http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 232  of  1999

PETITIONER: JAWAHAR  LAL & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       11/05/2001

BENCH: M.B. Shah & K.G. Balakrishnan

JUDGMENT:

BALAKRISHNAN,  J. L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

   The  first  appellant, Jawahar Lal, his parents and  two sisters  were  tried by the court of Sessions, Gwalior,  for the  offences punishable under Section 302, 120-B, 149  read with Section 34 IPC.  All the five persons were found guilty of the offences charged against them and they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.  While undergoing sentence of  imprisonment, the first appellant’s parents died and the remaining accused filed the present appeal challenging their conviction  and  sentence.   The   allegations  against  the appellants is that they caused the death of Narayanibai, the wife of the first appellant, Jawahar Lal.

   The  prosecution  case is that the five accused  persons hatched  a conspiracy to cause the death of Narayanibai  and they doused her in kerosene and set her ablaze in between 11 AM and 2 PM on 18.11.1980.  The first appellant, Jawahar Lal and his father Shreeram were having a cloth shop and all the accused persons were residing on the first floor of a double storey  building on rental basis.  The marriage between  the deceased,  Narayanibai  and the first appellant Jawahar  Lal took  place  in February, 1975 and they had three  children. During  the  relevant  time, the eldest daughter  Pinki  was about 5 years of age and the youngest son, Dhiraj was 1 year old.   The  first appellant, Jawahar Lal went to the  Police Station  and  gave  a statement to PW-8 at  about  3.00  PM, wherein he stated that his sister Madhu had come to his shop and  told  him  that his wife Narayanibai had  set  fire  to herself  after  closing  the door of the room and  that  his sister tried to open the door but she could not open it.  He stated  that  on hearing this, he came running to the  house and  pushed  the door open and found his wife’s  dead  body. PW-10,  Asstt.   Sub Inspector, recorded the information  of the incident at about 4.00 P.M.  and he reached the place of occurrence  and  held an inquest of the dead body.   In  the inquest  report itself, he mentioned that the dead body  was lying  on the floor and the mouth of the deceased was  found open  and  a piece of burnt cloth was visible in her  mouth. It was also noticed that the hair and torso part of the dead

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

body,  which  was touching the floor of the room,  were  not burnt.   The body was sent for post mortem and PW-4 and PW-9 conducted  the post mortem examination.  In the post  mortem report also, it was stated that the nose of the deceased was bleeding and her mouth was open, in which a bluish cloth was found  stuffed.  The outer portion of the cloth was burnt  a little  and  on  taking out the cloth from  the  mouth,  the tongue  was found to have been pressed inwardly.  The  cloth stuffed  in the mouth of the deceased had completely blocked her  trachea and the piece of cloth taken out from her mouth was found emitting the smell of kerosene.  The Doctor opined that  the victim Narayanibai had died of asphyxia.  He  also was of the view that the death was homicidal in nature.

   The  appellants  set  up the plea of alibi.   The  first appellant  stated  that  he was at the  cloth-shop  and  his sister,  Madhu had come there and told him that his wife had committed suicide.  The appellants 2 and 3 also denied their complicity  in the crime.  The learned Sessions Judge  found that  these appellants, along with their parents, must  have caused  the death of the deceased by forcibly setting her on fire  after  having  poured kerosene on  her.   The  learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the deceased Narayanibai was  aged  27 years at the time of the incident and all  the appellants  must have been instrumental in causing the death of the deceased.

   From the post-mortem report coupled with other evidence, it is clear that the death of Narayanibai must be homicidal. The  presence  of  cloth found stuffed in the mouth  of  the deceased  is a clear indication that the assailant must have put  this  cloth  in the mouth of the deceased so  that  the victim  may  not cry or make a noise.  From the evidence  of PW-9, Dr.  D.S.  Badkur, it is clear that the piece of cloth was  forcibly  thrust in the mouth of the deceased  and  the entire  respiratory valve was blocked and even the tongue of the deceased was found pressed inwardly.

   The  counsel for the appellants strenuously urged before us  that  the case of the prosecution that the mouth of  the deceased   was  stuffed  with  a   piece  of  cloth  is  not satisfactorily  proved for two reasons, namely, (I) that the cloth  was  not  produced as an exhibit;  and that  (2)  the evidence  of PW-1 and PW-3 shows that there was no cloth  in the  mouth of the deceased.  PW-1 was a servant in the house of  the appellants.  He stated that he did not see any cloth found  stuffed  in  the  mouth  of  the  deceased.   In  his cross-examination,  PW-3,  an inquest witness, also  deposed that the mouth of the deceased was closed but two teeth were visible and no cloth was coming out of the mouth.

