SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Manoj @ Raju vs State on 28 March, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 799 / 2008
Manoj @ Raju s/O Shri Ram Swaroop Sharma, by caste Brahmin,
Resident of 28-C, Neemuchmata Scheme, Dewali, Police Station
Ambamata, Udaipur.

(Presently lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur)

—-Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan

—-Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajeev Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.P.S. Choudhary, P.P.
_____________________________________________________
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.R. MOOLCHANDANI
Judgment
28/03/2017

REPORTABLE:- The instant appeal is directed against the

judgment dated 29.9.2008 passed by Additional District and

Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Udaipur in Sessions Case No

2/2008 by which the accused-appellant is convicted under Section

302 of IPC with life imprisonment and with a fine of Rs.5,000/- in

default thereto further to undergo for six month simple

imprisonment.

2. The contents of Ex.P.1 F.I.R. No.611/2007 reads

as under :-

“^lsokesa
Jheku Fkkuk vf/kdkjh Fkkuk vEckekrk mn;iqj
fo”k; % fjiksVZ ntZ djokus ckcrA
egksn;th]

fuosnu gS fd nsokyh esa Jherh clUrh nsoh ifRu eukst ‘kekZ uke dh efgyk jgrh
(2 of 20)
[CRLA-799/2008]

Fkh vkt lqcg uks cts ds yxHkx ge v0 Hkkjrh; tunknh efgyk lfefr fd
efgykvksa dks lwpuk feyh dh eukst dh ifRu clUrh nsoh dh e`R;q gks pqdh gSA
clUrh dh ‘kknh dks 5 6 o”kZ gqvk gS clUrh ds lkFk eukst ‘kknh ds ckn ls gh
ekjihV djrk vk jgk Fkk dbZ ckj clUrh us ekjihV dh fjiksVZ Fkkuk vEckekrk
efgyk Fkkuk o lsokeafnj esa Hkh dh Fkh gesa ‘kadk gS fd clUrh dks eukst us ekjk gS
clUrh dh e`R;q dk dkj.k eukst ds }kjk vk;s fnu ekjihV ds dkj.k gqbZ gSA vkt
lqcg eukst eksgYys esa fdlh dks fcuk crk;s vius vki eks{k /kke dh xkM+h vius vki
eaxokbZ vkSj vfUre laLdkj djus eukst tk jgk Fkk rHkh ge v0 Hkkjrh; tunknh
efgyk lfefr dh efgykvksa us xkM+h jksdok nh vkSj iqfyl dks lqpuk nhA clUrh
eukst ds }kjk jkstjkst dh ekjihV ls rax vkdj lsokeafnj esa 810 jkst ls jg
jgh Fkh tks eukst gh ogka ls ysdj vk;sA vr% fuosnu gS fd clUrh ds gR;kjs eukst
dks dM+h ltk nh tk;sA
SD Jherh dkUrk”

This F.I.R was submitted by Smt. Kanta Srimali

wife of Shri Prabhulal Srimali on 27/11/2007 at 11.45 a.m. at

Police Station Ambamata, Udaipur, which was registered under

Sections 498A, 306 of IPC and investigation was made, post

investigation I.O submitted charge sheet and trial court arrived at

the aforesaid findings of guilt, during the trial, prosecution

produced twenty witnesses and defence also produced one

witness.

3. Heard submissions of rival sides, learned amicus-

curiae representing the appellant has contended that learned trial

Court has committed error in examining the evidence and has not

correctly appreciated the evidence, appellant-accused never

committed alleged offence, but performed all the death rituals

with social norms. The nuptial was through affairs, so reason of

any discord or demand does not arise. The couple was living quite

comfortably and begot kids out of the wedlock, theory of Sambal

Seva Mandir and women organizations is concocted and hatched

to malign the dignity of the appellant in order to harass, there is

no iota of truth in the alleged story and findings of the trial Court

are not correct, so the appeal be allowed and the impugned

findings of guilt be set aside, in support of submissions, learned
(3 of 20)
[CRLA-799/2008]

counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment

Jose @ Pappachan vs. Sub Inspector of Police, Koyilandy

Anr. (2016) 10 Supreme Court Cases 519.

