Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. NATARAJAN AND A.M. AHMADI, JJ.
State of U.P., Appellants
Versus
Chet Ram and others ,Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 516 of 1978
Decided on 28-3-1989 .
Advocates appeared
Mr. Prithvi Raj, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Delver Bhandari and Ms Rachna Joshi, Advocates with him, for Appellant : Mr. R. K. Garg, Sr. Advocate, Mr. R. P. Singh, Mr. A. Sharan and Mr. Navin Prakash, Advocates with him for Respondents.
Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 394 and 302 r/w 34 and 307 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 161(3) – Offence of murder - Respondents were convicted by Sessions Judge under Ss. 394 and 302 read with S. 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to 4 years RA. and life imprisonment - Deceased was the widow a step brother of respondents father - Land were originally under joint cultivation but after consolidation proceedings were taken by one land was demarcated and separate chaks were prepared – Said one insisted upon and was doing separate cultivation of her land and this was resented by the respondents – Said one was cultivating land separately with the help of PW 3 basis - Respondents had cast covetous eyes on land since she did not have any issues of her own - Irked by refusal to allow them to cultivate land, the respondents are alleged to have done her to death on the night - Respondents were living in adjoining houses separated only by a single wall – Said one was living alone in her house - As the entrance door was bolted from inside, PW 3 scaled over the wall with help of a lathi and gained entrance to the house - A lantern was burning in house and by the light shed by it he saw the respondents attacking her - Respondent was holding her legs pressed to the cot while respondents were attacking her with a knife - PW 3 ran to the front door and unbolted it and thereupon PW 5 who had also been aroused by alarm of came inside the house and raised alarm - Whether said one would have been able to make a statement, but suffice, for moment to state that respondents did have a strong motive to do away with one – Held, Thus court find that entire premises on which the High Court has based its judgment for setting aside the well-reasoned judgment of Sessions Judge are totally in disregard of clinching evidence in the case - Conclusions of the High Court have been drawn on assumptions and surmises without any foundation in evidence for them - Prosecution evidence, court find is of an unimpeachable nature and affords no scope for two views being taken and one of them being more plausible than the other - Where the acquittal is based on irrelevant ground or where the High Court allows itself to be deflected by red herrings drawn across the track, or where the evidence accepted by the trial court is rejected by the High Court after perfunctory consideration, or where baneful approach of the High Court has resulted in vital and crucial evidence being ignored, or for any such adequate reason, this Court may feel obliged to step in to secure the interests of justice, to appease the judicial conscience, as it were - This case, in court opinion, is eminently one such where the interests of justice call for our intervention - Court accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of High Court as it has caused serious miscarriage of justice and restore convictions awarded to the respondents - Respondents shall surrender themselves to custody failing which they will be arrested and placed in custody to serve the sentence - Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
NATARAJAN, J. :— Respondents Chet Ram, Buddhi and Puttu, sons of Girdhari were convicted by the Sessions Judge of Shahjahanpur under Ss. 394 and 302 read with S. 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to 4 years RA. and life imprisonment respectively but the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by them and set aside their convictions and sentences and hence this appeal by special leave by the State of Uttar Pradesh.
2. Deceased Kishori was the widow of Ram Bharose, a step brother of the respondents father Girdhari. The land belonging to Girdhari and Ram Bharose were originally under joint cultivation but after consolidation proceedings were taken by Kishori, the land was demarcated and separate chaks were prepared. Kishori insisted upon and was doing separate cultivation of her land and this was resented by the respondents. Kishori was cultivating the land separately with the help of PW 3 Maiku on "Batai" basis. The respondents had cast covetous eyes on the land of Kishori since she did not have any issues of her own. Irked by Kishoris refusal to allow them to cultivate the land, the respondents are alleged to have done her to death on the night of 12/13 May. 1970.
3. Kishori and the respondents were living in adjoining houses separated only by a single wall. Kishori was living alone in her house. On the night in question at about midnight PW 3, whose house is only about 40 or 50 paces away from Kishoris house heard her cries of alarm and ran to her house. As the entrance door was bolted from inside, PW 3 scaled over the wall with the help of a lathi and gained entrance to the house. A lantern was burning in the house and by the light shed by it he saw the respondents attacking her. Respondent Chet Ram was holding her legs pressed to the cot while respondents Buddhi and Puttu were attacking her with a knife and sooja respectively. PW 3 ran to the front door and unbolted it and thereupon PW 5 Ram Bilas and one Behari, who had also been aroused by the alarm of Kishori came inside the house and raised alarm. At once the respondents snatched a Hansli and Jantar worn by Kishori and ran away to their house by jumping over the partition wall between Kishoris and their house. A few minutes later PW 8 Salikram, the village Sabliapati also came to Kishoris house and Kishori told him that she had been attacked by the respondents.
4. As it was night time and the Police Station was about 5 miles away, the witnesses were afraid to take Kishori to the Police Station immediately. At about day- break time PW 3 brought a bullock cart and took Kishori to the Police Station at Banda. On reaching the Police Station at about 7.00 a. m. Kishori gave a statement Exhibit Ka-3 to PW 6, Head Constable Kunwar Bahadur. Simultaneously, while PW 6 was recording Exhibit Ka-3 statement, PW 10 Puran Singh Rawat S. I. of Police recorded her statement under S. 161(3). Cr,P.C. A case under Ss. 307 and 394. I.P.C. was registered against the respondents and Kishori was sent to the dispensary at Pawayan along with PW 7 Constable Sita Ram. When PW 7 and Kishori reached the bus stand at Banda Kishori breathed her last and hence PW 7 brought her dead body to the Police Station. Thereafter the case against the respondents was altered to one under Ss. 394 and 302, I. P. C.
5. PW 10 held inquest over Kishoris dead body and sent it for autopsy and thereafter he visited the scene of occurrence and seized therefrom the blood stained rope and frame of the cot and a lantern kept in the house. Search was made for the respondents but all of them were absconding. PW 10 noticed a jua (yoke) (Ext. II ) placed on the wall of the respondents house so as to serve as foot- rest for scaling over the wall and PW 10 seized it also under a recovery memo. Respondents Chet Ram and Buddhi surrendered in Court on 16th May, 1970 and respondent Puttu surrendered in Court on 27th May, 1970. PWs 3, 5, 8 and others were examined during the investigation of the case. The autopsy on Kishoris. dead body rev
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
