REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1063  OF 2001

Raghavendra Sharma …Appellant

Versus

State of M.P. …Respondents

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgement of the Madhya Pradesh

High Court, Jabalpur upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence

punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the

‘IPC’)  as  was  recorded  by  learned  Second  Additional  Sessions  Judge,

Chhindwara  in Sessions Trial No. 136 of 1986.  Appellant alongwith his

father Bhuvneshwar Dayal Sharma faced trial for commission of offences

punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and 201 IPC.  Father of

1

the  appellant  was  acquitted  of  both  the  charges,  while  appellant  was

acquitted of charges under Section 201.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Maya (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) was the wife of the

appellant  and  they  were  married  about  11  months  prior  to  the  date  of

incident. It is further an admitted position that the deceased was a teacher

posted  at  Parasia  whereas  appellant  was  also  a  teacher  posted  at  village

Mungwani and he used to visit his wife at village Parasia. It is further not in

dispute that Narendra Kumar Sharma (P.W.2) and Dipal alias Pappu (P.W.

11) are brothers of deceased whereas Sushila Bai (P.W.8) and Rajkumari

(P.W. 10) are sisters of the deceased.  It  is  also an admitted position that

appellant along with the deceased had gone to his father-in-law’s place on

8.5.1886. They had gone to Vidisha along with Rajkumari (P.W.10) and her

husband Radhakrishan and Dipak. They stayed there for about ten days and

thereafter  on  19.5.1888  appellant  along  with  the  deceased  and  Dipak

(P.W.11) returned to village Parasia and on the same day he went to village

Salkhani, declining the request to stay at village Parasia. There is no dispute

that the deceased was at advance stage of pregnancy and she died in the

2

night between 21-22 May, 1986 at her father-in-law’s at village Salkhani.

On receipt  of  the  information  about  the  death  of  Maya,  Mahesh  Prasad

(P.W. 1) who is the husband of the sister of the deceased along with Sushila

(P.W.8)  and  Narendra  Kumar  Sharma (P.W.2)  went  to  village  Salkhani.

Seeing dead body of Maya they perceived her death to be suspicious and

hence gave report to the Chourai Police Station. On receipt thereof, inquest

report  (Ex.  P/3)  was  prepared  in  presence  of  the  witnesses  and  vomited

material along with the earth were seized. Dr. Panchamlal (P.W. 5) who was

called by the appellant on 22.5.1986 declared her dead.

After the marriage of the deceased with the appellant on 2.6..1985,

deceased  came to  her  father-in-law’s  place  at  village  Salkhani  only  3-4

times and although appellant used -to go to meet his wife at village Parasia,

but was not happy with the articles given at the time of marriage and had

kept  the same at  the parents’ place of the deceased at Paresis.  Appellant

further used to demand Scooter and had suspicion about his wife's fidelity

and  believed  that  she  had  illicit  relationship  with  her  brother-in-law

Radhakishan i.e. husband of Rajkumari (P.W.10). Immediately prior to the

incident  appellant  and  deceased  had  gone  to  Radhakrishnan’s  House  at

Vidisha.  After  returning  from Vidisha  to  Parasia,  in  spite  of  the  request

made, appellant did not stay with his wife there and went along with the

3

deceased to his village Salkhani, although deceased was not inclined to go.

On 21.5.1986, the villagers heard the cries of the deceased. She was done to

death by the appellant and in order to conceal the crime, he projected that

she died of vomiting.

While preparing the inquest report it  was found that there were red

and blue spots on the face and chest of the deceased and thin blood coming

out from the nostrils and as such the death was found to be suspicious and

accordingly the dead body of Maya was sent for post-mortem examination.

The  Post  mortem was conducted  by a  team of doctors  consisting  of  Dr.

V.E.Chako (P.W.7) and Dr. K.D. Khan and they submitted the post-mortem

report  (Ex.P/12)  signed  by both  of  them. According  to  the  post-mortem

report and the evidence of Dr. Chako (P.W.7), Maya's death was "asphyxiat

as a result of suffocation".  

