Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY AND D.G. PALEKAR, JJ.
Ramgopal, Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1971, D/- 29-11-1971.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. S. R. Chari, Sr. Advocate (Mr. B. R. G. K. Achar, Advocates, with him), for Appellant; M/s. H. R. Khanna and B. D. Sharma, Advocates, for Respondent.
Murder by poisoning - Sale deed - Deceased who was about years old at time of his death was living in a house in Nagpur He had a wife who bore him four children - After selling his land at a place in he purchased a plot near Talkies in locality of Nagpur for Rupees about years before offence - He purchased it in name of his wife and after erecting a temporary shed thereon leased it out to a tenant by name After some time tenant was evicted and then deceased installed a fodder cutting machine in that shed - Appellant deals in fodder and thus developed contacts with deceased He was living at that time near Panchpaoli Police Station for about a year before offence - He became friendly with deceased - Accused is a family man with a wife one daughter and three sons - Appellant frequently visited house of deceased - Three questions arise in such cases namely did deceased die of poison in question had accused poison in question in his possession And had accused an opportunity to administer poison in question to deceased? - Whether he received sale price of plot - Whether there is substance in evidence that amount of sale price had not been received - Whether appellant would tell her that he had not paid price - Whether there is any truth in allegation that sale price had not bee received by - Whether in case of other compounds there would be vomitting or not - Whether what was imbibed was sufficient to cause death - Whether solution of Kerosene and compound which he found was negligible or lethal - Held, High Court came to conclusion that had a grievance that he had not been paid – Court do not see how if he had already been paid he could have a grievance - Such a grievance being absolutely unfounded cannot be regarded asprobably existing - Court had advised and his wife to take immediate action for recovery - But not even so much as a notice of demand was sent by m though died months later - On other hand Court have evidence to show that apart from making any claim against appellant was making a demand of When inquest panchnama was held a registered letter in an envelope was found in left side pocket of shirt of deceased – Court shall first deal with motive part of accused - On this part of case there is evidence of sale deed is at Ext 5 - Consideration of was admittedly not paid before Sub-Registrar at time of registration - But sale deed specifically mentions that amount had been received at time of execution of deed by vendor - Contrary to this recital in sale deed case is put forward that amount had not been received at all - It is alleged by in her evidence that on night of sale deed when she asked her husband whether he received sale price of plot her husband told her that accused promised to pay one and half month later and he was going to get that money from his father-in-law - Spoke about this to who was her neighbour and relation - Expressed surprise that they should have transferred plot without receiving consideration amount - He therefore advised deceased to take immediate action for recovery of price no action was however taken – Court are merely told that was demanding amount from time to time but he was being put off on one pretext or other - Some sort of evidence was produced to show that appellant was not really so financially sound as to collect and pay them - Court do not think that in a case of murder Court can safely accept this sort of evidence - Therefore story too namely that something was given in a cup cannot be believed - When Police came later believed - When police came later there is no evidence that any cup was attached - Assertion on behalf of prosecution is that offending cup might have been removed by appellant or other members of family and possibly concealed or destroyed - This is however merely a conjecture - Fact is that story of administration of poison in a cup of tea cannot be regarded as proved - Person who takes that compound will or will not get that smell - Appeal allowed
Judgment
PALEKAR, J.:- The appellant Ram Gopal is sentenced to death for the murder of one Zingrooji Sitaram by poisoning. This sentence was passed by the learned Sessions Judge Nagpur and was confirmed by the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench). The appellant has come to this Court by special leave.
2. The deceased Zingrooji Sitaram who was about 60 years old at the time of his death was living in a house in the Telipura locality, Itwari Nagpur He had a wife named Tulsabai who bore him four children. After selling his land at Dharampuri, a place in Ramtek Tehsil, he purchased a plot near Kamal Talkies in Kadbi Bazar locality of Nagpur, for Rupees 6,750/- about 9 years before the offence. He purchased it in the name of his wife Tulsabai and after erecting a temporary shed thereon, leased it out to a tenant by name Abhiman Mahar After some time, the tenant was evicted and then the deceased installed a fodder cutting machine in that shed.
3. Appellant Ram Gopal deals in fodder and thus developed contacts with the deceased He was living at that time near the Panchpaoli Police Station for about a year before the offence. He became friendly with the deceased. The accused is a family man with a wife one daughter and three sons. The appellant frequently visited the house of the deceased.
4. The deceased Zingrooji wanted cash for the education of his sons and to finance his business. He put up the plot, purchased by him, for sale and the appellant offered to purchase it for Rupees 10,000/- On December 5, 1967 Tulsabai, at the instance of the deceased, executed a registered sale deed for Rupees 10,000/- in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Nagpur. The document showed that the amount of consideration of Rupees 10,000/- had been already received, After the execution of the sale deed, the necessary mutations were made in the Municipal and Improvement Trust records in favour of the appellant and possession was delivered to the appellant immediately. The appellant constructed a Kacha house over the plot and started living therein with his family.
5. It is the case of the prosecution that although the sale deed showed that the amount of consideration had been paid, that was not a correct statement of facts. The appellant had not paid anything but had promised to pay the amount within six weeks of the execution of the sale deed. The deceased kept on pressing the appellant to pay, but the appellant put him off on one pretext or the other.
6. It was further alleged for the prosecution that on 7-10-1968 the appellant promised Zingrooji to pay the amount on the next day and so he called him to his residence in the morning at about 8.00 a.m. Accordingly, after telling his wife that he was going to the appellant s house for fetching the amount, the deceased left the house at about 7.30 a.m. He called his son Gajanan to accompany him but as Gajanan had some other work the deceased left the house alone. The distance between the house of the deceased and that of the appellant is about a mile The way to the appellant s house lies along the house of one Jangloo. The deceased met Jangloo and told him about his mission. He also requested Jangloo to accompany him to the appellant s house asking him that he may remain somewhere on the road side while the deceased himself went to the house of the appellant for receiving the money. After they reached the house, Jangloo remained outside taking care not to be conspicuous and the deceased entered the courtyard of the appellant, which had a fence of bamboo slits. There was a khatla (cot) in the courtyard on which the deceased took his seat. The appellant, was in the house and he was seen having conversation with the deceased. In a short while the appellant went inside and returned sometime later. His wife came out with a cup placed in a saucer which she gave to the appellant who handed over the same to the deceased apparently, it was a cup of tea. No sooner had the deceased drained the contents of the cup and kept it on
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
