1. Murder of a woman by her husband — Circumstantial evidence — Conviction under Section 302 IPC. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 1654
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.T.Thomas : R.P.Sethi
T.N.Nagaraju
Versus
State Of Karnataka
Case No. : 345 of 1999
Date of Decision : 10/17/00
Criminal jurisdiction cannot be used to award special fees or largesse to state-paid Public Prosecutors, as such officers must discharge their duties based on their legal appointment terms without additional court-ordered payments.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302 read with 34 - Murder - Concurrent findings of trial court and High Court regarding guilt - Appeal against conviction - When findings of the two courts are well merited and no exception can be taken to them, the conviction of the appellant is liable to be maintained. (Para 3)
(B) Criminal Jurisdiction - Payment of special fees to Public Prosecutors - Law Officers paid by the State are expected to discharge their duties to the best of their ability within the terms of their appointment - Criminal jurisdiction cannot be used for awarding largesse to state-paid Public Prosecutors - Such practice is an unwholesome precedent and cannot be sustained. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
An individual was charged along with seven others for the murder of a woman by throttling. The individual had married the victim while already having another wife. The trial court convicted several accused, including the appellant, under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court subsequently acquitted all other accused except the appellant, finding the circumstances sufficient to establish his guilt for the murder. The High Court also directed a sum of money to be paid to the additional Special Public Prosecutor over and above the legally entitled fees.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the concurrent findings of the two lower courts regarding the guilt of the appellant were well merited. However, it found the High Court's direction to pay special fees to the Public Prosecutor to be without explanation and contrary to the nature of criminal jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the conviction of the appellant for murder were justified, and whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to award special fees to a state-paid Public Prosecutor.
Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings of guilt by the trial court and the High Court are to be upheld if they are supported by evidence and well merited. Furthermore, Law Officers paid by the State are not entitled to special fees on the direction of the court, as criminal jurisdiction is not intended for awarding largesse to such officers.
Result: Appeal disposed of, with the direction to pay special fees to the Public Prosecutor deleted.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appeal against High Court judgment confirming conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence. (Para 3 )
3. Concurrent findings of guilt by trial and High Court are well merited and no exception can be taken. (Para 3 )
4. Criminal courts cannot award special fees to public prosecutors beyond their legally entitled remuneration. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal dismissed; High Court direction to pay special fee to Public Prosecutor deleted from judgment. (Para 4 , 5 )
6. Can a criminal court direct payment of a special fee to a Public Prosecutor beyond their legal entitlement?
No. Criminal jurisdiction is not for awarding largesse; law officers paid by the State must discharge duties without special fees ordered by the court. (Para 4 )
JUDGMENT
K.T.THOMAS, J.
(1) THE appellant in this case was one of the eight persons charge-sheeted by the investigating agency for the murder of a lady by the name, Nagalambika. The appellant is said to have married that lady though he had another wife (Vijay Laxmi, PW 9 ) living, at the same time. Nagalambika was murdered by throttling on the night of 5.10.1994. The appellant, his parents, his brothers and two sisters were made the accused for persecuting Nagalambika, while appellant, particularly, for murdering her and all the other accused for criminal conspiracy and causing disappearance of the evidence of the murder.
(2) THE trial court acquitted two of the brothers of the appellant (accused nos. 4 and 6) but convicted all the rest for various offences including the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the High Court acquitted all others except the appellant. Regarding the appellant, the High Court found that circumstances are sufficient enough to establish his guilt for the murder of Nagalambika.
(3) AFTER hearing both sides we are satisfied that the concurrent findings arrived at by the two courts is well merited and no exception can be taken to it. It is unnecessary for us to enumerate those circumstances once again or the details of the evidence in support thereof. Suffice it to say that there is no reason for us to dissent from the conclusion made by the two Courts regarding the guilt of the appellant.
(4) BUT we have to refer to disturbing direction contained in the impugned judgment. The Division Bench of the High Court directed that a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - shall be paid to the additional Special Public Prosecutor who argued the case in the High Court. It must be over and above the fees to which the said Public Prosecutor is legally entitled to as per the terms of his appointment. How or why such a direction can be made has not been explained in the judgment. Criminal jurisdiction is not for awarding largesse to any one, muchless to the Public Prosecutor. Hence, the said direction cannot be sustained as it would create a very unwholesome precedent. Law Officers who are paid by the State have to discharge their duties to the best of their ability. They are not be paid special fees for such work on the direction of the court. We deprecate the said practice which should be nipped in the bud itself. We therefore, delete that part of the direction from the impugned judgment.
(5) THE appeal is disposed of accordingly.