On  enquiry by  the  investigating  officer,  Dr.  Chako  opined  that

swelling between Pomum adeomi and the border of  the breast  was ante-

mortem in nature and could have been possible by pressing hard the chest

and smothering by an object like soft pillow. The investigating agency also

sent the earth containing vomited material for chemical examination to the

4

Forensic  Science  Laboratory.  But  in  its  report  the  Forensic  Science

Laboratory did not find any poison. However, on the seized under-garments

of the deceased and on the slides prepared from the vaginal fluid human

sperms were found to show that the deceased had sexual intercourse before

her death.

Trial court on appreciation of the evidence, on placing reliance on the

post mortem report and the evidence of Dr. Chako, PW7, found the death of

the deceased to be homicidal in nature. The trial court rejected the evidence

of  Dr.  S.D.  Vaidya,  DW3 who  had  opined  that  the  death  of  Maya  was

accidental  in  nature.   Trial  court  found  that  the  appellant  doubted  the

fidelity of his  wife and believed that  she had illicit  relationship with  her

brother in law and was not happy with the dowry articles given to him at the

time of marriage and as such had motive to commit the crime.  It was further

found that the deceased was in the company of the appellant in the night

when she died and it was he who alone had committed her murder.   

The High Court analysed the stand taken by the appellant and came to

hold that the conclusions of the trial court were justified.  Accordingly the

appeal as noted above has been dismissed.  

5

In  the  present  appeal  the  stand  taken  before  the  High  Court  with

reference to evidence of PW 3 was reiterated.

3. Learned  counsel  for  the  State  on  the  other  hand  supported  the

judgment of the High Court.

4. The evidence of PW 7 categorically ruled out the theory of accidental

death as was projected by the accused PW 7 had committed the postmortem

alongwith Dr. Kahare and stated that the cause of death was asphyxia as a

result of suffocation.  Dr. Chako in her evidence has stated that on 5.6.1986

she had received a query, Ex. P.13 from the investigating agency and had

given an answer.  The quaries and the answers are as follows:

"1.You  have  mentioned  in  P.M.  report  that  "swelling

between pomum-adami and border of the breast" please

clear that how that swelling can be caused.

2. You have also mentioned in P.M. report that "Nails of

fingers of both the hands are blue and terminal pulps of

the fingers of the right and found blueish purple colour

(Coppery) while in the left hand it is present over the tips

of fingers" please clarify that how it can be caused.

6

3.  The  case  of  death  according  to  P.M.  report

'Asphyxiated death due to suffocation" please how that

suffocation caused resulting into death".

4.  Please  clarify  that  the  mode  of  death  is  whether

homicidal, suicidal or accidental."

In answer thereto, Dr Chako had stated as follows:

1. The swelling on the said area in  ante-mortem in

nature and can be caused both by external heavy pressure

applied on the chest and the said region and smothering

by  an  object  like  soft  pillow  with  deeply  applied

pressure.

2. The blueish purple (Coppery) colour  on the said areas

are as a result of asphyxia.

3.  Cause  of  death  given  as  asphyxia  as  a  result  of

suffocation which can be attributed to the ante-mortem

Injury (swelling )mentioned in the P.M. Report.

4. Death is homicidal:"

5. PW 7 had found a dark read colour mucoid fluid on the trachea and

found violet bluish froth in the lungs.  No food particles were found in the

7

trachea, larynx and bronchitis.  Therefore the question of vomited material

blocking  the  air  passage  was  clearly  ruled  out.   DW  3  had  never  any

occasion to see the dead body and purportedly had looked at the postmortem

report. In that sense his evidence has evidentiary value.  Apart from that the

deceased was living with the appellant staying in the same room and that is

another factor which has been rightly taken note of by the trial court and the

High Court. We find no infirmity on the conclusions of the trial court or the

High Court to warrant interference.

6. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

……………………………………J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

……………………………………J. (C.K. THAKKER)

……………………………………J. (D.K. JAIN)

New Delhi:  November 7, 2008

8