour of the appellant- Ravindra Nath Yadav, who was the man of bad character. He has illicit relation with a girl which was objected by his daughter. His son-in-law was annoyed with his daughter and committed murder by throttling her and a cooked up story of false dacoity has been set up by him.
29. Ext. Ka-4 is memo of recovery of ornaments of the deceased which indicates one pair of brass of ear ring, One pair of rolled Gold braslet (Kara) one brass finger ring and one pair of Payal which were found from the person of the deceased. The said memo indicates that the dacoits did not loot the ornaments whereas the case is set up by the appellant that the daocity had taken place.
30. It has been submitted by learned A.G.A. that murder has been committed by the accused-appellant by throttling the neck of deceased,who was present in her room. The two simple injuries were caused on the thumb and index finger of appellant while pressing the neck to kill the deceased . It is also admitted by Doctor S.K. Singh, P.W.-6 that said injuries could be caused during strangulation.
31. It has also been submitted by learned A.G.A. that there is no remains of bumb which further goes to indicates that report lodged by the complainant is false and entire case is cooked up by giving colour of dacoity. The marriage had taken place prior to ten months and death is unnatural for the reason that there is no evidence to prove that dacoity had taken place except the statements of P.W.-1 Murli and P.W.-2 Sita Ram, who are belonging to the village of appellant. The appellant is not able to prove in any manner that dacoity had taken place because only the deceased died and no other family members were assaulted. P.W.6 suggested in cross-examination that the injuries found on the thumb and index fingure of the appellant could be caused while strantulating the deceased. Had it been the case of loot, certainly the docoit should have been taken away the ornaments from the body of the deceased. The ornaments which were worn by the deceased, was intact with her body.
32. Learned A.G.A. has further pointed out that marriage had taken place prior to ten months and the father of the deceased had deposed before the court that his daugher used to make complain against the character of the appellants, who had illicit relation with a girl. The deceased opposed the act of the appellant accused that is why she was done to death by throttling. The story of loot has been cooked up by the appellant and his family members just to cover up his criminal act. It is further submitted by learned A.G.A. that P.W.-3 Ram Palat and Ram Chet Singh have not supported the prosecution case. The postmortem report indicates that the deceased died in the house of appellant. The death is unnatural in the house of the appellants, therefore, the case is established beyond reasonable doubt.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
33. After going through the record, we find that incident took place in the mid night of 08.03.1984 and the deceased was done to death. Inquest report indicates that all the ornaments were present on the person of deceased. She was strangulated which is the opinion of doctor Sri S.K. Singh. Cause of death is asphyxia as a result of anti mortem injuries (throttling) and before nine month the marriage had taken place. It is worth to be noted here that accused is unable to prove that dacoity had taken place as there is no remains of bumb though the case was registered by the borther of the deceased narrating the story of loot in his house resulting murder of deceased by dacoits.
34. Dr. S.D.P. Gupta has opined that that two simple injuries received on the thumb and index fingure of the accused could be caused during strangulation. There is no evidence which indicates that Dacoity had taken place. P.W.-3 Ram Palat deposed before the court that the accused-appellant had illicit relation with a girl and this fact was known to his deceased daughter. The relation between the husband and daughter was not cordial.
35. P.W.-1 Murli and P.W.-2 Sitaram are belonging to the village of accused-appellant. They are his neighbours and are pocket witnesses. They had earlier given affidavits which are part of the case diary, wherein they have stated that they came out from their houses and they did not see miscreants running away from the place of occurrence and they saw that deceased was dead and her dead body was lying beneath the cot. They deposed that there was not no sign of loot. They disapproved the version of the affidavits given during investigation and they did not support the prosecution case of the accused. It is to be noted that both the witnesses are neighbour and belonging to the village of accused-appellant. Even if they have turned hostile, we have to see whether the story of dacoity is proved on the basis of evidences on record. If it is not proved that the docity had taken place then certainly we have to conclude that deceased wife was done to death by the appellant,who is husband and death is unnatural as she was throatled in the room which was shared by accused also. On record, we do not gather any impression that miscreants had entered in the house of the appellant and a story of loot was cooked up by the appellant and his family members just to safeguard themselves. The body of the deceased was lying on the ground besides the cot and all the ornaments were present on her body which were recorded in the inquest report. Had it been the case of loot, certainly the dacoits could have looted the ornaments but the accused failed to explain as to why ornaments were intact on the body of the deceased.
