The appellant came to be tried by Sessions Court, Panchmahals at Godhra for the offence of murder of his wife allegedly committed by him during night falling in between 4th and 5th November, 2005 around midnight, by inflicting multiple knife blows on himself and the deceased. From the evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court found him guilty and convicted him for the said offence by judgment and order dated 30th June, 2006 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.2,500/-, in default, further imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant – accused is a native of village Dharapur, Tal. Shahera, District Panchmahals and has shifted to Ahmedabad for his vocation. The appellant and his wife had gone to Dharapur few days prior to the incident. As per prosecution case, there had been some disputes on the date of incident, during night hours, while the appellant and his wife were sleeping in the house of the appellant's brother – Madansinh Chhatrasinh. The appellant inflicted multiple knife blows on his wife – Ranjanben, as a result of which, she died.
2.1 At the time of incident, first informant, Madansinh – brother of accused – appellant and his mother were sleeping just outside the room in which the appellant and his wife were sleeping. They heard cry from Ranjanben. They, therefore, tried to open the door, but, since the door was bolted from inside, they pushed it open and on opening, they found that the appellant was standing by the dead body of deceased Ranjanben with a bloodstained knife in his hand. This aspect was also witnessed by neighbour Kiritsinh, Exh.35. Thereafter, the appellant was taken to the police. He was found having abrasion injuries in the abdomen and first informant - Madansinh informed police about the incident, on the basis of which, the offence was registered and investigated and after collecting materials against the accused – appellant, charge- sheet came to be filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shahera, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions and Sessions Case No.24 of 2006 came to be registered. Charge was framed against the accused at Exh.4 for the offence of murder of his wife. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and came to be tried.
2.2 After considering the evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court recorded conviction as stated hereinabove and hence, this appeal.
3. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Goswami for the appellant and learned APP Mr. Soni for the respondent – State.
4. Mr. Goswami contended that there is no direct eye- witness to the incident though the first informant - brother of the appellant claims that he reached the actual place of incident and found accused – appellant standing with a knife in his hand, which was blood-stained and his sister-in-law ('bhabhi' – brother's wife), deceased Ranjanben, was lying on the ground in a profusely bleeding and unconscious state. Mr. Goswami submitted that as such, there is no direct eye- witness. There is lack of evidence on motive. He submitted that it has come in evidence that there were no disputes between the appellant and his wife. Their's was a happy marriage life which was an example for others. Mr. Goswami further submitted that the charge speaks about the illicit relationship. The evidence speaks about the appellant having incurred losses and there is also evidence that the incident happened because of insistence on the part of the deceased to purchase a house at village Dharapur. Mr. Goswami submitted that the prosecution story, therefore, is inconsistent and ought not to have been relied upon. Mr. Goswami submitted that the appellant himself had suffered injuries on his abdomen. There is no corresponding injuries on the 'Baniyan', which the appellant was wearing at the time of incident and though that 'Baniyan' was soiled with blood of the group of deceased and there were no blood marks of the blood group of the appellant. This would make the prosecution case susceptible to doubt. Mr. Goswami submitted that the evidence on recovery of trouser of appellant is also inconsistent only so far as it relates to the colour of the trouser and therefore, at least, benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the appellant. The appeal may, therefore, be allowed and the accused – appellant may be acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt.
5. On the other hand, learned APP Mr. Soni has opposed this appeal. According to him, there is no inconsistency in the prosecution's evidence which is sought to be canvassed by Mr. Goswami and there are minor discrepancies, which cannot go to the root of incident. There is an independent eye-witness to the incident viz., Kiritsinh, who lends support to the evidence of first informant – the brother of the appellant. Mr. Soni submitted that the theory advanced by defence that the appellant and his wife were attacked by dacoits while they were sleeping in the room is only a defence by way of an afterthought. Contemporaneous material does not support this theory. If the appellant was sleeping in a room along with his wife, the deceased, the room was bolted from inside and if he was attacked by dacoits, there would have been some evidence to show a forceful entry into the house. Similarly, the nature of injuries suffered by the deceased and the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant himself would have been of similar. Mr. Soni, therefore, submitted that the theory of attack by dacoits is only an afterthought. The prosecution case is supported by an independent witness Kiritsinh. The theory canvassed by the accused is not correct one, and the theory of the prosecution is supported by independent witnesses. The trial Court has, therefore, rightly convicted the appellant and the appeal may, therefore, be dismissed.
6. We have scanned the record and proceedings in context of rival submissions.
7. At the outset, we may record that Ranjanben was done to death by infliction of multiple knife blows on the vital parts of the body. She died of hemorrhagic shock due to heavy bleeding. Looking to the postmortem notes, it appears that she had as many as 15 injuries on vital parts of her body. She, therefore, (without doubt) met with a homicidal death.
8. In juxtaposition of the deceased Ranjanben, if the injuries suffered by the appellant are seen, they are seven in number. They are on abdomen and are all abrasions.
