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

1980 Supreme(SC) 460

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. SARKARIA AND O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.
State of U.P., Appellant
Versus
Shanker, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 1974, D/- 24-10-1980.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 324 - Murder Offence – Defamation of Wife - Appeal Against Conviction - Respondent is a resident of village - He had deserted his wife about 5 years before occurrence in question - Ever since, his wife was living with her parents - Accused had an evil eye on deceased, wife of (P. W. 2) - About a year before her murder, accused had attempted to ravish her in a field - On returning to village she complained about her molestation, to her husband - Manbodhan approached village head-man - Raghunath who convened a Panchayat to consider Panchanias complaint - Panchas called accused, and reprimanded and warned him to behave in future - Manbodhan did not report matter to police to avoid defamation of his wife which is generally a concomitant consequence of initiation of a police investigation and prosecution – Held, To sum up, mere fact that P. W. 7 and some other witnesses did not admit or had expressed ignorance about certain collateral facts was hardly a ground to reject their ocular account when there was general agreement among them with regard to subtratum of prosecution case - In short, all arguments employed by High Court in rejecting evidence of eye-witnesses and other material witnesses examined by prosecution were, with respect, clearly unsustainable, whereas those given by trial Court in accepting evidence of these eye-witnesses were weighty and sound - Court, therefore, set aside impugned order of acquittal passed by High Court and convict accused-respondent under Section 302, Penal Code for murder of deceased and sentence him to imprisonment for life – Court also restore order of his conviction and sentence passed by trial Court under Section 324, Penal Code, for causing hurt to child, Jai Devi - Accused, if on bail, shall surrender to his bail bonds to serve out sentence inflicted on him - Appeal allowed.

Judgment

SARKARIA, J.:- This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment, dated May 16, 1973, of the High Court of Allahabad. It arises out of these facts.

2. The respondent - Shanker (hereinafter referred to as the accused) is a resident of village Gauri, Police Station Hamirpur. He had deserted his wife about 5 years before the occurrence in question. Ever since, his wife was living with her parents. The accused had an evil eye on Panchania deceased, wife of Manbodhan (P. W. 2). About a year before her murder, the accused had attempted to ravish her in a field. On returning to the village she complained about her molestation, to her husband, Manbodhan. Manbodhan approached the village head-man. Raghunath who convened a Panchayat to consider Panchanias complaint. The Panchas called the accused, and reprimanded and warned him to behave in future. Manbodhan did not report the matter to the police to avoid defamation of his wife which is generally a concomitant consequence of initiation of a police investigation and prosecution. In spite of this stern admonishment administered by the Panchayat, the accused did not give up his evil designs to force Panchania to quench his sexual lust.

3. On February 16, 1972 in the afternoon, the accused again made overtures to the deceased and cut indecent jokes with her. She spurned the same and retaliated with a shower of abuses.

4. On February 17, 1972 at about 9 a. m., the deceased was returning home from Mahabiran Ka Talab where she had gone to prepare cow-dung cakes. She was carrying in her lap her 3-4 year old daughter, Jaidevi. She had hardly covered a distance of 20 to 25 steps from the Talab when the accused armed with a Pharsa approached and assaulted her from behind. The accused inflicted severe Farsha blows on her in quick succession. Before she could shout for help she dropped dead to the ground in a pool of blood. Some of the blows struck by accused, caused injuries to the child, also who was in her lap and had fallen to the ground with the mother. At this juncture her husband, Manbodhan, P. W. 2, was coming with his cattle from the village habitation towards the Talab. Manbodhan was closely followed by Chhotu (P. W. 7) and Chhotey Lal (not examined). Laxminarayan (P. W. 5) and Girdhari (P. W. 6) were also coming from the Talab side towards the habitation of the village after attending to the call of nature. All these persons saw the accused inflicting Farsha blows on the deceased. They challenged the accused, who, after committing the crime, entered the neighbouring Arhar field of Laxmi Narain, and ran away carrying the blood-stained Farsha with him. While so running away, the accused was seen by Surya Kumar (P. W. 8) who was there easing himself in that Arhar field. After a fruitless chase of the accused, Manbodhan returned to the scene of offence and found that life was extinct in his wife. He picked up his injured child, Jaydevi. When he was contemplating to go to the Police Station, Sumerpur for making a report, he was told by Sabha Jeet Chaukidar that the Station House Officer of Sumerpur was present and investigating a dacoity case in the neighbouring village, Atrahiya. Manbodhan thereupon got the report, Ext. Ka-1, written to his dictation by Dwarka Prasad (P. W. 1), and carried it to village Atrahiya which is one mile from village Gauri. On reaching Atrahiya (P. W. 2) did not find the Police Sub-Inspector there. He met some constables there who told him that the Sub-Inspector had gone to the har (fields ?). A constable then went to har to find out the Sub-Inspector. After waiting for some time there, P. W. 2 returned to village Gauri with a constable and found that the Sub-Inspector had also reached there. P.W. 2 then handed over the written report to the Sub-Inspector. After making his endorsement on the report (Ex. Ka-1), the Sub-Inspector returned the same to P. W. 2 and directed the witness to carry the same to the Police Station for registration of the case. 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