Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. According to the prosecution the root cause was the licentious conduct of the husband (Dr. Tewari) who indulged in extra marital relations with other women. It was alleged that Dr. Tewari had illicit, incestuous relations with his 22 year old niece, Ms. Sunanda Chaturvedi a medical student who was admittedly nominated by him as beneficiary on the death of the insured in a 25 years' life policy of Rs. 50,000/- taken out by Dr. Tewari on his own life on 28,3.1984 within less than 1 1/2 months of his marriage with deceased Veena (a marriage which fetched him a dowry of Rs. 50.000/-). It was also alleged that Dr. Tewari had illicit, incestuous relationship with his sister Meera. The trial court accepted the prosecution version regarding promiscuous conduct of the husband. The High Court was of the opinion that it was not established.

3 The trial court concluded that 'accident' and 'suicide' were excluded, and that the unnatural death by burning was homicidal. The High Court on the other hand was of the view that 'suicide cannot be excluded'. That is why the trial court convicted the husband and his sister whereas the High Court acquitted them.

4. The matrimonial life of deceased Veena and accused Narendra was of a very short duration for about 7 months. The marriage took place on 17th February, 1984. Veena died an unnatural death by burning on 12th September, 1984. Even during the short span of 7 months they lived together for a very short time. After the bridal party returned with the bride on February 18, 1984 Veena was not brought to her husband's flat (Flat No. 37 in the Teachers' Flats) in the campus of Banaras Hindu University (BHU) in Banaras. She was taken to the house of her husband's parents at Dildarnagar where she remained for about four days. On February 22, 1984 she returned to Patna. The husband's explanation in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. is that he had left his wife at Dildarnagar because of the illness of his brother in-law Dr. Gorakh Nath Chaturvedi (father of Sunanda with whom it was alleged that the husband of the deceased had illicit, incestuous relationship). Dr. Chaturvedi died on February 27, 1984. Veena however was not brought to Banaras from Patna. It was only on April 9, 1984 that she was brought back to Banaras. For about a week or so she remained at Dildarnagar and then she was brought to her husband's flat at Banaras. The flat was occupied by Veena's husband and her sister-in-law Meera (sister of Dr. Narendra). These three were the only occupants of the flat. Veena remained at the flat for nearly two months. On June 9, 1984 she went to Dildarnagar with her be- longings to her in laws' place and from there to Kodasaha, the place of Devendra, the step-brother of her husband. She had left half of her luggage at Dildarnagar and the remaining half at Kodasaha. The letter written by her on June 14, 1984 mentions that her connections with Banaras were virtually severed. She remained at Kodasaha for sometime. In the first week of July, 1984 she returned to her parental house at Patna. She remained at Patna till August 23, 1984. On that day she was brought back to her husband's fiat at Banaras. Within 20 days thereafter she died of burns on the night between September 11 and 12, 1984, between midnight and 7.00 a.m. (accepting the Doctor's opinion the High Court formed the opinion that the death occurred at about 4.00 a.m.).

31. It is not necessary to discuss the evidence relating to the accusations made against accused Narendra in regard to his extra marital relations and aberrations. The evidence regarding his alleged incestuous relations with his sister Meera mainly consists of the evidence of PW 9 Premlata the sister of the deceased. The High Court has not felt it safe to rely on her evidence that when she entered the flat she had seen such behaviour of Narendra, Meera and Sunanda which created an impression of improper relationship. We are not inclined to reappreciate the evidence on this point. So far as the relationship of accused Narendra with Sunanda is concerned we cannot help saying that it is extremely strange that Narendra nominated Sunanda, his 22 year old niece, who was also a Medical student and who had sought a transfer from Patna Medical College to the Banaras Medical College, on the death of her father. Why was Sunanda nominated in the Life Insurance Policy of Rs. 50,000/- which amount was payable to Sunanda on his death, within less than one-and-a-half months of the marriage of deceased Veena with him ? Surely a newly married husband would nominate his wife and not a niece (sister's daughter). When accused Narendra was interrogated in this behalf under Section 313 Cr. P.C. he did not offer any explanation. In his statement in writing which we have reproduced in extenso in the earlier part of the judgment, it has been stated by him that he had nominated Sunanda with the idea that if he died, Sunanda may get the money and it would be useful for her and that he would be able to fulfil the last wishes of his brother-in-law Shri Chaturvedi, who had during his last illness asked him to take care of Sunanda and to look after her education. Why did he not think of Veena's future if he died ? It would be difficult for a roan of the world to believe this explanation at its face value. Even this explanation was offered after deliberation in selected words subsequent to his oral interrogation by the Court at which interrogation he did not offer any explanation. He himself was young. He was about 30 years old when the insurance policy was taken out and Sunanda was nominated. Even if he was an extremely sensitive and considerate person (that he was not such a person is revealed by his conduct towards his newly wedded wife Veena). it was enough for him to help Sunanda in her studies or extra financial assistance to her if it was necessary (it was not the case that the financial circumstances of his brother in law or Sunanda were in bad shape). It is difficult to comprehend why he should think of his death and as to what would happen to Sunanda after his death rather than think of what would happen to his newly wedded wife in case of his demise. It would be difficult for the most credulous person to accept the explanation offered by Narendra having regard to the attendant circumstances. We refuse to do so. Beyond this we do not consider it necessary to say for the purpose of the present appeals. It has been argued that the prosecution had failed to establish any motive on the part of accused Narendra. The evidence regarding existence of motive which operates in the mind of an assassin is very often than not within the reach of others. The motive may not even be known to the victim of the crime. The motive may be known to the assassin and no one else may know what gave birth to the evil thought in the mind of the assassin. A crime can take place even without pre-meditation or pre-planning in the context of a particular situation, on the spur of the moment. In any case the evidence on record is sufficient to show that the two spouses disliked each other. It has been suggested on behalf of the Prosecution that she must have been struck on the temporal region with-some hard, blunt object and she must have become unconscious thereupon. Then after her body must have been placed in the kitchen, a large quantity of catalyst such as kerosene, vegetable oil or ghee must have been poured and she must have been set aflame. It is not possible to pronounce on the question as to what exactly was the motive and what exactly triggered or sparked off the incident resulting in the death of Veena. Taking an overall view of the circumstances outlined in the discussion hereinbefore, we are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the death of Veena was not suicidal but homicidal.