Early Times Report
JAMMU, Nov 20: A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Rajesh Sekhri upheld the life-impriosnment of Mohd Munshi ASI in police department who murder his wife Mst. Mousma Bibi for extramarital affair with his sister-in-law (sister of the deceased).
According to the police On 13.05.2002, Police Station, Vijaypur came to know from reliable sources that one Mst. Mousma Bibi has died early morning, under suspicious circumstances at Raya Phallan. Police Agency swung into action; however deceased had already been buried by the time it reached the spot. An information was flashed to the Senior Police Officers by the Police Station. On 20.05.2002, District Magistrate, Jammu passed an order for exhumation of the dead body and on 23.05.2002, dead body was exhumed from the grave. Autopsy on the dead body came to be conducted by a board of doctors and a bullet was found embedded in the skull of the deceased with multiple fractures. As a result, on 23.05.2002, proceedings, in terms of Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ["Cr.P.C."] were commenced and on receipt of the post-mortem report on 25.05.2002, the aforesaid proceedings were converted to Section 302 RPC. Appellant, who was posted as ASI in Police Station, Janipur, came to be arrested and interrogated.
The appellant, during investigation projected a story that his wife, the deceased, went to the roof top to collect clothes, fell down and died. However, the story projected by the appellant was found untrue and it surfaced that accused had extramarital affair with his sister-in-law (sister of the deceased).
It further came to the light that on 11.05.2002, appellant along with Constable Gulzar went to Bani for investigation of some case. He returned on 12.05.2002 and went to his house at Raya Phallan, leaving behind Constable Gulzar at Kathua. His sister-in-law was also present in his house at Raya Phallan. Since deceased was opposed to the illegitimate relations of her husband with her sister, an altercation took place between the couple and the appellant fired from his service revolver and shot his wife dead. Thereafter, he went to Police Station, Janipur, where he was posted, and deposited his service revolver and nine bullets issued in his name along with one bullet, in place of the bullet, which was fired by him to kill his wife. During sustained interrogation, the appellant made a disclosure that during an encounter in the year 2001 in Bari Brahmna, he had retained a bullet which he deposited in Police Station, Janipur, in place of the bullet, fired by him to kill his wife.
DB after hearing Sr. Adv Sunil Sethi with Advocate Waheed Choudhary for the appellant whereas AAG Amit Gupta for the UT, observed that having regard to the aforesaid discussion, we have come to an irresistible conclusion that the nature of injuries and homicidal death of the deceased caused by the mutilated bullet, which was found embedded in the skull of the deceased was fired from the service revolver of the appellant, which remained in his possession till 13.05.2002 upto 7.30 pm. Since appellant has failed to explain his absence from duty during the night of occurrence i.e. 12.05.2002 and he projected a false story during investigation and in his statement under section 342 CrPC that his wife died due to fall from the rooftop, which he failed to prove, coupled with his conduct of failing to report the matter to the police on seeing the dead body of his wife with a circular hole on the right parietal region as also failure on his part to explain the incriminating circumstance regarding the recovery of bullet from the skull of the deceased, it leads to the only conclusion that it was the appellant who fired from his service revolver and killed his wife. The prosecution has succeeded to establish all the circumstances by reliable and trustworthy evidence and the circumstances so proved are conclusive in nature. We do not find any gap left in the chain of evidence adduced by the prosecution and the proved circumstances are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant and totally incompatible with his innocence or the guilt of any other person. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence propounded by learned trial court and we have not been persuaded to take a view different from the one taken by trial court. |
