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

1981 Supreme(SC) 77

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., A.P. SEN, J.
Dudh Nath Pandey, Appellant
Versus
State of U.P., Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 163 of 1979, D/- 11-2-1981.

Advocates:
K.K.Bhatra, O.P.RANA, R.C.Kohli, RANI CHHABRA, YOGESHAR PRASAD

Headnote:

Indian Penal code 1860 - Section 302 – Criminal Trial – Offence of Murder – Appeal against conviction - Alleging that she was his lawfully wedded wife - That application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate after recording statement of Ranjana, in which she denied that she was married to appellant - Appellant thereafter filed a habeas corpus petition in the Allahabad High Court alleging that Ranjana was detained unlawfully by the members of her family, including her uncle and asking that she be released from their custody. Ranjana denied in that proceeding too that she was married to the appellant or that she was unlawfully detained by the members of her family. The habeas corpus petition was dismissed by the High Court on November 8, 1973. On August 1, 1975, Principal of St. Anthonys Convent made a complaint to the police that appellant had made indecent overtures to Ranjana - Appellant was arrested as a result of that complaint – Held, It is evident that he believed, rightly or wrongly, that Ranjana was not unwilling to take him as a husband - It is in immediate background of the previous evenings incident that the question of sentence has perforce to be considered - That incident cannot, certainly be considered as affording "sudden" provocation to the appellant for the crime committed by him next morning and, therefore, it cannot reduce offence of murder into a lesser offence - But, mental turmoil and the sense of being socially wronged through which appellant was passing cannot be overlooked while deciding which is the appropriate sentence to pass, the rule being that, for the offence of murder, the normal sentence is the sentence of life imprisonment and not of death - Appeal partly allowed.

Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, CJI.:- A college going boy called Vijay Bhan Kishore was shot dead on the morning of November 2, 1976 near the Hathi Park, Dayanand Marg, Allahabad. The appellant was convicted for that offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad and was sentenced to death. The order of conviction and sentence having been confirmed by the High Court of Allahabad by its judgment dated August 23, 1978, the appellant has filed this appeal by Special Leave.

2. Vijay Bhan Kishore alias Pappoo was the son of an Advocate called Brij Bhan Kishore who died in about 1967 leaving behind a widow, three daughters and Pappoo. The youngest of the three daughters was married while the two elder were working as school teachers. Out of those two Ranjana Kishore was a teacher in the St. Anthonys Convent.

3. The appellant, Dudh Nath Pandey, who was a motor-car driver by occupation, used to live as a tenant in an outhouse of a sprawling bungalow belonging to the family of the deceased, situated at 17, Stanley Road, Allahabad. The appellant developed a fancy for Ranjana who was about 20 years of age, when he came to live in the out-house. The overtures made by the appellant to Ranjana created resentment in her family and its only surviving male member, her brother Pappoo, took upon himself the task of preventing the appellant from pursuing his sister. As a first step, the appellant was turned out of the out-house. Soon thereafter, he filed an application before the City Magistrate, Allahabad, asking for the custody of Ranjana, alleging that she was his lawfully wedded wife. That application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate after recording the statement of Ranjana, in which she denied that she was married to the appellant. The appellant thereafter filed a habeas corpus petition in the Allahabad High Court alleging that Ranjana was detained unlawfully by the members of her family, including her uncle K. P. Saxena, and asking that she be released from their custody. Ranjana denied in that proceeding too that she was married to the appellant or that she was unlawfully detained by the members of her family. The habeas corpus petition was dismissed by the High Court on November 8, 1973. On August 1, 1975, the Principal of St. Anthonys Convent made a complaint to the police that the appellant had made indecent overtures to Ranjana. The appellant was arrested as a result of that complaint.

4. On November 1, 1976, Ranjana was having an evening stroll with her brother, the deceased Pappoo, in the compound of their house. The appellant came there in a rikshaw, abused Pappoo and is alleged to have threatened to kill him, if he dared oppose his, the appellants, marriage with Ranjana. As a result of these various incidents and the familys growing concern for Ranjanas safety, Pappoo used to escort Ranjana every morning to the school where she was teaching.

5. On the following day, i. e., on November 2, 1976, Pappoo took Ranjana to her school on his scooter as usual. The classes used to begin at 9.30 A. M., but Ranjana used to go to the school 30 to 40 minutes before time for correcting the students home-work. After dropping Ranjana at the school, Pappoo started back for home on his scooter. While he was passing by the Childrens Park, known as the Hathi Park, the appellant is alleged to have fired at him with a country-made pistol. Pappoo fell down from his scooter and died almost instantaneously.

6. The occurrence is said to have been witnessed by Harish Chandra (P. W. 3), a domestic servant of the family of the deceased and by Harish Chandras friend Ashok Kumar (P. W. 1). Harish Chandra used to live in the out-house of the deceaseds bungalow at 17, Stanley Road, while Ashok Kumar, who generally lived at Kanpur, is said to have come to Allahabad the previous day in search of employment. Almost immediately after Pappoo and Ranjana left the house on the scooter, Ashok Kumar and Harish Chandra too left



















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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top