Mahila Rooma Bai Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Home ...

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No(s). 1989/2010

MAHILA ROOMABAI JATAV Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

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 Signature Not Verified morning, this witness saw the appellant going outside the Digitally signed by MEENAKSHI KOHLI Date: 2019.10.05 11:16:18 IST Reason: house along with her husband Shivcharan. He asked them

1 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

2 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

3 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.

4 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.

5

(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

6 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.

…....................J. [DEEPAK GUPTA]

…....................J. [ANIRUDDHA BOSE]

NEW DELHI;

September 26, 2019.

7

ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.13 SECTION II-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

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.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE

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.

(MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (RENU KAPOOR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER [Signed order is placed on the file]

8