On the other side, learned public prosecutor has

contended that the medical evidence is supported with other

evidence, which establishes that the appellant-accused killed his

wife and there were several injuries found on her body and she

was killed and was found to have strangulated, appellant was

trying to perform last rites latently, but Seva Mandir Women

activities timely informed police authorities and on postmortem

the things were found contrary, there was family discord,

deceased had also approached Sambal Seva Mandir for protection

and an application to this effect was also earlier moved by the

deceased, upon which reconciliatory efforts were made and the

accused-appellant assured that nothing untoward will happen in

further, saying so he took away his deceased wife from Seva

Mandir, who was subsequently eliminated within few days. There

is reliable and clinching evidence against the accused-appellant, so

there is no wrong in the findings of learned trial Court, appeal

lacks merit, so it be dismissed.

4. Perused the record and gone through the evidence

cautiously, which is as under:-

PW. 2 Kanta Srimali-complainant author of F.I.R.

Ex.P.1 has said that the event relates to 27/11/2007 at about 9

a.m., a message was communicated from Dewali that “Bansati

Devi” W/o Manoj Kumar died and without informing to anybody,

her husband Manoj Kumar was taking the body to crematorium
(4 of 20)
[CRLA-799/2008]

and they suspected that Manoj killed her. Six years back, they

were married and after marriage, Manoj used to beat his wife and

a report was lodged at thana Ambamata and at Mahila thana as

well as at Seva Mandir, she has further said that on receiving the

information, they visited the spot and suspected that the lady was

killed by Manoj, then Ex.P.1 report was lodged at thana

Ambamata, which is Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2 is Panchnama, she has also

said that on witnessing the corpse signs were there on the neck

and signs of injuries were also there on the head and elbow as

well as on feet, after that neighbours performed her last rites in

her cross-examination, she has said that Basanti was witnessed by

them in mohalla meetings and the information was given to her by

Lata Jhala.

She has further said that it was told to her by

Lata Jhala that marriage of Manoj was performed 5-6 years back.

She has also said that she witnessed the dead body on Mokshrath

and several people were there around it. Police took away the

dead body to mortuary and Manoj was taken to police station. She

has further said that the FIR was written by her before C.I. at

thana and has denied that it was scribed on dictation of C.I. She

has further said that she signed on panchnama in the hospital at

6.00 p.m. and postmortem was conducted after panchnama, dead

body was obtained by area people.

5. PW-1 Smt. Lata has said that on 27.11.2007, a

lady residing near the house of Manoj came and informed that

Basanti @ Maulika was murdered, then she asked to initiate police

action, she refused saying that Manoj used to hurl abuses after
(5 of 20)
[CRLA-799/2008]

consuming liquor and was habitual of beating Basanti. She has

further said that then she informed Amba Mata Police regarding

the murder of the lady. Manoj has called a “moksh rath”, prior to

arrival of police and had got the body laid there with support of

labours. She has further said that she got the moksh rath stopped

throubh Bhanwar Ji Comrade, Kanchan Devi and Leela Devi and

then she phoned to her office, pursuant to it, Smt. Kanta Shrimali,

Rukmani Devi and Lali Devi came and policemen also came there

and took Manoj and his mother to Amba Mata Thana and carried

away the body to hospital for medical. FIR Ex.P/1 was lodged

through Secretary. She has further admitted her signatures on

Panchnama Ex.P/2 and Police Report Ex.P/1. She has said that

she had seen the dead body, which was having bruises on neck,

arms and legs; elbows were also injured and blood was there in

the foot fingers, there were signs of fingers and thumbs on the

neck.

She has also said that Manoj used to threat

through his knowns, in her cross-examination, she has said that

she knows Basanti for last five years because she used to pass

from there and often complained, while sitting outside her house

that her husband was liquor addict and used to beat her and was

not working and this was conveyed to her 6-7 months ago.

Expressing her ignorance against the relatives

and actual earlier place of deceased’s residence, she has said that

she heard that “Basanti” was married with Manoj and Basanti told

her that Manoj often beats her.

