This appeal by the convicted accused is directed
against the judgment dated 11.10.2006 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh whereby it upheld the judgment of the
Trial Court convicting the appellant under Sections 302
read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
sentencing him to imprisonment for life. The accused was
also held guilty for committing an offence punishable
under Section 201, IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for
five years.
Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant was
married to one Shivcharan. Shivcharan was the elder
brother of Chironji Jatav (PW1). Both of them lived in
the same compound but in separate huts. According to
Chironji Jatav, on 13.03.1995 at about 3.00am in the
where they were going. They replied that they were going
to defecate. The witness said that he then went back to
sleep. He woke up when the appellant - Roomabai returned
home. On noticing her alone, Chironji Jatav (PW1) asked
her where Shivcharan was. She replied that Shivcharan
had not completed defecating and would come after some
time. The witness then again went back to sleep.
According to this witness, early in the morning, when
Shivcharan had still not returned, he and his father
enquired from the appellant where the deceased had gone.
She did not give any satisfactory answer. This created a
doubt in the mind of the family members of Shivcharan.
According to these witnesses, the appellant was having an
illicit relationship with one Ramesh of the same village.
The family members searched for Shivcharan but could not
find him. When they again enquired of the appellant to
tell the truth, she allegedly told that Ramesh had
killed the deceased and that the body had been thrown in
a well.
According to PW1, they searched for the body of
Shivcharan but could not find the same. Later, one Halke
(PW5) came and informed that the dead body of the
deceased was lying in the well of Patel which was about 1
km from the alleged place of occurrence.
Thereafter, PW1 lodged an FIR (Exhibit P1) which was
recorded at 1.30 pm on 13.03.1995 and the allegations in
the FIR are similar. PW1 had given a similar version in
his statement in Court. However, he did make an
admission that he and Shivcharan had been separated and
were living separately for more than six years. In
cross-examination, he also stated that his statement in
the examination in chief that his mother and wife woke up
when Rumbabai was leaving the house was incorrect. This
means that other than Chironji Jatav, nobody had seen
Rumabai leaving along with Shivcharan.
In the cross-examination, the witness also stated
that one day prior to the incident, Shivcharan
(deceased), Rumabai (accused) and Ramesh (co-accused)
were together in their house. He also admitted that
Rumabai used to work as a labourer. He went on to state
that he and his family members hated Rumabai.
Another important aspect of the statement of this
witness is that he admitted in cross-examination that the
police did not carry out any formality in the village.
The police inspector took his signature on the documents
after scribing the FIR and this witness did not read what
was written in the FIR. It is also stated that FIR was
not even read over to him. A suggestion had been put to
this witness that he falsely implicated Rumabai with a
view to grab the property of the deceased. We are not
going into this aspect of the matter.
There are some other witnesses including the mother
(PW2) whose statements are similar but the fact remains
that other than PW1 nobody saw Rumabai leaving the house
with Shivcharan. The other witnesses are important only
with respect to the alleged confession of Rumabai wherein
she stated that Ramesh had killed Shivcharan and thrown
the body into the well.
On the basis of this evidence, the Trial Court
convicted both Rumabai and Ramesh for the offences of
murder under Section 302 read with 120B, IPC and for
destruction of evidence under Section 201, IPC. Both the
accused filed appeals before the High Court.
The High Court acquitted Ramesh holding that there
were no evidence against him. But, mainly relying on the
theory of last seen and also on the so-called confession
upheld the conviction of the appellant. The High Court
also disbelieved the recovery allegedly made from Ramesh
but believed the recovery made from Rumabai. The
recoveries were an axe which allegedly had blood stains
on it and shoes. These recoveries were allegedly made
from the house of Rumabai and proved by the police
officer (PW9) who arrested her.
There are no eye-witnesses to the case and the case
is based solely on circumstantial evidence. The law with
regard to circumstantial evidence is well settled that
all the circumstances should be linked together in such a
manner that they form an unbroken chain which leads to
only one unerring conclusion, that is, the guilt of the
accused. If there is any chance of the offence being
committed by any other person then the benefit has to be
given to the accused.
We shall now discuss the circumstances:
(i) Motive:- It is alleged that the motive was the so-
called illicit relationship with Ramesh. The evidence of
PW1 destroys this circumstance. He himself admits that
just one day prior to the incident he had seen both the
accused and Shivcharan together in the house of
Shivcharan. This witness also states that he and his
family members objected to the accused for having an
illicit relationship with Ramesh. Therefore, obviously
Shivcharan would have been aware of this fact. It is
beyond comprehension that the husband will sit in the
house at the same time with his wife and her paramour.
This is not natural behaviour accepted from any human
being. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept this
circumstance to be proved.
(ii) Last seen:- As far as the circumstance of last seen
is concerned, from the evidence of PW1, it is proved that
PW1 had last seen the appellant going out with Shivcharan
and she returned alone. Here it would be important to
note that this is one of those unusual cases wherein the
accused had stepped into the witness box. In her
examination, she had not stated that she did not go out
with her husband. Therefore, we accept that she was last
seen by PW1 with the deceased - Shivcharan. But what is
the effect of this last seen theory. A husband and wife
being last seen with each other is nothing unnatural.
The husband and wife in rural areas going out together in
the early hours to defecate is not unusual. The wife
came back and the husband did not come back. The body of
the husband is discovered the next day at about 1.00 pm
or so. How can it be inferred that it was the lady alone
who had committed the murder specially when we have not
accepted the motive for the murder.
(iii) The third circumstance relied upon is the
recovery of a blood stained axe from the house at the
instance of the appellant – accused. The only witness is
the police official and there are no independent
witnesses. Furthermore, this recovery is obviously a
false recovery. We say so because even PW1 does not say
that when he saw Rumabai, she was carrying an axe. How
did this axe suddenly appear out of thin air into the
house.
(iv) Extra Judicial Confession : The Trial Court mainly
relied upon extra judicial confession. The nature of
extra judicial confession was that the co-accused -
Ramesh had killed the deceased. Since Ramesh has been
acquitted, therefore both the theory of illicit
relationship and the extra judicial confession have to
fall.
We, therefore, are left only with one circumstance of last
seen and we do not feel this circumstance alone is sufficient
to hold the accused guilty of the offences of which she has
been convicted.
In view of the above, we allow the appeal and set aside
the judgment of the High Court and the Trial Court. The
appellant is acquitted. Bail bonds stand discharged.
September 26, 2019.
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1989/2010
MAHILA ROOMABAI JATAV Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent(s)
Date : 26-09-2019 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
For Appellant(s) Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar, AOR
Mr. K. Vaijayanti, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sunil Fernandes, AAG
Mr. Zeeshan Diwan, Adv.
Ms. Nupur Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Priyanshaindra Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Adv.
Mr. Harsh Parashar, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The criminal appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
[Signed order is placed on the file]