Important Point
‘Reasonable doubt’ not mere possible doubt because everything relating to human affairs and depending upon moral evidence is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.

Judgment

Thomas, J.-Every father is the best protector of his own children-that is the order of human nature. But there had been freaks in the history of mankind when father became killer of his own child. This case tells the story of such a freak when Subhram-the 33 year old son of Bhagirath was butchered by cutting the throat. As Subhram was congenitally blind perhaps the only solace in the eerie episode seems to be that the victim would not have had any idea of the physiognomy of his murderers. Bhagirath and his two nephews (Hanuman and Kheta) were convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the three were sentenced to imprisonment for life. But the High Court, on appeal by the three accused, acquitted Bhagirath and confirmed the conviction and sentence of his two nephews. State of Haryana has filed this appeal by special leave against the acquittal of Bhagirath.

2. Backdrop of the prosecution story is the following:

Bhagirath and his wife Jamna have a son Subhram and a daughter (Naraini). Subhram though was born blind, was healthy and active and remained a bachelor. Naraini was given in marriage to a pedagogue in Rajasthan (PW 8 - Ram Sarup) and they were living separately at vil­lage Rawana. Bhagirath and his brother Kanharam together had 32 acres of ancestral property. The other two accused (Hanuman and Kheta) are the sons of Kanharam. In a family arrangement the share of Subhram in the aforesaid 32 acres had been settled as 1/6th. Bhagirath and his wife Jamna became estranged with each other long back, and they were living separately. Subhram was residing with his mother Jamna ever-since the separation and Bhagirath was residing in the house along with his nephews Hanuman and Kheta.

3. Disputes arose between Subhram on the one side and Bhagirath and his two nephews on the other side regarding enjoyment of the land, perhaps the accused would have thought that Subhram, being blind, might not get married and so on his death the properties would revert back to the family. But at the age of thirty three Subhram became desir­ous of married life and negotiations were on the move for finding out a suitable match for him. A couple of months prior to his murder Subhram executed a mortgage of his share of the properties to PW 10 Prabhati for a sum of Rupees twenty two thousand. When Prabhati tried to cultivate the mortgaged land it was resisted and that led to initia­tion of proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the three accused as well as against Subhram and Prabhati. In the meanwhile, Subhram filed a Civil Suit for partition of his share in the properties by metes and bounds. Thus, the situation became tense and the acrimony reached its zenith.

4. The murder took place, according to the prosecution, at about 12.30 noon on 8th August, 1987. Prosecution version is thus:

5. Deceased Subhram set out to his sister’s house. He proceeded to the bus stop but he missed the bus as the stage carriage had already moved off by the time he reached the bus stop. He was told that the next bus would be at 2.30 p.m. So he went to a nearby house for whiling away the time in between. The lady of the house (Harbai-PW 4) was an old woman. She and Subhram had a chat together for some time and then she withdrew to the kitchen and thereaftear Subhram slumped on a cot on the verandah of that house. He might or might not have gone to siesta.

6. At about 12.30 noon his father Bhagirath along with Hanuman and Kheta reached there. Bhagirath held a grip on the legs of his son while Hanuman and Kheta whacked on his neck with Kulhari (heavy sharp weapon for cutting purposes). Hearing the sounds of death pangs of the victim, the two lady inmates of the house (PW 4 Harbai and her daughter-in-law PW 6 Hirli) rushed out of the culinary section. They were shell-shocked by the sight of the blind young man being slaughtered by the three assailants who took to their heels after accom