Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.S.Hegde : V.Bhargava
Pati Ram
Versus
State Of U.P.
Case No. : 24 of 1969
Date of Decision : 9/24/69
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 174, 156, 289, 342 – Partition Suit – Offence of Murder – Whether prosecution has satisfactorily proved that it was appellant who had caused injuries sustained by deceased which resulted in her death – Prosecution case is that appellant hit deceased and and killed her, in courtyard of their house. – Appellant and deceased were first cousins. – Deceased was a chadless widow. – She owned some properties. – It is also admitted that deceased died as a result of injuries sustained by her – Place where she sustained injuries is also not in dispute though there is some dispute as regards time of occurrence. – According to prosecution, she sustained injuries in question on date mentioned earlier. – But defence suggestion was that she is likely to have sustained those injuries in early hours of morning when it was dark. – But this is a mere suggestion. – No evidence has been adduced to show that she sustained those injuries during early hours of morning on that day. – Held, Trial Judge thought that document in question was unnecessary "as he was accepting plea of appellant that in consolidation proceedings, parties had entered into a compromise – Under that circumstance it was not necessary for court to summon the document inquestion – Grievance was made of fact that though a large number of witnesses had been cited in charge-sheet, several of them were not examined in court. – They were all witnesses to speak to the motive. – Their evidence was considered unnecessary by prosecution. – Facts accepted by court as proving motive are (1) that there was a partition suit between appellant and deceased and that suit had been posted for hearing and (2) that deceased had sold her residential house to P.W. 1, a few days before occurrence. – So far as latter is concerned, it was not disputed. – In fact according to suggestions made on behalf of defence P. W. 1 might have murdered deceased as he had not paid full consideration for sale. – So far as partition suit is concerned, court have evidence of P. W. 1. – Same was not challenged in cross examination. – When that evidence was put to appellant during his examination under Section 342, Criminal procedure code he pleaded that he was not aware of same. – But that fact is conclusively proved by Exh. K-15. – Therefore there was no purpose in examining the witnesses cited in charge sheet to prove those facts. – Point was made of fact that some of persons who had come to scene immediately after occurrence had not been examined. – Court see no substance in this contention. – It is no bodys case that those persons had witnessed the occurrence. – Nor can it be said that they were reresgesta witnesses. – That being so, their evidence was unnecessary for unfolding prosecution case. – As Trial court as well as High court believed witnesses examined in case, non examination of other witnesses has no siginificance – It was urged that sentence of death should not have been imposed on appellant as he was a young man. – Question of sentence is within discretion of Trial court. – Appellate court or this court does not interfere with that discretion unless there are adequate grounds for doing so. – Appellant was thirty years when he was tried in case. – He was not a teenger. – Ground urged for mitigation of sentence is wholly irrelevant. – Appeal Dismissed
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points relevant to your query:
Case Overview: The case involves the appellant, who is accused of causing injuries to the deceased, resulting in her death. The incident occurred in the courtyard of their house, and both parties are related as first cousins. The deceased was a widow owning property, and there was a pending partition suit between them (!) .
Evidence and Witnesses: The prosecution presented eyewitnesses who testified that the appellant hit the deceased, causing injuries that led to her death. The court accepted their evidence, noting that their testimonies were natural and credible. The medical evidence supported the conclusion that the injuries were sufficient to cause death, and the description of injuries, including a stab wound, was considered reliable despite some discrepancies in description (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Motive: The motive was established through evidence that the deceased had sold her property to a third party shortly before the incident, and there was ongoing litigation related to the partition. The appellant's fear that the deceased might transfer her property to others was considered a motive, although the court acknowledged that this motive was not particularly strong but still relevant (!) (!) .
