SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1979 Supreme(SC) 499

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. SARKARIA AND O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.
Murarilal, Appellant v. State of M.P. Respondent. 532
Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 1975
Decided on 21-11-1979.
Advocates appeared
Mr. R. L. Kohli, Sr. Advocate (Mr. S. K. Gambhir and Miss B. Ramrakhiani, Advocates with him), for Appellant; M/s. H. K. Puri and V. K. Bahl, Advocates, for Respondent.
* Criminal Appeal No. 903 of 1973, D/- 15-1-1974 (Madh Pra).

Advocates:
B.RAMRAKHIANI, H.K.PURI, R.C.Kohli, S.K.Gambhir, V.K.Bahl

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 302,460 r/w 34,457,380,392,394,397 and 302 r/w 34 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 313 – Offence of murder – Robbery - One who was accused No. 2 before Sessions Judge, was convicted under S. 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to death - On appeal by said one and on reference by the learned Sessions Judge, High Court altered conviction from S. 302 I. P. C. to S. 302 read with S. 34 I. P. C. and substituted the sentence of imprisonment for life for sentence of death - Deceased used to live alone in one of two quarters in compound of Dharmshala - He was Area Organiser of Pharmaceuticals Company - He went out to dinner at house of P. W. 2 and returned home at about midnight - He retried for the night - Next morning, his driver P. W. 9 and his servant P. W. 6 came to house in usual course to attend to their duties - Gate was found locked - They called out their master but there was no response. P. W. 6 who also had a key opened the lock and went inside - One was found murdered in his bed - First information report was given at police station - Station House Officer, P. W. 28, came to scene, found things in room strewn about in a peel-mell condition - He seized various articles - One of the articles so seized was a prescription pad- Whether it can safely be held that the two writings are by the same person – Held, court may at this juncture consider argument of Sri Kohli that internal evidence afforded by document showed that appellant was not its author - He argued that appellant was not even a matriculate whereas the author of document had described himself as a graduate - And, what necessity was there for a murderer and robber to write a note like that, questioned - It appears to court that the note was designed to lay a false trail by making it appear that the murder and robbery were handiwork of some frustrated and unemployed young graduates, expressing their resentment against the world which had shown no regard for their existence - On the other hand, court think that, having come to know that the statement of one in connection with the investigation into another theft case had led police to interrogate appellant very cleverly tried to foist previous possessions of the watch - Court are not prepared to accept the appellants explanation - Court might have found it difficult to link the recovery of the watch with the robbery and the murder had this been the only circumstance - But, court have the other vital circumstance that a writing made by appellant was left on deceased table that night - That circumstance coupled with recovery of the dead man watch at instance of appellant, are sufficient, in court opinion, in absence of any acceptable explanation, to hold appellant guilty of the offences of which he has been convicted - Appeal is dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

  1. The case involves the conviction of Murari Lal for murder and related offenses, with the initial sentence of death later reduced to life imprisonment after appeal (!) .

  2. The evidence against the appellant included the recovery of a wrist-watch belonging to the deceased and a handwriting analysis indicating the appellant's involvement, supported by expert opinion (!) (!) .

  3. The expert opinion on handwriting was based on a comparison of the disputed writing with admitted samples, and the court found the expert's reasons convincing, leading to acceptance of the opinion (!) (!) .

  4. The appellant's defense challenged the reliability of the handwriting expert's opinion and argued that the recovery of the watch was too remote in time to establish a connection with the crime (!) (!) .

  5. The court emphasized that expert opinion evidence, particularly in handwriting identification, should be approached with caution but need not be rejected outright if the reasons are sound and other evidence supports it (!) (!) .

  6. The court clarified that it is permissible for the court itself to compare disputed and admitted writings to form an opinion, and reliance on expert opinion does not require corroboration in every case (!) (!) .

  7. The significance of the handwritten note found at the scene, which suggested the appellant's presence and participation, was considered strong circumstantial evidence of guilt, especially when coupled with the recovery of the watch (!) (!) .

