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

1993 Supreme(SC) 1115

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. A.S. ANAND AND N. P. SINGH, JJ.
Hanuman and others, Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Respondent. 1308
Criminal Appeal No. 860 of 1985, D/-25-11-1993.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302, 307 and 201 – Offence of murder – Causing disappearance of evidence or giving false information – Charged - Had no son and had only two daughters, who stands acquitted by High Court is son while deceased was son - It was shortly after death that disputes arose between regarding lands - On account of these disputes, some criminal litigation started between parties and a case was registered against which was pending disposal on the date of occurrence. Chandgi Ram on account of strained relations, left the village and started living in village - However, continued to stay at village where lands were situated - Parties discussed about division of lands - Later on sent for by his wife and mother to have his meals and he returned to his KOTHA for having his meals and told his wife and others about te discussion - After taking his meals retired to his KOTHA where he was to sleep alone - His motherPW 14, his wife, PW 7 and his sister, PW 11 along with his other brother, slept in other room of same KOTHA - In morning of sister of PW 11, went to leave beddings in KOTHA in which was sleeping and discovered that a rope was tied round neck of and he was dead – Held, there was no material on record to show that appellants had rushed with cremation of dead body or that they removed dead body hurriedly, High Court observed that there were other circumstances to connect appellants with offence - However in vain; have we searched through judgment as also the evidence on record for existence of these circumstances - Evidence on record is much too cryptic and scanty to bring home charge to appellants for an offence as neither of circumstances either taken individually or collectively connects appellants with an offence - No finding has been recorded by Sessions Court or High Court to effect that all those persons who gave bath to dead body or went with dead body to cremate it, did so "with the intention of screening offender from legal punishment - Without recording such a finding, no conviction under S. 201, I.P.C. could be maintained - In this respect it is pertinent to notice that High Court did not record any finding much less clear or cogent to effect that deceased had in fact been murdered by known or unknown assailants and that appellants were either assailants themselves or in any event knew who assailants - Keeping in view, what Court have stated above, Court find that conviction of appellants for offence under S. 201, I.P.C. cannot be sustained - Appeal, therefore,succeeds and is allowed - Conviction and sentence of appellants are set aside - Appellants are on bail - Their bail bonds shall stand discharged - Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

Eight persons, namely, Basti Ram, Samander, Hanuman, Chunnilal, Dhyala, Harnath, Sultan and Godu Ram were prosecuted for offences under Ss. 302 and 201, IPC. They were tried by the learned Sessions Judge who convicted Basti Ram and Hanuman under S. 302, IPC and sentenced each one of them to suffer imprisonment for life. Samander and Dhyala were convicted for offence under S. 201, IPC and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ - each and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. The remaining four accused, namely, Harnath, Sultan, Godu Ram and Chunnilal were acquitted.

2. Basti Ram, Hanuman, Samander and Dhyala filed an appeal challenging their conviction and sentence while the State of Rajasthan filed an appeal against the S.302, IPC and Harnath, Sultan, Godu Ram and Chunnilal for their acquittal for this acquittal of Samander for the offence under offence under S. 201, IPC. The High Court vide judgment dated 12-5-1983, set aside the conviction of Basti Ram and Hanuman for an offence under S. 302, IPC. Hanuman was, however, convicted for an offence under S. 201, IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The conviction of Samander and Dhyala for the offence under S.201, IPC and the sentence imposed upon them for the said offence was also affirmed by the High Court. The convicts are before us in appeal by special leave against their conviction and sentence.

3. In short the prosecution case is that Du Ram had no son and had only two daughters, namely Bhuji and Sharbati. Basti Ram, who stands acquitted by the High Court is the son of Bhuji while Chandgi Ram deceased was the son of Sharbarti. It was shortly after the death of Uda Ram that disputes arose between Basti Ram and Chandgi Ram regarding the lands of Uda Ram. On account of these disputes, some criminal litigation started between the parties and a case under S. 307, I.P.C. was registered against Chandgi Ram which was pending disposal on the date of occurrence. Chandgi Ram on account of the strained relations, left the village Bharonda and started living in village Bugala. Basti Ram, however, continued to stay at village Bharonda where the lands of Uda Ram were situated. On the festival of TEEJ which falls on 12-8-1972 Basti Ram came to village Bugala and he along with Samander and Hanuman called Chandgi Ram in the evening to his CHHAPPAR. The parties discussed about the division of lands. Chandgi Ram was later on sent for by his wife and mother to have his meals and he returned to his KOTHA for having his meals and told his wife and others about the discussion with Basti Ram. After taking his meals Chandgi Ram retired to his KOTHA where he was to sleep alone. His mother Smt. Sharbati PW 14, his wife Smt. Ramkauri, PW 7 and his sister Manbhari, PW 11 along with his other brother Khyali, slept in the other room of the same KOTHA. In the morning of 13-8-1972 the sister of Chandgi Ram, Manbhari PW 11, went to leave the beddings in the KOTHA in which Chandgi Ram was sleeping and discovered that a rope was tied round the neck of Chandgi Ram and he was dead. She shouted whereupon Ramkuari, PW 7 and Sharbati, PW 14 rushed to that room. Samander, one of the appellants, followed and is reported to have untied the rope from the neck of the deceased Chandgi Ram and took it away with him. Dhyala and Hanuman along with the wife of Dhyala also came there and all of them advised Ramkuari, Manbhari and Sharbati not to weep or make any noise as otherwise the police might suspect them and harass them. Some villagers, including neighbours, came to the house and the dead body of Chandgi Ram was brought out from his KOTHA and placed on straws and covered by a cloth. PW 13, Ramdeo Singh, a teacher, had also reached the house of the deceased at.

















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