Legal Procedures and Evidence: The court addressed procedural issues such as the investigation and inquest procedures, confirming that the investigation was conducted legally and that the absence of certain witnesses did not affect the case's integrity. The court also clarified that the procedure followed under relevant sections of the criminal procedure code was appropriate and did not violate legal requirements (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Assessment of Evidence: The court found no reason to reject the testimonies based on alleged enmity or bias, emphasizing that the witnesses' credibility was upheld by both lower courts. The discrepancy regarding the nature of the injuries was explained as a misdescription, but the injuries themselves were confirmed by medical evidence (!) (!) (!) .
Sentence and Discretion: The appellant, aged thirty at the time of trial, was sentenced to death. The court noted that the discretion regarding sentencing rests with the trial court, and unless there are substantial grounds, appellate courts do not interfere. The appellant's age was deemed irrelevant to the sentencing decision (!) .
Outcome: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts (!) .
Summary: The case hinges on credible eyewitness testimonies, medical evidence linking the injuries to the appellant, and legally sound procedural conduct. The court upheld the death sentence, considering the evidence sufficient and procedural requirements met. The appeal was dismissed due to lack of merit, and the conviction was maintained.
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance with specific legal questions related to this case.
K.S. HEGDE, J.
(1) AFTER carefully going through the evidence on record with the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, we have come to the conclusion that this appeal has no merit. We shall now proceed to state our reasons in support of our conclusion.
(2) THE prosecution case is that the appellant hit deceased Mulia and and killed her on the morning of 7/08/1967, in the courtyard of their house. The appellant and the deceased were first cousins. The deceased was a chadless widow. She owned some properties. These are all admitted facts. It is also admitted that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained by her on the morning of 7/08/1967. The place where she sustained injuries is also not in dispute though there is some dispute as regards the time of the occurrence. According to the prosecution, she sustained the injuries in question at about 10 a. m. on the date mentioned earlier. But the defence suggestion was that she is likely to have sustained those injuries in the early hours of the morning when it was dark. But this is a mere suggestion. No evidence has been adduced to show that she sustained those injuries during the early hours of morning on that day.
(3) IT is said that the deceased and the appellant were not on good terms. There was a partition suit pending between them. That suit had been filed some time before this occurrence took place and that it had been posted for appearance of the appellant on 8/08/1967, i. e. the day following the day of the occurrence. Some days prior to the occurrence, the deceased had sold her residential house to P. W. 1 who is her second cousin. The evidence as regards the motive was furnished by P. W. 1. His evidence receives corroboration from Exh. K-15. The appellant is the nearest heir to the deceased. If the deceased had died intestate, he would have succeeded to her estate. The suggestion made on behalf of the prosecution is that because of the litigation between him and the deceased the appellant feared that the deceased would convey her properties to P. W. 1. There is evidence to show that that the deceased and the appellant were constantly quarrelling. It is said that the sale of her residential house by the deceased to P.W. 1 greatly infuriated the appellant. The motive proved is not a strong one but the adequacy of a motive largely depends on the reactions of the concerned individual. Different people react differently in different circumstances.
(4) THE most important question in this case is whether the prosecution has satisfactorily proved that it was the appellant who had caused the injuries sustained by the deceased which resulted in her death. There is no dispute that the injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Medical evidence supports that conclusion and the same was not challenged before us.
(5) P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4 speak to the occurrence. P. Ws. 1 and 4 claim to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Both of them reside in the same Kothi in which the deceased and the appellant were living. They are the most natural witnesses. Both the Trial court as well as the High court accepted their evidence. We have been taken through their evidence and we agree with the High court that their evidence is acceptable. The only comment made against their evidence is that according to these witnesses, P. W. 3 deposed that she had not seen the actual occurrence, but on hearing cries of the deceased she came out of the house and saw the deceased fallen down with the injuries. At that time P./Ws.1 and 4 told her that the appellant had hit the deceased and run away. Her evidence is extremely important. Much argument was advanced regarding the contradiction referred to earlier. We attach no importance to the same. Evidently P. Ws. 1 and 4 had formed a wrong impression as to the time when P. W. 3 came to the scene. There is nothing strange about it, if we bear i
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
