Madhya Pradesh High Court
Huma @ Hama vs The State Of M.P. on 6 November, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:54808
1 CRA-673-1998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 6 th OF NOVEMBER, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 673 of 1998
HUMA @ HAMA
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Sunil Kumar Nema - Advocate for appellant.
Shri A.N. Gupta - Government Advocate for State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Devnarayan Mishra This appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code being aggrieved with the judgment and sentence dated 27.01.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur, District- Burhanpur in Sessions Case No.105/1995 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and Rigorous Imprisonment for 05 years with default stipulations respectively.
2. The prosecution case, in nutshell, before the trial Court was that, deceased Pinjaribai was married and four children were born from her first husband. Her first husband had expired 9-10 years prior to the incident. She Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH Signing time: 11-11-2024 19:05:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:54808 2 CRA-673-1998 solemnized the second marriage with present appellant Huma @ Hama. Tubectomy operation was performed on the deceased, hence, no further issue was borne from the cohabitation with the appellant. Before seven days from lodging of the FIR, her son Malsingh (PW-9) went to his maternal uncle Narsingh (PW-3) and informed that father Huma @ Hama and mother Pinjaribai went for fishing and appellant returned but mother did not return at home. When he inquired from his father then his father told him that she went to Khargon Pipari. Thereafter, he inquired and when no clue was found then brother of deceased Narsingh (PW-3) asked the appellant that where is his sister ? and also warned him that if he did not disclose same, he will lodge the FIR, on that appellant Huma @ Hama disclosed that on the pretext of fishing, he took the deceased in a lonely place and killed her. When Narsingh (PW-3) further asked as to why he killed his sister, the appellant Huma @ Hama stated that she was having illicit relation with the Monks (Sadhus). FIR (Ex.P-3) was lodged by Narsingh (PW-3) as a Crime No.352/1994 for the charges punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC.
3. The appellant was arrested and on his disclosure, the remains of the dead body and cloths were recovered from Sindhkheda, Shivmala Nala. Narsingh (PW-3), Malsingh (PW-9) and Lalsingh identified that these cloths were of the deceased Pinjaribai. Bangles, spade and cloths of the appellant were recovered and seized from the spot and the same were sent for FSL examination. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shahpur and after commitment the case was Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH Signing time: 11-11-2024 19:05:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:54808 3 CRA-673-1998 committed to the Trial Court for trial.
4. The learned trial Court framed the charges punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. Appellant abjured the guilt and prayed for trial.
5. Learned trial Court recorded the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and examined the appellant under Section 313 Cr.PC. The appellant has not adduced any evidence in defence on his behalf.
6. Learned trial Court after hearing the parties, passed the impugned judgment, being aggrieved of which, the instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no eye witness in the case who saw the appellant that appellant Huma @ Hama assaulted or killed his wife. The chain of circumstances has not been completed. The dead body was decomposed and only bones were recovered and the deceased was identified only on the basis of clothes that may be planted, hence, the identity of the dead body has not been established. The trial court has wrongly convicted the appellant, hence, appeal be allowed and appellant be acquitted from all the charges.
8. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of trial Court and submitted that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant.
9. We have heard the parties and perused the record.
10. It is submitted that the deceased Pinjaribai was married with Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH Signing time: 11-11-2024 19:05:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:54808 4 CRA-673-1998 appellant Huma @ Hama 9-10 years prior to the incident and from her first husband four issues were born and this fact has not been challenged by the appellant. It is further submitted that appellant did not explain whether the deceased Pinjaribai is alive or not.
11. On the contrary, Narsingh (PW-3) has stated that deceased Pinjaribai was his sister and she was residing with appellant Huma @ Hama as a wife. She was having four issues from her first husband. No issue was born to Pinjaribai from the cohabitation of present appellant Huma @ Hama. Malsingh (PW-9) is the son of the deceased. One day Malsingh (PW-9) had come to Village Pipari and stated that his mother went for fishing along with appellant, appellant/accused Huma @ Hama returned but his mother did not return. When he asked to the appellant, appellant stated that his mother had gone to Village -Pipari. Appellant had also come to the Village - Pipari. He inquired and searched the deceased. He was taking appellant to Police Station. Before reaching the Police Station, the appellant disclosed that he killed Pinjaribai. When he was further asked that why he killed the deceased, he told that Pinjaribai was having illicit relation with the Monks (Sadhus). The appellant and Pinjaribai were working as a labourer in the field of Monk. The appellant has also disclosed that after killing Pinjaribai, he thrown her to Nala.
12. The fact of last seen is also supported by Bhurli (PW-8) daughter of the deceased. She has stated that the appellant is her second father and Pinjaribai was her mother. The appellant used to quarrel with deceased. Appellant and her mother used to work in the field of temple. Appellant took Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH Signing time: 11-11-2024 19:05:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:54808 5 CRA-673-1998 her mother for fishing. They also took Tangari and Darata. After fishing, the appellant returned but her mother did not return and when she asked to the appellant, appellant told her that her mother had gone to her brother's home. They searched her mother and went to her maternal uncle home, there also her mother was not found.