36. FIR was lodged by Vinod Kumar Yadav, who is Jeth of the deceased and the case of loot has been shown by him but as soon as father of the deceased came to know that his daughter was strangulated and the death was unnatural, then he lodged a report mentioning therein the real fact pertaining to illicit relation of the accused-appellant with another girl and estrange relation between his daugher and the accused. The case was investigated by Investigating Officer and after collecting the evidence, he filed chargesheet under Section 302 IPC. The Investigating Officer has no enmity with the accused-appellant and he investigated the case by examining the statements of witnesses as well as other evidences and it was found by him that unnatural death of the deceased took place and murder was committed by the accused-appellant for the simple reason that the relation of the accused-appellant was not cordial with the deceased. The case is supported by the statement of P.W.-3 Ram Palat, P.W.-4 Ram Chet Singh and other attending circumstances and evidences.
37. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Arun Bhakta Alias Thulu (Supra) and Pradeep Kumar (Supra) and has submitted that when the two diametrically opposite versions of the same incident are available, it would unsafe to record the conviction. In the present case, we have to conclude that there are no two views possible for the simple reason that accused was not able to prove that there was any sign of dacoity in the house of appellant. There is no remains of bumb whereas it is narrated in FIR that miscreants used bomb. Had it been the case of dacoity certainly we would have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant but in the present case, the deceased was strangulated in mid night in the house of appellant who is husband. The motive is established where we are apprised that the accused appellant had illicit relation with a girl which was opposed by the deceased and other motive is also mentioned by the prosecution side that deeased had given premature birth to a baby child just after her marriage and the accused had doubt that said child was born out of illicit relation with another person. The murder of the deceased had taken place within year from the date of marriage. Thus, the aforesaid two judgments; Arun Bhakta Alias Thulu (Supra) and Pradeep Kumar (Supra) relied by learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable in the present case.
38. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that on the basis of same set of evidence, if one accused is acquitted by giving benefit of doubt and other is convicted then the conviction is also liable to be set aside and the present appellant is also entitled to the benefit of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jodhraj and others (supra). The trial court has recorded the reasoning for acquittal of the accused Vinod Kumar Yadav, who is Jeth of the deceased and as a matter of custom of hindu religion, he would not touch the body of his younger brother's deceased. The said finding recorded is based on customs prevalent in the hindu religion and we do not see any reason to disagree the findings recorded by the trial court. The appellant is husband, who was present with his wife at the time of occurance. The death of his wife is unnatural as she has been strangulated and she died out of strangulation which is supported by the evidence of doctor. The appellant being husband has not discharged the burden to prove that it is natural death. Thus the case of Jodhraj & others (supra) is also not applicable in the present case. It is unnatural and improbable that dacoits will commit dacoity and strangulate the deceased leaving other family members unhurt. The belongings of the house were found scattered and the articles were not looted. Thus it is not a case of dacoity. No foot prints of the dacoits were found in the house of the appellant.
39. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the firm opinion that judgement and order dated 24.10.1986 passed by learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Sessions Trial No.160 of 1985 thereby convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 IPC for life imprisonment, needs no interference.
40. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant is on bail. The appellant shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining period of sentence, as awarded by learned trial court.
41. Let the lower court record be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this judgment and order for compliance.
(Brij Raj Singh, J.) (Siddharth,J.)
Order Date :- 23.08.2024
dk/-