9. It is contended that the 'Baniyan', which the accused was wearing at the time of incident, does not bear corresponding cut marks on it, and that there is no blood of the accused found on it. We have examined the evidence in this context. We reiterate that the injuries suffered by the appellant were of simple nature and they were only minor abrasions. It is true that the 'Baniyan', which the appellant is alleged to have been wearing at the time of incident, did not bear corresponding cut marks on it, except only one cut mark. It is also true that the 'Baniyan' did not carry any blood-spot of the group of the accused. The injuries which were noticed on the person of the accused, were simple and superficial and even if there was some blood on 'Baniyan', which may not have been noticeable, which was even otherwise soaked with blood of deceased.
10. The second contention is that there is no clear evidence of motive. At the outset, we may record that when there are reliable witnesses deposing about the involvement of the appellant in the incident, presence of motive looses significance. Apart from that, it emerges from the evidence of first informant – Madansinh and his FIR that the appellant had incurred losses and in that circumstances, the incident had occurred, although the matrimonial life was otherwise good with the deceased. However, it is also emerging from the evidence that the deceased was insisting for purchasing a house at Dharapur and the appellant had incurred losses and had no money, which resulted into the episode. In our view, there is not much inconsistency between the two, because the basic thread of the appellant having incurred losses which resulted into the incident remains the same. Only the FIR given by Madansinh gives further details that it was because of insistence on the part of the deceased to purchase a house at Dharapur that the incident occurred as revealed by the appellant before witness Bharatsinh Prabhatsinh Solanki – Sarpanch of the village. This aspect is proved through evidence of first informant – Madansinh. Of course, the prosecution could have examined the Sarpanch, but, since this dialogue between Sarpanch and the appellant took place in presence of Madansinh, who happens to be the brother of the appellant, his evidence would carry equal weightage. We, therefore, have an extra-judicial confession made by the appellant about his involvement in the incident.
11. The evidence in form of panchnama of place of incident is duly proved and the evidence in form of depositions by Madansinh – Exh.31 and Kiritsinh-Exh.35, would go to prove that the appellant and his wife were alone in the room during the night hours when the incident occurred. Room was bolted from inside and upon hearing cry from the deceased – Ranjanben, first informant Madansinh and immediate neighbour Kiritsinh woke up, they broke open the door and found appellant standing with a knife in his hand near the dead body of Ranjanben which was lying in a profusely bleeding condition. It is nobody's case that there was anybody else in the room other than the appellant and the deceased during the night. Necessarily, therefore, it is for the accused appellant to explain how the incident occurred, otherwise, necessary and legitimate inference is that the fatal injuries to the deceased were caused by the appellant. The injuries are multiple in nature and have consequently resulted in death. This would speak volumes about the intention of the appellant. Fifteen stab injuries on vital part of the body leave no room for drawing any other inference of the assailant having a different intention than causing death of the victim.
11.1 The first informant is none else than the real brother of the appellant and we have no reason to doubt the veracity of his evidence.
12. Now, comes the question of the defence plea. The plea that is taken by the defence before the trial Court is that dacoits came in the house and assaulted the couple, in which, the appellant himself suffered injuries. According to defence, this incident was reported to police, Morva Outpost, in form of FIR by Dashrathsinh, wherein the appellant's wife's chain bangles, gold earings as well as other ornaments wore by her, were looted. However, from Morva Outpost, they were taken to Shahera Police Station, where the other FIR allegedly lodged by Dashrathsinh was torn out and the appellant's brother was forced to give a complaint, where the appellant was also forced to give history to the doctor as is recorded by the doctor. Falsity of defence cannot be a ground of conviction, but, as discussed earlier, the prosecution has established the charges against the accused appellant and this is our endeavour to examine whether the defence taken by the accused is possible or not. With this theory, in the backdrop, we may make following observations :
12.1 The panchnama of place of incident does not speak of any act of violance or defence.
12.2 The room, in which the appellant and the deceased were there, was broken open by the first informant and neighbour Kiritsinh. Both of them found appellant standing with a bloodstained knife in his hand and the deceased lying in a dead condition. There appears no any marks of violence or resistance, either by the deceased or by the appellant.
12.3 The injuries suffered by the appellant and the deceased are of different nature altogether.
12.4 There are no marks of any forced entry into the room except by the main door wherefrom the first informant and the neighbour forcibly entered into the room by pushing the door.
12.5 Last but not least, if the incident had occurred in the manner as suggested in the plea taken by the accused, the injuries suffered by the appellant also would have been similar to that of the victim and not simple abrasions.
13. Though the prosecution has failed to explain absence of blood of the accused on his own 'Baniyan' inspite of seven abrasions injuries, it does not shake the foundation of the prosecution case, viz., the evidence of eye-witnesses which derive support from other corresponding circumstantial evidence.
14. Therefore, in our view, the prosecution case is rightly accepted by the trial Court and we agree with the reasonings adopted by the trial Court. The appeal is devoid of merits and merits dismissal only. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
[A.L. Dave, J.] #MH Dave Sd/-
[Paresh Upadhyay, J.]