13. Malsingh (PW-9) has also supported the fact that on that day the appellant took his mother for fishing in the morning. At noon appellant returned but his mother did not return, when he asked the appellant, appellant told him that his mother has gone to her brother's home. When her mother went for fishing, she wore Saree and appellant also carried with himself Tangari and Darata.
14. In the lengthy cross-examination of Narsingh (PW-3), nothing was brought on the record by which the statement of Narsingh (PW-3), Bhurli (PW-8) and Malsingh (PW-9) became doubtful.
15. On the point that the deceased and appellant used to work in the field of temple. Field owner Balsharan Das (PW-5) has supported that the appellant and his wife along with their children used to work in their field. That is the property of Kabeer Nirnay Temple Trust and this witness has also stated that one time the deceased told him that appellant doubts on her character and alleges that she is having illicit relations with Monks (sadhus).
16. Thus, from the above discussion, it is clear that at the last occasion, the deceased went with the appellant for fishing and after that she did not Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH Signing time: 11-11-2024 19:05:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:54808 6 CRA-673-1998 return at home, hence, the appellant is duty bound to disclose or explain that where the deceased went from his company but he has not furnished any explanation and all the facts which had been stated by him, proved false.
17. Rakesh Mohan Shukla (PW-12) has stated that the appellant had disclosed that the dead body of the deceased is buried in Sindhkheda, Shivmala Nala where the dam is constructed. He prepared the memorandum (Ex.P-2). Dinkar (PW-2) has supported the fact that the accused disclosed that the dead body was lying and memorandum was prepared, though in the cross-examination he has stated that the dead body was lying in the Police Station and he had signed the documents. As per the memo, the Police Officer further stated that he along with Tehsildar and Doctor, went on the spot. On disclosure, by appellant where the dead body was buried, Blood stained hairs, Blood stained Saree, two bangles of metal, yellow coloured flourish blouse, bone of leg and adjacent to that blood stained lehnga as well as pugmark of wild animals were found. He prepared the spot map (Ex.P-
10). He recovered a blood stained green coloured Saree which was torn from the five places, blood stained blouse, petticoat, metal bangles, hairs and bone of leg and prepared the spot map (Ex.P-9).
18. This witness has produced the articles recovered from the spot i.e. Saree (Article H) and ornaments (Articles B, C, E, F, G). Rakesh Mohan Shukla (PW-12) has further stated that on the spot Narsingh (PW-3), Maling (PW-9) and Lalsingh identified the cloths that they were of Pinjaribai and prepared the identification memo (Ex.P-5). He also recovered silver bangles and Jhumka of metals and prepared spot map (Ex.P-4). He also recovered the Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH Signing time: 11-11-2024 19:05:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:54808 7 CRA-673-1998 Darati from the possession of the appellant and blood stained cloth of the appellant (Ex.P-11).
19. Witness Malsingh (PW-9) has stated that on the appellant's disclosure Saree, cloths, hair, bangles and bone of the leg was recovered from the spot i.e. Sindhkheda, Shivmala Nala. He identified the Article A and stated that her mother lastly went wearing that Saree with the appellant. He identified all the things recovered from the spot, which belongs to her mother.
20. Shri J. K. Baghle (PW-1) has clearly stated that he visited the spot and found that area where the dead body of the deceased was buried. Hyenas are found in that area and they eaten the decomposed body. Pugmarks of Hyena were found on the spot. Since, the dead body was recovered after 15 days of the incident and during this period, if the muscular part of the dead body was eaten by wild animals and wild animals also carried the bones, if the whole skeleton was not found on the spot, therefore, on that basis no adverse inference can be drawn that the deceased was not killed or the remains found on the spot was not related to the dead body of the deceased.
21. Furthermore, in the FSL report, hairs of the deceased, Saree, bangles of metal, lehnga, vest of appellant, spade, jhumka and blouse were sent for FSL, and as per report of Serology Department, Government of India (Ex.P-16) on hair, Saree, lehnga, blouse piece, human blood was found.
22. It is also brought on record that the appellant had made extra Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH Signing time: 11-11-2024 19:05:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:54808 8 CRA-673-1998 judicial confession before his brother-in-law Narsingh (PW-3). It is also clear that on the last occasion, the deceased accompanied with the appellant for fishing and after that she was never seen alive. On the appellant disclosure, the remains of the deceased and cloths were recovered from the spot i.e. Sindhkheda, Shivmala Nala. The recovery is supported by the independent witness namely Deena Patel (PW-11).
23. Thus, from the above facts and circumstances, appellant and only the appellant has murdered his wife by assaulting her with spade (Darata) and to evade himself from the legal punishment, buried the dead body of the deceased and falsely told her children that she went to her parental home.
24. Thus, from the prosecution evidence, the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC is proved. Thus, the conviction and sentence imposed by trial Court is affirmed. Appeal being devoid of the merit is dismissed.
25. The case property be disposed of as per the order of trial Court.
26. The bail bond and surety bond of the appellant are cancelled. The appellants shall surrender before the trial Court, otherwise, the trial Court, Trial Court after making him arrested, shall send him to jail to serve the rest of the Jail Sentence.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
DPS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DHEERAJ
PRATAP SINGH
Signing time: 11-11-2024
19:05:08
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:54808
9 CRA-673-1998
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DHEERAJ
PRATAP SINGH
Signing time: 11-11-2024
19:05:08