   But  there  is  overwhelming evidence to show  that  the cloth  was  found  stuffed  in the mouth  of  the  deceased. Moreover,  PW-9  ,  the Doctor deposed that this  cloth  was taken out of the mouth of the deceased and sent for chemical examination  and  Ex.  P-17 relates to that piece of  cloth. The  post mortem report and the inquest report coupled  with the evidence of PW-9, clearly show that the cloth was thrust in the mouth of the decesaed.

   The  above facts alone would rule out any possibility of the  suicide by the deceased.  The other circumstances  also would  indicate  that this was not a case of  suicide.   The door  of the room where the deceased died was found open and the  nature of injuries sustained by the deceased also would

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

indicate  that  this was not a case of suicide.   The  burns were  not  found all over the body.  The torso part  of  the body  which  touched  the floor of the room  was  not  found burnt.  The hair of the victim also was found not burnt.

   The  conduct of the first appellant also shows that this is  a case of murder.  PW-8 deposed that on the date of  the incident,  at  about 3.30 PM, the appellant came to him  and told  that his wife had sustained burn injuries.  When  PW-8 asked  him  how she sustained the burn injuries,  the  first appellant  told him that she had died also.  PW-8 is related to  the  deceased Narayanibai as she was the sister  of  the mother-in-law  of PW-8.  PW-8 went to the house of the first appellant and gave him Rs.200/- to purchase material for the funeral  of the deceased.  He advised the first appellant to give a statement before the Police before performance of the funeral.  It is pertinent to note that the appellant did not tell  PW-8 that his wife had committed suicide.  His conduct during the relevant time is totally suspicious.

   Apart  from this, there is evidence of PW-2, Narain  Das Agarwal,  the brother of the deceased and also the  evidence of  PW-6,  the sister of the deceased.  Both  the  witnesses have  deposed  in  detail  that after the  marriage  of  the deceased  with  the first appellant, the deceased was  being severely harassed by the first appellant and his parents for not having brought sufficient dowry from her father’s house. These  witnesses  deposed that the deceased Narayanibai  was not being allowed to attend any family function in the house of  her brother or sister and that she was not even  allowed to  write  letters.   PW-6  deposed that  the  deceased  was staying  in a humiliating condition under the terror of  her husband  and  she  apprehended danger at  any  moment.   The evidence of PW-2 and PW-6 would clearly establish the motive for the murder.

   The  appellants  2  and 3 are the sisters of  the  first appellant.   They were already given in marriage and  during the  relevant  time  they  were in the house  of  the  first appellant.   There is no evidence that there was any sort of hostility  between these two sisters on the one side and the deceased  on  the other.  There is no direct evidence as  to how  the incident occurred.  The circumstantial evidence  by itself  will not show the nature and extent of participation of  these  two appellants.  Learned Sessions  Judge  assumed that  it  was not possible for a single individual to  cause the  death  of the deceased.  But in the instant  case,  the fact  is  that the deceased was made completely helpless  by thrusting  a  cloth  in her mouth.  The piece of  cloth  was already  soaked  in kerosene and it was so  forcibly  thrust that  it reached the deep end of the mouth of the  deceased. Therefore, it is quite possible that after this assault, the victim  must have been physically rendered helpless so  that there could be no resistance from her side.  In that view of the  matter, it is quite possible that the murder could have been  committed  by  a  single person.   Some  of  the  burn injuries  were  found to be post mortem.  This is proved  by the  evidence  of  Doctor.   In  a  case  of  circumstantial evidence,  the  chain  of  circumstances  should  be  firmly established  and should have a tendency to unerringly  point the guilt of the accused.  We are of the view that the guilt of  the  appellants  2  and  3, the  sisters  of  the  first appellant  is  not satisfactorily established There is  also not  much  of  evidence to prove their  motive  against  the deceased.  Therefore, we are of the view that appellants 2 &

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

3  are entitled to get the benefit of doubt.  In the result, we  hold that the case against the first appellant is proved beyond  reasonable  doubt and we confirm his conviction  and sentence  under  Section 302 IPC.  His conviction  on  other counts  does not arise.  As the charge of conspiracy is  not conclusively  proved  against appellants 2 and 3,  they  are acquitted  of  the  charges  under  Section  302  read  with Sections  120-  B(I), 149 and 34 of IPC.  Their  bail  bonds shall be cancelled.

   The appeal would stand partly allowed.