(6 of 20)
[CRLA-799/2008]

She has said that Manoj did not convey regarding

hanging but had said that Basanti died of stomach-ache. She has

also said that Basanti was having two kids and Ex.P/1 was written

by Smt. Kanta Shrimali before several women activists including

Rukmani Devi, Leela Devi and Heera Bai and they visited mortuary

alongwith police. She has also said that the body was having signs

of fingers and thumbs and the body was postmortemed by doctor.

She has further said that all the women had been to mortuary.

She has further said that she did not see Manoj

killing Basanti and has also said that four labours were there

on moksh rath, “Manoj himself loaded the body and sat

alone thereon”. She has further said that she has tendered her

statements for sake of independent and transparent inquiry.

6. It is pertinent to mention that FIR was

lodged by “Sambal” Seva Mandir, Mahila Alp Avas Grah

Activist, a women rehabilitating agency stated to be aided

by Central Social Welfare Board.

7. PW-3 , a neighbor of accused Manoj has said that

on date of 29th, policemen of Amba Mata had been there and

asked for co-operation and has admitted his signatures on Ex.P/3

spot map. He has also said that after calling moksh rath, Manoj

was taking her dead body alone, then people stopped and several

individuals gathered. He has also said that police had conveyed

regarding existence of “fan” inside, on that basis hanging was

suspected.

(7 of 20)
[CRLA-799/2008]

PW-4 is a photographer who has said that he was

called by Amba Mata Police Station. Photoraphs are Ex.P/5A to

Ex.P/20A and negatives are Ex.P/5 to Ex.P/20, bill relating to the

photographs is Ex.P/21, ‘A’ to ‘B’ is his signatures.

8. PW-5 Heeralal is a saw-miller who has said that

his mill care-taker had informed him regarding timber purchase,

so, he asked to deliver the same. He has further said that five

quintal timber wood was given for cremation, in his cross-

examination he has said that two days later to the sale, police

came for his statements. Dunga Ram, the care-taker was just

asked to deliver the timber after weighing.

9. PW.6 Shri Jagdish Meena has said that the

matter relates three months back and a call on the phone of

“Mokshrath” came and Manoj Sharma name was conveyed, he

went with the vehicle there, Manoj Sharma brought the body, in

the meanwhile area people told not to take the body, he has

further said that four people had brought the body then area

people said that you would not leave till police action is complete,

then police people came and the body was taken to hospital

mortuary and after leaving the body there, he left.

PW.7 Smt. Nisha Field is a significant witness

being counsellor of “Sambal” Mahila Alp Seva Mandir, she

has narrated enlightening factual aspects regarding on-going

couple strife and hearing of the same and further resolving their

dispute through counselling and she has said that on 13/12/2005,

Basanti Sharma came to their Seva Mandir Office, her case form

is Ex.P.23, its photocopy is Ex.P.23A, which contains her
(8 of 20)
[CRLA-799/2008]

signatures and C to D is signature of Basanti and has said that

contents from E to F as written in Ex.P.23 are correct and copies of

this were given to police people of thana Ambamata, she has

further said that Ex.P.24-letter, contains signatures of Shakutala

Co-ordinator worked under her, so she knows her signatures, its

photocopies are Ex.P.24A, she has further said that first interview

report is Ex.P.25, which contains her signatures from A to B, its

photocopy Ex.P.25A and phone report is Ex.P.26, its copy is

Ex.P.26A, she has further said that she had written a letter to

Manoj, which is Ex.P.27, its copy Ex.P.27A, contains her signature

from A to B and joint meeting report is Ex.P.28, its copy is

Ex.P.28A, meeting was conducted on 25/12/2005, which contains

signature of Manoj Sharma from A to B and C to D are Basanti’s

signature, photocopy E to F contains her signatures, she has

further said that on 24/11/2007, Basanti and Manoj were

called and couple was negotiated upon, its report is Ex.P.29,

its copy is Ex.29A, which contains signatures of Manoj from A to

B, its photocopy is Ex.P.29A, which contains C to D her signatures.

