HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 913/2011
Mukh Ram S/o Shri Surja Ram by caste Jat, resident of village
Bandhnau Dikhnada, Tehsil Sardarshahar, district Churu.
(Presently lodged in Central Jail Bikaner)
State of Rajasthan.
For Appellant(s) : Mr.Nishant Bora
For Respondent(s) : Mr.C.S.Ojha, PP
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
1. The process of criminal law was set into motion when
Lichhman Ram, PW-1 father of the deceased reached Police
Station Sardarshahar and lodged a written report Ex.P-1 at 1.00
PM on 27.08.2009 informing that his daughter was married with
the appellant. After marriage whenever she came to her parental
house she would inform that she was being troubled by her
husband and his parents for dowry. Today morning one Manphool
Ram son of Phusaram informed him over the telephone that
daughter’s husband and her in-laws had murdered his daughter.
In the company of 6-7 villagers he reached the residence of his
daughter. He saw her dead body in the courtyard. The villagers
(2 of 5) [CRLA-913/2011]
informed him that his daughter had been murdered by her in-
2. Based on the written information FIR Ex.P-2 for offences
punishable under Section 498A/302 IPC was registered.
3. Investigation was taken over by Suresh Chandra PW-11,
SHO of the Police Station. He reached the scene of the crime.
Dead body was seized and was sent for post mortem. Dr.Rajesh
Kumar Gupta PW-8 conducted the post mortem and authored the
report Ex.P-10 recording therein that there was a contusion below
the right eye; a contusion on the pinna of the right ear; a
contusion on the right side of the forehead; and ligature marks
around the neck. These were the external injuries. Internal
examination revealed fracture of the thyroid cartilage. Cause of
death was opined to be asphyxia due to strangulation.
4. Statements of PW-2 to PW-7 who had accompanied PW-1 to
the residence of the deceased were recorded by the investigating
officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statements of one Birbal and
Ramlal were also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
5. The appellant and his parents were arrested. The appellant
got recovered a Gamchha which the prosecution claims was the
6. FSL report Ex.P-17 was obtained, as per which the blood of
group ‘B’ was detected. The lehanga worn by the deceased also
was detected with blood of the same group.
7. The appellant and his parents were sent for trial for offences
punishable under Section 498A and 302 IPC.
8. Evidence led by the prosecution failed to establish presence
of appellant’s parents in the house when appellant’s wife suffered
a homicidal death. The testimony of PW1 to PW7 established
(3 of 5) [CRLA-913/2011]
appellant’s presence in the house. The testimony of PW1 to the
effect that the appellant demanded ₹20,000/- two times from him
to purchase a tractor was opined to be not a dowry demand.
9. Vide impugned decision dated 11.10.2011 the appellant has
been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
His parents have been acquitted. Sentence imposed is to undergo
imprisonment for life. The appellant and his parents have been
acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC.
10. Conviction is sustained on proof of the appellant being
present in the house when his wife died and he rendering no
explanation as to how his wife died. Extra-judicial confession
deposed to through the mouth of PW1, PW4 and PW5. Recovery of
Gamchha pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the
appellant on which blood of the same group as that of the
deceased was detected.
11. We have perused the testimony of PW1, PW4 and PW5 and
find that as recorded in the written report Ex.P-1 when PW-1 went
to the house of his daughter accompanied by 6-7 person, two of
whom were PW4 and PW5, the appellant was in the house. The
dead body of his wife was lying in the courtyard. The question as
to how his wife died the appellant confessed to have strangulated
her with a Gamchha.
12. Unfortunately for the appellant this part of the testimony of
the witnesses has not been challenged through cross-examination.
13. On the issue of appellant’s presence in the house and he
rendering no satisfactory explanation as to how his wife died,
counsel urges that from the testimony of the investigating officer
PW-11 it emerges that Ramlal and Birbal were also present in the
house when the deceased died.
(4 of 5) [CRLA-913/2011]
14. Indeed, PW11, the investigating officer has admitted during
cross-examination that investigation conducted by him revealed
that Ramlal and Birbal were also present in the house.
15. The charge-sheet filed shows that both of them were cited as
witnesses but unfortunately, were dropped by the prosecution.
16. The statement of the two persons under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
is to the effect that when the appellant saw his wife talking with
Birbal he got infuriated and in anger strangulated his wife.
17. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the onus of a
husband to explain the death of his wife upon proof that the
husband was present in the house is only when it is proved that
the husband alone was in the house. Counsel states that as per
the prosecution not only the husband but even Birbal and Ramlal
were present in the house.
18. Now, it assumes importance to note that lapse by the
prosecution to examine Birbal and Ramlal is being used by the
appellant in the appeal, over-looking the fact that the death being
homicidal and when the death took place the appellant, Ramlal
and Birbal were present, if either Ramlal or Birbal have assaulted
appellant’s wife his conduct would have been to save his wife and
not keep quiet.
19. It is settled law that if there is cogent evidence otherwise
sustained the verdict of guilt lapses by the prosecution have to be
20. Notwithstanding the case of the prosecution being that apart
from the appellant, Ramlal and Birbal were present in the house
when appellant’s wife was strangulated and cited the two as
witnesses, the two not being examined as witnesses, does not
(5 of 5) [CRLA-913/2011]
relieve the appellant with the obligation to explain the
circumstances under which the wife was strangulated.
21. The post mortem report of the deceased and the testimony
of Dr.Rajesh Kumar Gupta is to the effect that deceased was in
menstruation when she was murdered. Therefrom counsel argues
that the presence of the blood of the deceased on the Gamchha
can be attributed to she being in menstruation.
22. Even if we were to remove the incriminating evidence of
Gamchha got recovered by the appellant being detected with a
human blood of the same group as that of his wife, we have two
stellar evidence to incriminate the appellant. The first is the extra-
judicial confession made by the appellant who obviously would be
questioned by his father-in-law and other people accompanying
him to explain how his wife died. Being homicidal death and he
being present in the house the appellant had no option but to
confess his crime.
23. The second piece of evidence is the admitted presence of the
appellant in the house albeit alongwith Birbal and Ramlal but the
appellant does not claim that either of the two together murdered
his wife. Had the two murdered appellant’s wife in the presence of
the appellant his conduct would have been to try and save his
24. We find no merit in the appeal which is dismissed. Impugned
judgment and sentence are affirmed.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)