  8. The court acknowledged that the appellant's explanation regarding the purchase of the watch was not convincing and that the timing of the recovery, although remote, combined with other evidence, sufficed to establish guilt (!) .

  9. Overall, the court held that the combination of expert testimony, physical evidence, and circumstantial factors justified the conviction, and the appeal was dismissed (!) .

  10. The judgment underscores that expert opinion evidence, especially in handwriting, should be carefully scrutinized but can be accepted without corroboration if the reasons are credible and other evidence aligns with it (!) (!) .

Let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.


JUDGMENT

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. :— Murari Lal, who was accused No. 2 before the Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, was convicted under S. 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to death. He was also convicted under Section 460 read with Ss. 34, 457, 380, 392, 394 and 397, I. P. C. but sentenced under Section 460 read with S. 34 and S. 394 read with S. 397 only to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years on search count. On appeal by Murari Lal and on reference by the learned Sessions Judge, the High Court to Madhya Pradesh altered the conviction from S. 302 I. P. C. to S. 302 read with S. 34 I. P. C. and substituted the sentence of imprisonment for life for the sentence of death. Otherwise the appeal was dismissed. Murari Lal has preferred this appeal by special leave of this Court.

2. H. D. Sonawala (the deceased) used to live alone in one of the two quarters in the compound of the Parai Dharmshala at Jabalpur. He was the Area Organiser of Charak Pharmaceuticals Company of Bombay. On the night of 12-7- 1972 he went out to dinner at the house of P. W. 2 and returned home at about midnight. He retried for the night. Next morning, his driver P. W. 9 and his servant P. W. 6 came to the house in the usual course to attend to their duties. The gate was found locked. They called out their master but there was no response. P. W. 6 who also had a key opened the lock and went inside. Sonawala was found murdered in his bed. A first information report was given at the police station Omti, Jabalpur. The Station House Officer, P. W. 28, came to the scene, found things in the room strewn about in a peel-mell condition. He seized various articles. One of the articles so seized was a prescription pad Ex. P-9. On pagrs A to F of Ex. P-9, there were writings of the deceased but on page 6, there was a writing in Hindi in pencil which was as follows:

[Hindi matter it is being omitted].

Translated into English it means: "Though we have passed B. A., we have not secured any employment because there is none to care. This is the consequence. sd/- Balle Singh". The dead body of Sonawala was sent to the Medical Officer for post-mortem examination. There was an incised wound on the neck 71/2" long, the maximum width of which was 2" of tissues and vessels up to the trachea were cut. Trachea was also cut. For several months after the discovery of the murder, the investigation made no progress till 18-2-1973. On that day pursuant to information received in connection with some other case of theft in which one Roop Chand appeared to be involved, the Station House Officer secured the presence of Petrick (A-1) and questioned. Petrick made a statement and led them to his room from which two choppers and as many as 234 items of stolen property were seized. We may mention that out of the 234 items so seized, only two were alleged to belong to Sonawala, one was a tie-pin and the other was a cheque-book. Thereafter, the house of Petricks father Gabrial was also searched and 310 items of stolen property were recovered, none of which has anything to do with this case. On 19-2-73 Murari Lal (A-2) said to be a friend of Petrick was questioned. He made a statement and led them to the house of his maternal-uncle. Suraj Prasad (A-4). Murari Lal asked his uncle to produce the wrist-watch, which was done. The wrist-watch had some special characteristic of its own and it was later duly identified by unimpeachable evidence as belonging to the deceased. Specimen writings Exs. P-41 to P-54 of Murari Lal were obtained. They were sent to a handwriting and finger-print expert P. W. 15 along with the prescription pad Ex. P-9, for his opinion. The expert gave his opinion that the writing in Hindi at page 6 of Ex. P-9 and the specimen writings of Exs. P-41 to P-54 were made by the same person. Petrick, Murari Lal, Gabrial and Suraj Prasad were tried by the learned Session Judge. Suraj Prasad was acquitted. Gabrial was convicted under Sec. 411. Petrick and Murari Lal were both convicted under S. 302 I. P.






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top