10. She has further said that first, meeting was

conducted on 13/12/2005 and during that time “Sevarthi

Basanti” had told that her husband used to beat her after

consuming liquor and “Saas” also beats and threat to oust

from home and after that her husband Manoj was called

and reconciliatory efforts were made, husband of Sevarthi

assured that he wanted to live with her wife and no further

beating will be given, she has further said that on the wish

of Sevarthi, compromise was made and it was reduced into
(9 of 20)
[CRLA-799/2008]

writing and they were permitted to go to live together.

11. On 07/01/2006, follow-up was made by her and

Sevarthi herself came in their office for follow-up, she had again

complained of some annoyance and vexes, she has further said

that she told her that her husband was still beating her and

daunting to oust and she expressed doubt that she will be ousted

from house and the premises might be given to his sister, so again

counselling was conducted and it was advised to her not to bother

on count of premises and live there after gaining confidence and

love by winning over the hearts of others.

12. “She has further said that lastly on

21/11/2007, she had come to them then she was badly

anxious and complained that she was detained in the room

for last three days and could only be there by escape with

difficulty, her “husband and Saas” got her detained there,

she has further said that it was also informed that her

husband was beating her for last three days and had

apprehended that if she goes there, then she will be killed,

but for sake of her kids, she was inclined to go there, she

has further said that it was advised to her that she could

stay there for sometime, if such untoward was suspected

by her, but she did not yield”.

13. She has further said that her husband was

contacted and a letter was sent to him and again

reconciliatory dialogue was made on 24/11/2007 then, her

husband Manoj had assured that he will go on work and

will not beat her nor will consume liquor, she has further
(10 of 20)
[CRLA-799/2008]

said that :-

“tc geus mldks fy[kus ds fy, cksyk Fkk rks mlus dgk Fkk fd eSa ,d ljdkjh
vkneh gwa vkSj fy[kdj ns jgk gwa vius gkFk dkV dj ns jgk gwaA tc ge 27
rkjh[k dks Qksyksvi ds fy;s tk jgs Fks rc mldh gR;k gks x;h gSA iqfyl
vuqla/kku py jgk Fkk vkSj ge ogka ij igqaps FksA ml le; lh- vkbZ- lk- ioZr
flag th fgaxM ogka ij FksA mUgksaus cksyk Fkk fd ‘kk;n lqlkbM fd;k gSaA mlds
ckn eSa Fkkus ij x;h FkhA ml le; ‘;keyky th ,-,l-vkbZ- ls esjh ckr gqbZ FkhA
esfMdy fjiksVZ vk x;h Fkh rks ml le; irk yxk Fkk fd mldh gR;k gqbZ gS vkSj
mlds ifr us xyk nckdj ekj fn;k gSA”

She has further said that :-

“clUrh lcls igys gekjs ikl vk;h FkhA ml le; mlds ifr eukst dh eka dks
geus ugha cqyk;k FkkA D;ksafd tks Hkh f’kdk;r drkZ gekjs ikl vkrk gS vkSj vkrh gS
rks mldh bPNk vuqlkj dke djrs gSA fnukad 13-12-2005 dks clUrh esjs ikl vk;h
Fkh rc mlus dksbZ fyf[kr fjiksVZ ugha nh Fkh dsoy QkeZ Hkjk FkkA vYi vkokl x`g
esa eSa ,t, dkmUlyj ds fglkc ls dke djrh gwaA eqs lsok eafnj esa ukSdjh ns j[kh
FkhA”

and has also said that :-

“clUrh us crk;k Fkk fd eukst ‘kekZ dh ukSdjh NwaV x;h Fkh blfy;s og ‘kjkc
ihrk FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd tc igyh ckj izFke dksUlfyax gqbZ Fkh rc clUrh
us crk;k Fkk fd eukst dh eka eukst ‘kjkc ihus ds isls nsrh gSA mldks euk djus
ij xM+k iSnk gqvk FkkA”

and has denied not to conduct any counselling.

14. PW.8 Santosh has accepted his thumb impression on

Ex.P.30. PW.9 Arvind is a landlord of accused person and has

accepted renting his house to the accused for last one year and

while cross-examined, he has said that in the morning, he heard

that Basanti got hanged by fan.

