Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M.Punchhi : M.Srinivasan
State Of U.P.
Versus
Hari Om
Case No. : 520-21 of 1992
Date of Decision : 12/2/97
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 302 and 304 - Murder Case - Appeal against conviction - Had four sons mother a wife and a daughter - Respondent was his eldest son - Alone was married - Deceased had about bighas of land a pair of bullocks and a buffalo - Respondent a tailor by profession wanted to shift to his inlaws house and a few days before occurrence had actually shifted to that place - Deceased and his son Public Witness were returning home from their fields in evening at about after having carried out their agricultural pursuits - Deceased was leading his pair of bullocks and behind him his son was walking carrying a plough - Close to an orchard on way respondent was found standing. He engaged his father in talk on topic that he should separate him and give him his share of property - Deceased maintained that he had given education to his sons and that his giving any share to deceased did not arise - Some altercation took place - It is at that moment that respondent exclaimed that he would not let his father live and whereupon he gave a blow on chest of his father - Deceased fell down on receipt of injury and breathed his last - Occurrence as was obvious was witnessed by Public Witness - On an alarm raised one Public Witness and Public Witness were attracted to scene - They however did not see actual occurrence but were told about it by Public Witness - Pair of bullocks were taken away by respondent but on way he left bullock which was lame and took other towards village - Matter was reported to police by Public Witness after writing down details of occurrence - Investigation was set in motion - Autopsy of deceased was conducted - Other investigative steps were undertaken and finally accused/respondent was put to trial for offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code - Court of Session convicted him of said charge and awarded him life imprisonment which on appeal was upset by High court acquitting him of charge - Aggrieved State of Uttar Pradesh is before us in appeal - Held, Court have gone through judgment under appeal and reasons given therein for acquittal - Some fault has been found in first information report given by Public Witness as it bears certain over writings pertaining to what was being taken by deceased to his house - It is noticeable that document which became first information report was prepared by in village itself before he went and gave it at police station - There was no police involvement either in that writing or overwriting - And overwriting pertained merely to a detail as to what was being carried by deceased to his house and what was being carried by Public Witness - Those were not material particulars insofar as actual occurrence was concerned - What actually affected case was that there had been a demand by accused/respondent to his deceased father that he be separated and given his share in his fathers property and said claim was refuted by deceased - This has to be viewed in background that such claim by married sons is common and normal in rural societies - It was not an instance of animosity which could have bred necessary criminal intent in mind of accused/respondent to kill his father - There was no major ill-will between parties i.e father and son for accused/respondent to have resorted to take that step - Other material particular was that he had caused only one injury to deceased necessarily not one which he intended to cause because neither deceased was expected to have remained stationary nor was it possible in circumstances since he was leading bullocks and was in motion - Situs of injury could not have been fixed as target by accused so as to infer conclusively of his having intended to cause injury which had actually been caused - From this it cannot be inferred that intention of accused/respondent was to murder his father even though in anger he may have exclaimed so - Court therefore are clearly of view that if accused is guilty of any offence then that offence would have to be one punishable under Section 304 Part Indian Penal Code and not punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code - Appeals Allowed
(1) THESE appeals are against the judgment and order dated 8/11/1990 passed by a division bench of the High court of Allahabad acquitting the accused/respondent of the charge of patricide.
(2) THE deceased Madan Lal had four sons, mother, a wife and a daughter. The respondent, Hari 0m was his eldest son. Hari 0m alone was married. The deceased, Madan Lal had about 28 bighas of land, a pair of bullocks and a buffalo. The respondent, a tailor by profession wanted to shift to his inlaws house and a few days before the occurrence, had actually shifted to that place. On 26/6/1980, Madan Lal, the deceased and his son, Har Govind, Public Witness were returning home from their fields in the evening at about 6.30 p.m. after having carried out their agricultural pursuits. The deceased was leading his pair of bullocks and behind him his son Har Govind was walking carrying a "plough". Close to an orchard on the way, the respondent was found standing. He engaged his father in talk on the topic that he should separate him and give him his share of the property. The deceased maintained that he had given education to his sons and that his giving any share to the deceased did not arise. Some altercation took place. It is at that moment that the respondent exclaimed that he would not let his father live and whereupon he gave a "suja" blow on the chest of his father. The deceased fell down on the receipt of the injury and breathed his last. The occurrence, as was obvious, was witnessed by Public Witness 1, Har Govind. On an alarm raised, one Basanti Lal, Public Witness 2 and Ram Bahadur, Public Witness 3 were attracted to the scene. They, however, did not see the actual occurrence but were told about it by Public Witness I. The pair of bullocks were taken away by the respondent but on the way, he left the bullock which was lame and took the other towards the village. The matter was reported to the police by Public Witness 1 after writing down the details of the occurrence. "The investigation was, thus, set in motion. The autopsy of the deceased was conducted. Other investigative steps were undertaken and finally the accused/respondent was put to trial for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. The court of Session convicted him of the said charge and awarded him life imprisonment, which on appeal was upset by the High court acquitting him of the charge. The aggrieved State of Uttar Pradesh is before us in appeal.
(3) WE have gone through the judgment under appeal and the reasons given therein for acquittal. Some fault has been found in the first information report given by Public Witness 1 as it bears certain over writings pertaining to what was being taken by the deceased to his house. It is noticeable that the document which became the first information report was prepared by PW I in the village itself before he went and gave it at the police station. Thus there was no police involvement either in that writing or overwriting. And the overwriting pertained merely to a detail as to what was being carried by the deceased to his house and what was being carried by Public Witness 1. Those were not material particulars insofar as the actual occurrence was concerned. What actually affected the case was that there had been a demand by the accused/respondent to his deceased father that he be separated and given his share in his fathers property and the said claim was refuted by the deceased. This has to be viewed in the background that such claim by married sons is common and normal in rural societies. It was not an instance of animosity which could have bred the necessary criminal intent in the mind of the accused/respondent to kill his father. There was no major ill-will between the parties i.e. father and the son for the accused/respondent to have resorted to take that step. The other material particular was that he had caused only one injury to the deceased, necessarily not the one which he intended to cause because
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
