Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.M. SHELAT AND H.R. KHANNA, JJ.
The State of U.P., Appellant
Versus
Samman Dass, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1971. D/- 11-1-1972.
Advocates appeared
Mr. D. P. Uniyal, Sr. Advocate (Mr. O. P. Rana, Advocate with him), for Appellant; Mr. A. S. R. Chari, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, Advocates, of M/s. K. K. Mehta and co., and Mr. K. R. Nagaraja, Advocate, with him) for Respondent.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302 - Criminal Procedure Code 1973 – Sections 342,372 - Constitution of India1950 - Article 136 - Murder Case - Appeal Against Conviction - Power to order costs - Accused lived with his parents in quarter - More families of in this locality - Non- occupy only a couple of houses - There are a number of blocks of buildings in colony - Each of those blocks consists of ten quarters Apart from accused and his parents his uncle and wife of who is sister of mother of accused also lives in his quarter - Accused had been engaged to about a year before marriage - According to prosecution case about months after engagement accused went to house of to see - After having a look at accused came and stated that he would not marry as she was not of fair complexion - When learnt that accused had refused to marry his daughter he convened a panchayat - Father of accused then became agreeable to marry accused with - Case of prosecution is that who is brother of maternal grandfather of after taking took a rickshaw and started going to his grocery shop - When passed in front of quarter of accused he heard shrieks - Then shouted as to what shrieks were about - Also went to front door of quarter of accused and knocked - There On hering shouts of and one also joined - All live in that locality - Whether death of deceased was normal or was result of some foul play he did not make a more detailed examination of dead body - Whether they were or not in a position to offer resistance - Whether there was a delay in lodging report - Held, High Court that first information report was not lodged police station at time which it purports to have been lodged is based upon mere conjecture - According to immediately after had declared at about. that had been throttled to death he got written report from and signed it - Report was then sent to police station - Evidence of in this respect is corroborated by - Court have then evidence of was head clerk in police station in those days – Court opinion there was no inordinate delay in loading report - It is obvious that did not lodge report till such time as he was certain that death of deceased was not natural but was due to violence - Present was no a case wherein deceased had been killed by some sharp edged weapon or a fire arm or wherein body of deceased had been found lying in a pool of blood - Court find that evidence on record shows that after had been found dead father of accused showed inclination to consign her dead body to river - Then insisted that dead body should to be disposed of till arrival of her parents - Father of accused thereupon agreed to send for a doctor was accordingly called and he stated after examining dead body that deceased had been throttled to death - Court in an appeal under Article 136 of Constitution does not normally re-appraise evidence and interfere with assessment of that evidence by High Court -Where however this Court finds that grave injustice has been done by High Court in interfering with decision of trial Court on grounds which are plainly untenable and view taken by High Court is clearly unreasonable on evidence on record this Court would not stay hand - There are however certain cardinal rules which have always to kept in view in appeals against acquittal - Firstly there is a presumption of innocence in favour of accused which has to be kept in mind especially when accused has been acquitted by Court below secondly if two views of matter are possible a view favourable to accused should be taken thirdly in case of acquittal by trial judge appellate Court should taken into account fact that trial judge had advantage of looking at demeanour of witnesses and fourthly accused is entitled to benefit of doubt - Appeal allowed
Judgment
KHANNA J.:- Samman Dass alias Samman Lal, aged 19 years, was convicted by Sessions Judge, Faizabad under section 302 I.P.C. for causing the death of his wife Putlibai by throttling her and was sentenced to death On appeal as well as in the reference made to it for the confirmation of the death sentence, the Allahabad High Court set aside the conviction of the accused and acquitted him. The State of Uttar Pradesh has filed this appeal by special leave against the above judgment of the High Court.
2. The accused was married to Putlibai, who was near about of the same age as the accused, on May 14, 1968. Putliabi was the daughter of Gurmukh Das (PW 8) of Azamgarh, while the accused is the son of Shobhamal of Faizabad. The accused lived with his parents in quarter No 1831 in Ram Nagar Colony of Faizabad. More than 300 families of Sindhis live in this locality. The non-Sindhis occupy only a couple of houses. There are a number of blocks of buildings in the colony. Each of those blocks consists of ten quarters Apart from the accused and his parents, his uncle Parumal and the wife of Parumal, who is sister of the mother of the accused, also lives in his quarter.
The accused had been engaged to Putlibai about a year before the marriage. According to the prosecution case, about 5 or 6 months after the engagement the accused went to the house of Gurmukh Das in Azamgarh to see Putlibai. After having a look at Putlibai. the accused came to Faizabad and stated that he would not marry Putlibai as she was not of fair complexion. When Gurmukh Das (P. W. 8) learnt that the accused had refused to marry his daughter, he convened a panchayat. The father of the accused then became agreeable to marry the accused with Putlibai. The marriage accordingly took place on May 14, 1968. After the marriage Putlibai came to Faizabad and lived with the accused in his parents quarter for about two and a half months. Gurmukh Das, father of Putlibai, it is stated, then came and took her to his house. Putlibai after that came to the house of her husband on October 15, 1968.
3. The death anniversary of Sain Kanwar Ram, A Sindhi saint, was celebrated by the Sindis in Ram Nagar Colony of faizabad on the night between 17th and 18th October, 1968. The singing of the devotional songs continued up to 10 A.M. on October 18 in an open maidan in the Ram Nagar Colony. The said maidan is at about a distance of 90 paces from the quarter of the accused. Most of the Sindhis of Ram Nagar Colony attended the celebrations. The Prasad was distributed at about 10 a.m. on the close of the celebrations.
4. The case of the prosecution is that Bhagwan Das (P. W. 1), who is brother of maternal grandfather of Puthbai, after taking Prasad took a riksha and started going to his grocery shop in Mohalla Chowk, Faizabad. When Bhagwan Das passed in front of the quarter of the accused, he heard shrieks. Bhagwan Das then shouted as to what the shrieks were about. Bhagwan Das also went to the front door of the quarter of the accused and knocked. There. On hering the shouts of Bhagwant Das, Choith Ram (P. w. 2), Ayal Das alias Ailmal (PW 6). Shobhraj (P. w. 7) and one Kirpal Das also joined Bhagwan Das. Bhagwan Das, Choith Ram Ayal Das and shobhraj all live in that locality. Choith Ram and Shobhraj were passing through the lane at that time after taking Prasad. Ayal Das, who too had taken Prasad was taking water at a place about 40/50 paces away from the quarter of the accused when Ayal Das heard shouts. The front door of the quarter of the accused was found bolted from inside and there was no response to the knocking at the door. Bhagwan Das and others who had joined him then went to the back door of the quarter of the accused and knocked at the back door. The back door which opens in a very narrow lane was also found bolted from inside. There was no response even to the knocking at the back door. Bhagwan Das and his companions then thought of going again to the front door of the quarter. Whe
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
