Back
1998(6) Supreme 139
Supreme Court of India
(From Himachal Pradesh High Court)
M.M. Punchhi, CJI and Sujata V. Manohar, J.
State of Himachal Pradesh -Appellant
versus
Shri Manohar Singh Thakur -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 507 of 1989
Decided on 28-7-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Avtar Singh Rawat, Advocate for T. Sridharan, Advocate.
For the Respondent : S.N. Mehta and Vinay Singh, Advocates.
Held : The High Court has also observed that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to establish that the accused had inflicted head injury to Kula Datt as a result of which he died. But the Sessions Court has set out the entire chain of circumstances leading to this inference alone. The evidence establishes that Kula Datt was last seen alive on the morning of 3rd of September, 1985 going to village Bagh in the company of the accused. The accused returned alone to the house of Mathru Devi within 3 hours at 10 a.m. on 3rd of September, 1985 and gave Mathru Devi an excuse for the absence of Kula Datt. The fact that Mathru Devi was searching for her husband on 3rd of September, 1985 is corroborated by the evidence of Durga Dass. He has deposed that the deceased was not seen by him in the village that day. The presence of the accused at the house of the deceased on 3rd September, 1985 is also corroborated by the evidence of Bimla Devi. The entire narration of events by Mathru Devi has not been shaken in cross examination. She is an injured witness. She has deposed that the key of the box which used to be with the deceased was produced by the accused. She has given detailed evidence as to now she came to sustain those injuries at the hands of the accused and how she was duped by the accused into going to Panchayat Ghar at night with valuables which were taken away by the accused. There was no reason why her evidence should have been discarded by the High Court. There is also no reason why Mathru Devi should have falsely implicated the accused. The High Court ought not to have disbelieved Mathru Devi on the ground that the events as narrated by Mathru Devi were not convincing because the accused could have killed the old couple in their own house. These are pure conjectures. It is true that some details of the evidence given by Mathru Devi are missing in her initial statement to the police. But her statement substantially contains the entire narration of events to which she has deposed in her evidence before the court. The Sessions Judge has rightly observed that the statement of Mathru Devi was recorded when she was in an injured and shocked condition and her mental faculties were not up to the mark. It is possible that she may have missed out some of the details. Thus the evidence of Mathru Devi clearly establishes the guilt of the accused under Section 307/394 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. (Para 17)
Held further : There is also sufficient circumstantial evidence against the accused to convict him under Section 302. The accused and the deceased were last seen together. The deceased gave a false explanation to Mathru Devi about the deceased having stayed back in the village; the key which used to remain on the person of the deceased was in the possession of the accused on the night of 3rd of September, 1985. The dead body of the deceased was found at bagh nulla-in the direction in which the accused and the deceased were observed as going. The death occurred on 3.9.1985. The injuries which were inflicted by the accused on the head of Mathru Devi on the night of 3.9.1985 are similar to the injuries which were found on the dead body of Kula Datt as per medical evidence. The axe of the accused was found as directed by the accused who stated that he had delivered the axe for sharpening on 5th of September, 1985. The currency notes of Rs. 2,000/- were also found on the person of the accused when he was arrested. (Para 18)
(ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302, 307/394 r/w 397-Conviction of respondent for murdering an old person and attempting to murder his wife for his greed-Sessions Judge imposing death penalty-Whether correct? (No, it requires modification).
Held : Looking to the totality of evidence the Sessions Judge rightly convicted the accused of all the charges. The observation of the Sessions Judge, however, that this was one of the rarest of rare crimes does not appear to be justified. Crimes such as murder are committed for gain and there is nothing exceptionally gruesome about the manner of committing this murder. A murder by its very nature is shocking. But that per se does not justify death penalty. (Para 19)
We, therefore, set aside the order of acquittal passed by the High Court and confirm the order of conviction by the Sessions Court. However, the death sentence imposed by the Sessions Court is set aside and is substituted by imprisonment for life. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Sections 307 and 394 read with Section 397 is restored. Sentences to run concurrently. The appeal is allowed accordingly. (Para 20)
Judgment
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.-The respondent-accused, Manohar Singh, was tried for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 394 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. By his judgment and order dated 7.4.1986, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Sections 302, 307 and 394 read with Sections 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge held that the crime committed by the accused was callous and brutal and was one of the rarest of rare cases where the accused had murdered one old person and attempted to murder another unsuspecting old and helpless person without slightest provocation and simply to gratify his greed. He, therefore, awarded the death penalty to the accused for offence under Section 302. For offences under Sections 307 and 394 read with Section 397, he passed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In appeal, the High Court has given the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him of all charges. Hence the present appeal is filed by the State.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is as follows :
There lived an old couple in Village Deola, Tehsil Suni District Shimla. The husband’s name was Kula Datt, since deceased. His wife’s name is Mathru Devi. The couple had a daughter, namely Pushpa Devi. She was married to one Khem Dass of village Auth about 15 or 20 years prior to the date of the crime. The accused, Manohar Singh, is the son of the sister of Khem Dass. He was thus a nephew by marriage of the daughter of the old couple. The accused used to visit Kula Datt and Mathru Devi.
3. On the evening of 2nd of September, 1985, he visited the house of the couple. In the morning at about 7 a.m. the following day, that is to say, on 3rd of September, 1985 the accused left the house in the company of Kula Datt on the pretext that he wanted to buy some gold from one Nika Ram of village Bagh and Kula Datt being an elderly man, could provide requisite guidance in the purchase of gold. At about 10 a.m. on the same day, the accused returned to the house of Kula Datt alone. When Mathru Devi, the wife of Kula Datt, enquired as to where her husband was, the accused told her that he had stayed behind in the village to talk to the villagers about the ensuing panchayat elections. Mathru Devi served a meal to the accused and the accused had a nap thereafter. As Kula Datt had not returned, when the accused got up, Mathru Devi took him to the village in search of her husband. They went to the house of one Durga Dass who was a member of the village panchayat, and a lady named Hukmu to enquire about the whereabouts of Kula Datt. These persons told Mathru Devi that her husband had not been seen by them. Thereafter, the accused left the village.
4. However, at about 10 p.m. on the night of 3rd of September, 1985, the accused gave a knock at the door of Mathru Devi. Mathru Devi enquired as to who was knocking at her door. On being told that it was the accused, she opened the door. The accused produced a key of the box in which the couple kept their cash and ornaments. This key was normally kept always with himself by Kula Datt. The accused told Mathru Devi that her husband and her daughter Pushpa had been held hostages by some dacoits at Panchayat Ghar and the dacoits were demanding cash and ornaments as ransom. He gave the key to Mathru Devi. Mathru Devi thereupon opened the box and took out cash and ornaments of silver and gold and put them in a bag of cloth. A pattoo of Pashmina, was also put in the bag by her as instructed by the accused. She then followed the accused to the Panchayat Ghar which is at a distance of about two furlongs from her house.
5. She found that her husband and daughter were not in the Panchayat Ghar. When the old lady asked the accused where they were, he replied that they might have gone to answer the call of nature. He asked the lady to go inside the room. As soon as she entered the room the accused hit her on the head wi
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