15. PW.10 Dr. Smt. Rashmi Khatri a member of

postmortem board has said that the body of deceased Basanti was

having nine injuries and has said that acamyosis was there on the

trachea and larynx, hemorrhage was around trachea and hyoid

bone was fractured from right, injuries were fresh and were ante-

mortem and were caused by some blunt object, they were simple

from 1 to 5 and injury No.6 to 7 were grievous, which were life

threatening and because of that death by choking resulted and
(11 of 20)
[CRLA-799/2008]

according to the opinion of the board, the cause of death was

asphyxia and she has further said that:-

“lkal :dus dk dkj.k gkFk ls xyk xksaB dj gksuk ik;k x;k FkkA iksLVekVZe
fjiksVZ izn’kZ ih 32 gSA ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA lh ls Mh MkW- vful
vgen ds gLrk{kj gSA b ls ,Q ckSMZ dh jk; vafdr gSA”

16. PW.16 Anis Ahmed another doctor

conducting autopsy and member of the Board. Dr. Anis Ahmed has

said that on 27/11/2007, he was medical jurist and had conducted

postmortem of Basanti Devi wife of Manoj Sharma, he has

narrated that the body was having seven injuries and all the

injuries were antemortem caused by blunt object and injury Nos.6

and 7 were grievous and life threatening, death was due to

asphyxia and has said that postmortem Ex.P.32 is written by him,

which contains his signatures, significantly on a Court question,

this medical expert has said that the injuries as mentioned in

Ex.P.32 from 1 to 7 may not cause from fan hanging and if a

person hangs by fan, then death may result because of knot

hanging, on his cross-examination, he has also said that:-

“izn’kZ ih 32 dh pksV la- 1 vxj dksbZ O;fDr fnokj ls VDdjk tkos rks vkuk
lEHko ugha gSA pksV la 2 dBksj o [kqnjk /kjkry ij fxj tk;s rks vkuk lEHko ugha
gSA pksV la- 4 dBksj o [kqnjs /kjkry ij dksguh ds cy ij fxjus ls vkuk lEHko
ugha gSA pksV la- 5 dBksj o [kqnjs /kjkry ij fxjus ls vkuk lEHko ugha gSA vxj
fxj vkSj gFksyh jaxM [kk tk;s rks pksV la- 5 vkuk vlEHko gSA pksV la- 7
jLlh ;k lkMh ls QUnk yxkdj Nr ls yVd tk;s rks vkuk lEHko ugha gSA pksV
la- 7 fdlh Hkh ÅapkbZ ls QUnk yxkdj yVd us ls vkuk lEHko ugha gSA pksVksa dk
vof/k esa rktk gksus dk vfHkizk; pksV yxus ls 12 ?k.Vs ds Hkhrj dk vfHkizk; ;k
rkRi;Z gSA xys esa pksV la- 6 o 7 ds vfrfjDr vU; fdlh izdkj dh pksV ugha
FkhA””

17. PW.11 Raghuveer Singh has said that a letter

was seized on 1/12/2007 and cover of Sari was also seized on

03/12/2007, the seizure letter is Ex.P.33, which contains his

signature from A to B and Sari seizure is Ex.P.34, fard seizure is
(12 of 20)
[CRLA-799/2008]

Ex.P.33, spot map is Ex.P.35 and fard seizure is Ex.P.34, its spot

map is Ex.P.36, which contains his signature.

PW.12 Hari Singh constable has said that on

1/12/2007, he was a constable at Ambamata Police Station and

had gone with S.I. Raghuveer Constable to the house of accused

Manoj, on his information an letter was given by him from the

pocket of his jacket, its fard jabti is Ex.P.33 and paper seized is

Ex.P.37, in his cross-examination, he has also said that room from

where Ex.P.33 was recovered., was having a joint-photo Couple

installed of Manoj and his wife.

PW.13 Prem Obrawal has denied recovery of

any Sari, but has accepted his signature on Ex.P.34 from C to D

and has also said that the spot recovery memo of Ex.P.36 contains

his signatures.

18. PW.14 Dal Chand has said that he was head

constable at thana Ambamata on 07/12/2007 and in pursuance to

oral order of SHO, he had given two sealed packets to constable

Hansraj for depositing in the FSL and these packets were entered

in Ex.P.38 at S.No.474, which contains his signature from C to D,

its copy is Ex.P.38A, he has further said that Hansraj rendered its

receipt after depositing it.

