Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
4th May 1962.
S.K. DAS, J.L. KAPUR, A.K. SARKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.
Raghav Prapanna Tripathi and others, Appellants
Versus
State of U.P., Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 1962.
Advocate appeared
M/s. Jai Gopal Sethi and A. N. Mulla, Senior Advocates, (M/s. J. P. Goyal, C. L. Sareen and R. L. Kohli, Advocates with them), for Appellants; M/s. G. C. Mathur and C. P. Lal, Advocates, for Respondent.
The Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction of Raghav Prapanna Tripathi for the murder of his wife Kamla and their son Madhusudhan, and the conviction of his accomplices Mohan Singh and Udham Singh for helping him dispose of the bodies. The Court found that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, including the strained relationship between Raghav and Kamla, the motive to avoid giving money and land to Kamla, the sudden departure of Raghav and his accomplices from the village, the disappearance of Kamla and Madhusudhan, and the absence of any search for them, was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court also found that the appellants had absconded after the alleged murder, which further strengthened the case against them. However, the Court acquitted Ramanuj Das and Jai Devi of the charge of causing the disappearance of evidence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, as there was no direct evidence of their involvement in the removal of the dead bodies or in providing false information about the crime.
Fact of the Case:
Raghav Prapanna Tripathi, a law graduate, was married to Kamla and had a son named Madhusudhan. However, their relationship was strained, and Kamla had to go to her parents' house for about two years. She was brought back by Ramanuj Das, a Mahant of a religious institution, on the promise that Raghav would transfer 90 bighas of land and Rs. 10,000 to her. On April 5, 1961, three gunshots were heard from the house of Ramanuj Das, and Kamla and Madhusudhan were never seen alive again. Raghav left the village that night with Mohan Singh and Udham Singh in his jeep. A blood-stained shirt belonging to Raghav was recovered from a laundry, and bloodstains were found in the house of Ramanuj Das. Raghav surrendered to the police on April 20, 1961, and claimed that Kamla had become "traceless" along with her son. The police were unable to find the dead bodies of Kamla and Madhusudhan or the jeep in which Raghav had left the village.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court found that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of Raghav Prapanna Tripathi, Mohan Singh, and Udham Singh beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court noted the strained relationship between Raghav and Kamla, the motive to avoid giving money and land to Kamla, the sudden departure of Raghav and his accomplices from the village, the disappearance of Kamla and Madhusudhan, and the absence of any search for them. The Court also found that the appellants had absconded after the alleged murder, which further strengthened the case against them. However, the Court acquitted Ramanuj Das and Jai Devi of the charge of causing the disappearance of evidence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, as there was no direct evidence of their involvement in the removal of the dead bodies or in providing false information about the crime.
Issues: 1. Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt? 2. Whether the appellants were guilty of causing the disappearance of evidence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, including the strained relationship between Raghav and Kamla, the motive to avoid giving money and land to Kamla, the sudden departure of Raghav and his accomplices from the village, the disappearance of Kamla and Madhusudhan, and the absence of any search for them, was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. The Court held that the appellants were not guilty of causing the disappearance of evidence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, as there was no direct evidence of their involvement in the removal of the dead bodies or in providing false information about the crime.
Final Decision: The appeal of Raghav Prapanna Tripathi, Mohan Singh, and Udham Singh was allowed by majority, and that of Ramanuj Das and Jai Devi for the offense under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code was allowed unanimously. The appeal of Ramanuj Das for the offense under Section 176 of the Indian Penal Code was allowed by majority.
Judgment:
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.: (majority view - Das, Sarkar and Raghubar Dayal, JJ.) Raghav Prapanna Tripathi, hereinafter called Raghav, Ramanuj Das, Jai Devi, Mohan and Udham Singh, appeal by special leave against the order of the High Court of Allahabad, dismissing their appeal against their conviction by the Sessions Judge, Etawah. Raghav was convicted and sentenced to death under S. 302 I. P. C. He and the other appellants were. also convicted of the offence under S. 201 I. P. C. Ramanuj Das was convicted of the offence under S. 176 1. P. C. also.
2.The prosecution case, in brief, is that Raghav shot dead his first wife, Kamla, and their son Madhusudhan, aged about 4 years, at about sunset on April 5, 1961, at their house in village Hamirpur Roora, District Etawah. The motive for this conduct is said to be Raghav s not caring for Kamla and ill-treating her after his marrying one Bimla in 1954. Kamla had to go to her father s place and stay there for about two years on account of the alleged in treatment she got at her husband s hands. She was, however, brought back by Ramanuj Das, in 1960. He assured her father that she would be well looked after and that he would transfer 90 bighas of land to her and also pay her Rs. l0,000.
3. It is also alleged that earlier in the day on April 5, 1961, Ramanuj Das had ultimately promised to Lakhan Prasad that he would execute the necessary transfer deed on Monday following and that Raghav left the place during their conversation in this regard. It is alleged that he did so as he resented the idea of so much property and cash, which would have ultimately benefited him, being made over to Kamla. This resentment is said to have prompted Raghav to murder his wife and son that evening.
4. We may now mention facts to show the connection of Ramanuj Das and other accused with Raghav which is said to have led them to be parties to the disappearance of the evidence about the murders in order to protect Raghav from legal punishment and thereby to commit the offence under S. 201 I.P.C. Lachman Das was the Mahant of the temple in village Hamirpur Roora. Narayan Das father of Raghav, and Ramanuj Das, were his disciples. On Lachman Das death, Ramanuj Das succeeded him as Mahant, though Narayan Das was the senior disciple, as Narayan Das had taken to secular life. Ramanuj Das, Raghav, Jai Devi, mother of Raghav, Raghav s wife Kamla, and Madhusudhan, all lived as a joint Hindu family in the house in which there was the temple. Mohan Singh was a servant of Ramanuj Das. Udam Singh was also alleged to be a servant of Ramanuj Das.
5. Raghav mostly lived at Lucknow with Bimla and his sisters who were studying there. He is a law graduate. He possessed a jeep car whose registration number was U.S.J 3807.
6. No information was conveyed by any one to the Police about the murders for about two days. Khushali, Chaukidar, lodged a report at 9-20 a.m. on April 7, 1961, at police station Airwa Katra, District Etawah. The Station Officer was not present at the police station. This report may be usefully quoted here:
"Day before yesterday in the night Raghav of my village, who is a son of Narain Das, has murdered his wedded wife and son by firing at them with the gun of Mahant Ramanuj Das. He has gone somewhere with the two dead bodies in a car. There is a rumour about it in the whole of the village. Having heard of it. I went to the Mahant who is also the Pradhan of my village. I aksed him to give me something in writing so that I should go to the Police Station and make a report. The Mahant then asked me to wait and to go only after Thakur Dalganjan Singh had come. I did not listen to him although he kept on for bidding. I have come to make a report."
Sub-Inspector Brij Raj Singh Tomer, Station Officer, Airwa Katra, received the copy of the first information report at 11 a.m.., and immediately proceeded to the spot and reached there at 2 p m, He inspected the house of Ramanuj Das and prepared the site plan. He suspected bl
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
