Judgement

MUDHOLKAR, J. (On behalf of himself and A. K. Sarkar, CJI.): The Additional Sessions Judge, Kumaon, after convicting the appellant Sita Ram of an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code for the murder of his wife Sindura Rani, has sentenced him to death. The High Court of Allahabad affirmed his conviction but reduced the sentence to one of imprisonment for life.

2. The fact that Sindura Rani met with a homicidal death is not in dispute. What is, however, contended on behalf of the appellant is that there is no evidence on the basis of which his conviction could be based. Admittedly there are no eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The prosecution, case against him rests on the following material:

(1) motive; (2) opportunity; (3) subsequent conduct; (4) false explanation; and (5) confessional statements

3. There is ample evidence on record to show that the relations between the appellant and his wife were very much strained, that the two were living apart and that this was because the appellant suspected that his wife was a woman of loose character. This evidence consists of the testimony of some near relatives and also of several letters written by the appellant to his wife Sindura Rani, to his mother-in-law Inder Kuar (P. W. 2) and to his brother-in-law Tilak Raj (P. W. 1). The appellant had denied that the letters were in his hand-writing but it has been found by both the Courts below that they were in fact written by him. The finding of each of the two Courts below that the relations between the appellant and his wife were strained because the appellant not merely suspected the fidelity of his wife but also charged her with unchastity being one of fact cannot be lightly permitted to be questioned in an appeal by special leave. No ground has been made out by learned counsel which would justify out looking into the evidence for ourselves.

4. Similarly, on the question of opportunity, Sindura Rani who had gone to stay with her people had been asked by the appellant to return home on the pretext that one of their children was ill and accordingly she arrived at kashipur where the appellant lived only 5 or 6 days prior to the incident. Since her return she and the appellant were the only two adult persons living in the house of the appellant. The only other person living with them was their daughter about two years old.

5. When the Sub-Inspector of Police arrived on the morning of September 15, 1962, after receiving a report that the appellant s house was locked from outside and the cry of a child from inside could be heard, found the outer door of the house locked. After breaking it open he found a lantern burring by the side of the dead body of Sindura Rani. From these facts the Courts below were justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellant had an opportunity to commit the murder of his wife Sindura Rani. The appellant s defence that he had gone to Punjab along with one Pritam Singh on September 13, 1962 and could return from there on September 19, has not been accepted by the two Courts below in the absence of any material to substantiate it.

6. In addition to these there is the fact that the appellant could not be found till September 19, on which date he surrendered himself before the Court. It would be reasonable to infer form this that he was absconding till this date. The explanation which the appellant gave concerning his absence has been rightly rejected as false. In the circumstances there was adequate material before the Courts below upon which his conviction could be based.

7. In addition to this circumstantial evidence the prosecution placed reliance upon Ex. Ka 9. This is letter, dated September 14, 1962 addressed to the Sub-Inspector and bears the signature of the appellant in Urdu. It reads thus:

"I have myself committed the murder of my wife Smt. Sindura Rani. Nobody else perpetrated this crime. I would appear myself after 20 or 25 days and then will state everything. One day the law will extend