19. PW.15 Narendra Singh has said that on

03/12/2007, he was a constable at Police Station Ambamata, on

that day SI Shyamlal deposited two sealed packets pertaining to

case No.611/07, which were entered in Malkhana register Ex.P.38

at serial No.474, the copy of it is Ex.P.38A.

(13 of 20)
[CRLA-799/2008]

PW.17 Hansraj constable has said that on

06/12/2007, he was posted at Police Station, Ambamata and after

obtaining two packets from Malkhana incharge, got Ex.P.39

forwarding letter issued from SP Office, which contains his

signatures and the packets were deposited with F.S.L Udaipur on

07/12/2007 in perfect condition vide Ex.P.40 receipt, which was

rendered to the Malkhana incharge, who entered in the register,

admitting Ex.P.41 he has further said that the packets were

deposited in perfect sealed condition and has admitted his

signatures on Ex.P.38 Malkhana Register from G to H.

20. PW.19 Bhagwat Singh Hinger SHO of

Ambamata thana has said that on 27.11.2006, he was posted at

Ambamata thana, on that day at 10.45 Smt. Kanta W/o Prabhulal

presented a report Ex.P.1 before him, which contains his

endorsement and signatures, which was registered as FIR No.

611/2007 under section 498A and 306 of IPC, its chalk report is

Ex.P. 47, which contains his signatures, while cross-examined he

has said that who had written the said report is not known to him,

it was presented before him as written.

PW.20 Bardi Bai midwife has said that she

knows Manoj and Basanti and she had conducted delivery as a

midwife to Basanti, she has further said that “Manoj said her

regarding death of his wife and came to her and asked her to

accompany, she went to Manoj’s residence and found that Basanti

was lying dead there, mother of Manoj was sitting beside and she

was weeping and she has further said that on observing the body,

she got puzzled and left”.

(14 of 20)
[CRLA-799/2008]

21. PW.18 Shyam Lal is an investigating officer, who

has ratified documentary exhibits of investigation and has

narrated conducting of investigation and the chronology thereof he

has also said documents and exhibits relating to Seva Mandir from

Ex.P.23A to 29A, he has also asserted process of recovery and

facts pertaining to recovery and information as provided by the

accused under Section 27 of Evidence Act. He has also said that

he had seen injuries on the body of the deceased Basanti and

details relating thereto has been mentioned in Panchayatnama

and has said that on the basis of postmortem report and

investigation he had found case made out under Section 302 of

IPC in lieu of 306 of IPC.

He has further said that on the basis of

investigation, he had found that offence was committed and on

getting it confirmed accused Manoj Sharma was arrested vide

Ex.P.42

22. Perusal of statements made under Section 313 of

CrPC discloses that defence of alibi has been raised by the accused

which does mismatches with the available testimony.

23. DW.1 Surya Veer Singh Sharma has said that

Basanti Devi and Manoj Kumar were living happily, but he has

also said that character of Basanti was not good and

candid. He knows Basanti on Mokshrath and Manoj Sharma was

not even informed, on information when Manoj Sharma came and

opposed it, then a false case was registered against him by these

ladies, in his cross-examination, he has also said that on that day,
(15 of 20)
[CRLA-799/2008]

he was not present at home and was away to his duty, just after

this statement, he has again said that he was present at home,

contradicting his earlier version, he has also said that it is correct

that he did not participate in cremation, testimony of this witness

does not inspire confidence and appears to be rather flimsy, rather

it also goes to say that deceased’s alleged character of easy virtue

could have been a reason for discord and deliberate beatings.

24. Ex.P.48 FSL report shows that Ex.P.1 article

1 packet marked as ‘A’ saree and article 2, packet marked as ‘B’

about the pieces of cutting bed cover (saree) have been found

stained with ‘A’ group blood.

25. Ex.P.32 autopsy report has got details of

injuries, which were found antemortem and have been detailed as

under :-

1. Abrasion 2X1 cm left side forehead-red.

2. Three abrasions 0.3X0.3 each on right angle of

mouth, rt side upper lip area near rt rhinal rd.

