Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. BHAGWATI AND R.S. SARKARIA JJ.
Kartarey and others, Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 1973
Decided on 25-9-1975.
Advocates appeared
Mr. E. C. Agarwala, Advocate for Appellants; Mr. O.P. Rana, for Respondent.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374, 342, – Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 148 – Committing murder - Appeal Against Conviction - Appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the high court six persons viz, kartarey (30) , sita Ram (45) , Baljeet (45), Smt. Kaila (27), Benarsi and Ram Karan all resident of Giaspur were tried by the First Temporary Session Judge, Meerut for rioting and committing the murder of their co-villager, Tejpal. He convicted all the six – Each of the first three was sentenced to death and the rest to imprisonment for life. They were also convicted under sec. 148,Penal Code – Convicts appealed, while a reference was made by the Session Judge for confirmation of the death sentences – High Court set aside the conviction acquitted them on all the counts – It set aside the conviction of Kartarey, Sitaram and Baljeet in respect offence – It, however, maintained the conviction of Kartarey , Sitaram and Baljeet but altered it from that to one under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34, Penal Code – Their death sentences were also commuted to imprisonment for life – Held, Last submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution case against Baljit stands on a different footing – According to the Counsel, two circumstances entitled Baljit, at least to the benefit of doubt. Firstly, he had no conceivable motive to join in the fatal assault on the deceased – He was not related to Kartarey or even to through whose house the culprits are alleged to have escaped. Secondly, unlike Sita Ram, he never absconded and was admittedly arrested from the village in the evening of the day of occurrence – At first flush we were somewhat impressed by this argument. But on a close examination we find that this contention does not rest on sound premises and must be rejected – While the prosecution did not allege that Baljit had a motive to join Kartarey in the commission of the crime, the appellants, strangely enough, brought out in the testimony of the defence witness, Shambhoo. - who is none else but Baljit s wife s brother - that Nain Singh who is the father of Tejpal deceased, and is Sarpanch of the village, had imposed a fine on Baljit s father-in-law – If that is true, Baliit had a conceivable ground of grudge against the deceased and his father – Further it is wrong to say that Baljit never absconded. Contrary to what Baljit has said in his examination under Sec, 342, Cr. P. C. the Investigating Officer, P. W. 7, testified that Baljit was found hiding in a chhappar in the village from where he was arrested – This account of Baljit s arrest was not challenged in cross-examination- To be an absconder in the eye of law, it is not necessary that a person should have run away from his home, it is sufficient if he hides himself to evade the process of law even if the hiding place be his own home – Court therefore, do not find any ground to distinguish the case of Baljeet from that of Sita Ram and to treat him differently –Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
R. S. SARKARIA, J.:—This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgement of the High Court of Allahabad. Six persons viz, Kartarey (30) , Sita Ram (45) , Baljeet (45), Smt. Kaila (27), Benarsi and Ram Karan all resident of Giaspur were tried by the First Temporary Session Judge, Meerut for rioting and committing the murder of their co-villager, Tejpal. He convicted all the six under Sec S. 302/ 149. Penal Code. . Each of the first three was sentenced to death and the rest to imprisonment for life. They were also convicted under sec. 148,Penal Code .The convicts appealed, while a reference under S. 374, Cr. P.C. was made by the Session Judge for confirmation of the death sentences. The High Court set aside the conviction of Mst. Kaila, Benarsi and Ram Karan and acquitted them on all the counts. It set aside the conviction of Kartarey, Sitaram and Baljeet in respect offence under S. 148, Penal Code. It, however, maintained the conviction of Kartarey , Sitaram and Baljeet but altered it from that under Sec 302/ 149 to one under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34, Penal Code. Their death sentences were also commuted to imprisonment for life.
2. Kartarey, Sita Ram and Baljeet have now come to this Court in appeal after obtaining Special Leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution. The fact of the prosecution case are as follows:
Tejpal deceased was a Thakur. He owned considerable landed property in village Giasupur. The accused are Harijans of the village. In the last week of April 1961, the deceased found Mst. Kaila and another woman cutting sugarcane and scraping grass in his field. The deceased rebuked them and snatched away the khurpi from Mst. Kaila. She resented this behaviour of the deceased and threatened to wreak vengeance upon him.
3. On 1-5-1969, at about noon, the deceased was returning home from his fields. When he reached in 78 the lane in front of the house of Kartarey, all the six accused caught hold of him and pulled him into Kartarey s house. On seeing this, Khacheru P.W. and Sripal, P.W. 2 who were sitting under a tree in the same lane, sensed mischief. So they ran to the house of Kartarey raising shouts for help. By the time they reached the house. The accused had taken the deceased inside and bolted the entrance door from within. The alarm raised by these witnesses attracted Nain Singh P.W. 1,father of the deceased: Subrati, P.W. 3 Prahlad Singh P.W.4, Attar Singh and one Kantu Singh. These persons heard the shrieks of the deceased emanating from inside the house. They tried to force open the door but were unsuccessful. Leaving Khacheru at the entrance door, the other witnesses climbed the eastern wall of Kartarey s house and saw, in the courtyard, Mst. Kaila, Banarsi and Ram Karam holding the deceased while Kartarey was assaulting him with a chhura and Baljeet and Sitaram with Katars. The witnesses jumped into the courtyard whereupon the assailants dragged the deceased into the Kotha. The witnesses succeeded in apprehending Kartarey and in seizing the blood-stained chhura from him. They also secured Mst. Kaila and Banarsi. The remaining three assailants, however, escaped through the adjoining house of Sita Ram. The witnesses found Tejpal lying dead in the Kotha.
4. Nain Singh, P.W. 1, accompanied by Charan Singh and the Sarpanch went to the Police Station, Civil Lines Meerut, 5 miles away, and handed over the written report, Ex.Ka-2, at 2 p.m. the same day. After registering the case, Sub-inspector, Murari Lal P.W.7 reached the scene of occurrence.He found Kartarey, Banarsi and Mst. Kaila in the custody of the villagers. The clothes on the persons of Kartarey and Mst. Kaila were found blood-stained. The Investigator seized the same. The Investigator took over the custody of the three accused and of the blood-stained churra that had been seized from Kartarey. The sealed parcel containing this chhura was sent to Chemical Examiner and Serologist who reported that there was human blood on this weapon.
5. Baljeet
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
