LexRAGHAVENDRA SHARMA versus STATE OF M.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2008] 15 S.C.R. 916 RAGHAVENDRA SHARMA v. STATE OF M.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 1063 of 2001) NOVEMBER 7, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860; s. 302 rlw s.34: Murder - Husband allegedly committed murder of his wife - Trial Court, on the basis of post-mortem report and evidence of doctor, found the accused guilty of committing murder of his wife and sentenced him accordingly - Affirmecf 0 by High Court - Correctness of - Held: Correct - Doctor conducted post-mortem opined that- cause of death was asphyxia as a result of suffocation - Since no food particles found in trachea, larynx and bronchitis, question. of vomited material blocking the air passaga clearly ruled out - Accused E was living along with deceased in the same room and doubted fidelity of his wife and was also not happy with the dowry and, therefore, had motive to commit the crime - Under the circumstances, trial Court rightly found that the accused had motive of committing the murder of his wife - Hence, no infirmity found in the impugned order warranting interference. F Appellant had been harassing his wife for more and more dowry and also doubting her fidelity. He allegedly committed her murder. Family members of the deceased lodged an F.l.R. The Police conducted the post-mortem G and, after investigating into the matter submitted the charge sheet against the accused husband for committing the murder of his wife. 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 H 916 RAGHAVENDRA SHARMA v. STATE OF M.P. 917 was not happy with the dowry articles given to him at the A time of marriage and as such had motive to commit the crime; 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 trial Court on the basis of post mortem report and evidence of PW7, one B •+ of the doctors who had conducted the post mortem, found the accused husband guilty of committing the murder of the deceased, his wife. On appeal, High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused. Hence the present appeal. c Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The evidence of PW 7, the doctor who had conducted the post mortem, categorically ruled out the theory of accidental death as was projected by the D accused. PW 7 had committed the postmortem along with another doctor and stated that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of suffocation. [Para 4] [921-C-D] 1.2. PW 7 had found a dark read colour mucoid fluid E on the trachea and found violet bluish froth in the lungs. No food particles were found in the 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 F had looked at the postmortem report. In that sense his evidence has t;!Videntiary 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. G No infirmity found on the conclusions of the trial Court or the High Court to warrant interference. [Para 5] [922- D-E] l' CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1063 of 2001. H 918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] .15 S.C.R. "- A From the final Judgment and Order dated 27 .2.200_1 of the i High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal. . No. 68 of 1989. · Dr. Madan Sharma, Bakas Kar Gupta, Asha Upadhyay, B R.D. Upadhyay and Rajeev Sharma for the Appellant. ,_. C.D. Singh, Sunny Chowdhary, Vairagya Vardha·ri Dubey, Aditya Singh, Upasana Nath and Vibha Datta Makhija for the -1.- Respondent. c The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by / DR. ARIJITPASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appe·a1 is ! to the judgeJJ!ent of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable D under Secti011~2 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') as was recorded by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Sessions Tri~I No. 136 of 1986. Appellant alongwith his father Bhuvneshwar Dayal Sharma faced trial for commission of offences punishable.under Section E 302 read with Section 34 and 201 IPC. Fathe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.