3. Abrasion 2X1 cm left lower eye lid lat – red

4. Abrasion 2X2 cm outside of left elbow lat – red

5. Bruise 5X4 cm rt. hyperemesis (rt hand) red

6. Bruise 4X2 cm just left lateral to larynx – red

7. Bruise 4.5X 2 cms just rt lateral to Thyroid

cartilage – red

26. On the instance of information provided

under Section 27, of the Evdience Act Ex.P.37, a letter addressed

to accused Manoj Sharma by “Sambal”, Short Stay Home, Seva

Mandir, Udaipur has also been recovered, which reads as under :-

^^ Jh eukst ‘kekZ

s/o Lo- jke Lo:i th ‘kekZ
(16 of 20)
[CRLA-799/2008]

fo”k; % vYikokl x`g mifLFkr gksus ds laca/k esa
mijksDr fo”k; esa ys[k gS fd vkidh iRuh Jh erh clUrh ‘kekZ us vYikokl
x`g mifLFkr gksdj viuh ikfjokfjd leL;k ls voxr djk;kA vkidh iRuh ds
vuqlkj vki ‘kjkc ihdj yM+kbZ xM+k ekjihV djrs gSA ,oa uksdjh ij ugha tkrs
gSZA ,oa ckjckj ?kj ls fudy tkus dh /kedh nsrs gSA bl lEcU/k esa geus vHkh
rd vkidh iRuh dks lquk gS ,oa ,d i{k dks lqudj ge dksbZ fu.kZ; ugha ys ldrs
gS gekjs }kjk nksuksa i{kksa dks foLr`r :i ls lqudj lekbZ’k ds ek/;e ls leL;k
ds fujkdj.k dk iz;kl fd;k tkrk gS bl lEcU/k es vkils vko’;d ckrfpr djuh
gS vki fnukad 23-11-2007 dks mifLFkr gksaosA**

27. Perusal of this letter shows that “Sambal”,

Short Stay Home, Seva Mandir, Udaipur had sent this letter to

Manoj Sharma sharma, calling him to attend their office on

23/11/2007, which goes to reveal that matrimonial dispute was

there between the couple and deceased Smt. Basanti Sharma

went to “Sambal”, Short Stay Home, Seva Mandir, Udaipur

complaining the same seeking their help, on which Manoj Sharma

was summoned by “Sambal” Stay Home, Seva Mandir, Udaipur’s

counsellor for hearing in order to resolve Couple acrimony.

28. Analysis of entire evidence establishes that

there was an ongoing couple relation strife and the deceased was

being regularly harassed, which constrained deceased Basanti to

seek help of “Sambal” to sort out their sour-relations and strife,

the deceased, while lodged such a grievance before Sambal then,

Seva Mandir service providers called accused-appellant Manoj for

settlement of their ongoing strife and this aspect has also

emerged from the testimony of Sambal, Seva Mandir lady worker

counsellor PW.7 Nisha Field, who has ratified and confirmed

veracity of Ex.P.27, Ex.P.28 and Ex.29 and Ex.P.29 shows that

such a compromise was arrived at between the couple on

24/11/2007 and the couple decided to live together without

further acrimony, likewise such an understanding was earlier
(17 of 20)
[CRLA-799/2008]

arrived at between the parties through, “good-offices” of Sambal

Seva Mandir on 25/12/2005.

29.                   Ex.P.29    is    a   vital   document,    which

indicates   that   three   days       retro   to    the   incident     a

compromise took place through the efforts of Sambal, Seva

Mandir between the couple to live together and Ex.P.29 is

well proved by PW.7 Smt. Nisha Field, who has specifically

narrated in her testimony that on 24/11/2007 Basanti and

Manoj Kumar were called to have a dialogue between the

parties and its report is Ex.P.29, which contains signature

of Manoj from A to B with respect to this the witness has

also said that on 24/11/2007 a settlement process-talk

was got conducted in which, Manoj had assured that he

would not consume liquor ahead, attend his job and would

not perpetrate beatings, she has also said that when on 27,

while they were to proceed for follow-up, the lady was

killed, so far as investigation is concerned everything relating to

the documents pertaining to Sambal, Seva Mandir in context to

matrimonial dispute and filing of grievance before Sambal, Seva

Mandir and efforts made by this institution for dialogue and to

resolve the dispute, are also ratified and confirmed by the

investigating officer, the defence has produced DW.1 Surya Veer

Singh, who has rather accepted a fact of alleged unchastity of

deceased, by saying that deceased Basanti Devi was not enjoying

a good character and such was a say in the area, which also hints

and fortifies vindictive motive to eliminate the suspect, which too

has not been discharged by the accused-appellant.

(18 of 20)
[CRLA-799/2008]

30. As per testimony of PW.20 Bardi Bai a

midwife, Manoj came to her to come to his home because his wife

died and PW.6 Jagdish Kumar Meena driver of Mokshrath has also

said that the Mokshrath was called by Manoj Sharma and he went

to buy cremation timber as per the say of PW.5 and entire

evidence shows that he got four labours to carry and keep the

dead body in the Mokshrath latently, it has also emerged from the

evidence that instead of truth he just narrated to the masses that

his wife died of alleged stomach ache, which shows that significant

truth was concealed by accused-appellant.

31. According to the medical report body of

deceased was having multiple injuries and doctor has specifically

opined being PW.16 Dr. Anis Ahmed that injuries as mentioned in

Ex.P.32 from injury No.1 to 7 were antemortem and injury Nos. 6

and 7 were fatal and injury Nos 1 to 7 may not be caused by

hanging with “Fan” by self hanging.

32. PW.10 Dr. Rashmi Khatri has also said that

hyoid bone of the deceased was found fractured, she has also

opined that the “cause of strangulation was found to be choking

by hand”.

Chain relating to link evidence pertaining to

deposit of samples of the seizure has also remained unsegregated.

33. Analysis and appreciation of entire aforesaid

reveals that the case of the prosecution has remained proved with

trustworthy and reliable evidence and it is apparent that the

deceased was subjected to beatings and harassment. She
(19 of 20)
[CRLA-799/2008]

presented her grievance before the Sambal, Seva Mandir again

only three days back, she was brought from that institution, where

she constrained to lodge temporarily with an assurance that she

will be given amicable treatment and the appellant will mend by

not indulging in consuming liquor and will resume working and

soon in a span of three days, she lost her life in tragic way with

the hands of her own spouse.

34. It has been distinctly emerged that the

deceased died within seven years of her marriage and she was

under the pangs of continuous harassment and beatings and only

three days retro to the incident a compromise was arrived at

between the couple and accused gave assurance of smooth life

without any beatings. Presumptions prescribed under the Evidence

Act in view of Section 106 and 113B also goes against the

Appellant-Accused.

35. Prosecution has been able to prove its case,

in catena of judgments, it has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme

Court that befitting sentence must be penned down in order to

permeate message that perpetrator of crime are to face, similar

kind of stringent punishment.

36. In Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N. (1991) 3 SC

471, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned :-

“Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence
would do more harm to the justice (delivery) system
to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of
law and society could not long endure under serious
threats. If the Courts did not protect the injured, the
injured would then resort to private vengeance. It is,
therefore, the duty of every Court to award proper
(20 of 20)
[CRLA-799/2008]

sentence having regard to the nature of the offence
and the manner in which it was executed or
committed etc.”

and Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Abdul

Waheed vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2015 Supp AIR (SC)

2154 undue sympathy will do harm to criminal justice system and

in Purushottam Dashrath Borate Anr vs. State of

Maharastra, 2015 0 AIR (SC) 2170, Hon’ble the Supreme

Court has observed that sentencing policy should aim to protect

the society and stamp out criminal proclivity and Court should

remain stern where required.

Prosecution has tendered clinching and reliable

evidence, which is duly supported with the medical evidence,

hence there is no error in the impugned judgment.

We are of the view that learned trial Court has not

committed any error or perversity in ordaining the judgment

impugned, so findings passed by learned trial Court does not

require any interference.

Hence, the appeal lacks merit and is hereby

dismissed.

(G.R. MOOLCHANDANI)J. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS)J.

Sanjay/T.kush

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation