Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. A.S. ANAND AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.
Rattan Singh, Appellant
Versus
State of H.P., Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 509 of 1991,
D/- 11-12-1996.
Held : When Kanta Devi (deceased) made the statement that appellant was standing with a gun she might or might not have been under the expectation of death. But that does not matter. The fact spoken by the deceased has subsequently turned out to be a circumstance which intimately related to the transaction which resulted in her death. The collocation of the words in Section 32(1) "circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death" is apparently of wider amplitude than saying "circumstances which caused his death." There need not necessarily be a direct nexus between "circumstances" and death. It is enough if the words spoken by the deceased have reference to any circumstance which has connection with any of the transactions which ended up in the death of the deceased. Such statement would also fall within the purview of Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. In other words, it is not necessary that such circumstance should be proximate, for, even distant circumstances can also become admissible under the sub-section, provided it has nexus with the transaction which resulted in the death. (Para 12)
(ii) Evidence Act, 1872-Section 6-Assailant intruding into courtyard during dead of night-Victims identification of assailant-Her pronouncement that appellant was standing with a gun and his firing gun at her-Statement of deceased admissible u/s 6. (Para 13)
(iii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Conviction under-Appeal-Deceased was shot dead on one night at her house-Moonlit night-Deceased uttered immediately before she was fired at that appellant was standing nearby with a gun-This was followed by sound of a gun shot-Gunning down followed by a bout between assailant and PW3 and PW10, relations of deceased-Gun which PW10 succeeded in wresting from appellant is admittedly gun of appellant-Appellant did not seriously dispute when question regarding that circumstance put to him in his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C.-Conviction confirmed. (Paras 14 to 17)
(iv) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 313-Examination of accused under-Evidentiary value.
Held : Examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code is not a mere formality. Answers given by the accused to the questions put to him during such examination have a practical utility for criminal courts. Apart from affording an opportunity to the delinquent to explain incriminating circumstances against him, they would help the Court in appreciating the entire evidence adduced in the court during trial. Ex.P1-gun-admittedly belongs to the assailant. Therefore, when PW10 said in court that she succeeded in snatching it from the assailant and she surrendered it to the police, we see no reason to disbelieve her, particularly in view of the evasive answer given by the appellant to the question concerned. (Para 16)
(v) EVIDENCE-First Information Report-Omissions in FIR-To be considered along with other evidence to determine whether fact so omitted never happened at all. (Para 6)
Judgement
THOMAS, J.:- A young housewife (Kanta Devi) enceinte by four months, was shot at with a double barrel gun by an assailant who gatecrashed into her courtyard during the odd hours of the night when she was sleeping. The shoal of pellets spewed out of the mouth of the gun had pierced into her lungs and heart and she died instantaneously. Appellant - an ex-armyman - was challenged by the police for the said murder. Sessions Court acquitted him but a Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, on appeal by the State, convicted him under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. He has filed this appeal under Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 and also under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The following is the story which prosecution has unfurled in the trial Court :
Kanta Devi (aged 21) was married to Puran Chand and she was living with her in-laws in her husbands house at Bhali village. Her husband was working in the Public Works Department and most-often he was living away from his family. Her sister-in-law Sheela Devi (PW 10) though married was also residing in the same house. Appellant, after superannuation from military service has settled down in his home village. He obtained a licence for possession of Ex. P1 - gun. Appellant, in course of time developed some infatuation for Kanta Devi and he started doting on her with libidinous designs, but she was not willing to reciprocate his oglings. This negative response had burgeoned the seed of rancour in his mind towards Kanta Devi and thenceforth he started harassing her. When she found him incorrigible she complained to the police about his lewd conduct. This led to initiation of security proceedings against him during which his gun was seized by the authorities, but he secured it back by making an application through Advocate Prahalad Chand Sharma (PW 2). Nonetheless his bitterness towards her, instead of abating, was only brimming up. He made some unsuccessful attempts to retaliate though in one such attempts he could shoot down one of the pet dogs of her household.
3. On the night of 6-7-1982, all the inmates of Kanta Devis house were sleeping on the courtyard of the house. Her husband was, as usual absent from the house. Her husband was, as usual absent from the house. At about 11.00 p.m. Kanta Devis mother-in-law woke up sensing that somebody would have intruded into their privacy and asked others whether anyone was there. Suddenly, deceased Kanta Devi cried out the appellant was standing there with a gun. This was followed by the sound of a gun shot and pellets have delved into her body. Kanta Devis brother-in-law Prakram Chand (PW 3) and his sister Sheela Devi (PW 10) pounced upon the deceased and in a bout Sheela Devi succeeded in wresting the gun from him but the assailant made his escape good leaving his torch-light and chappals at the place of incident. Kanta Devi slumped down to the cot and slouched her head.
4. Prakram Chand (PW 3) accompanied by two neighbours. PW-4 Piar Singh and PW-5 Sahib Singh (who rushed to the scene on hearing the hue and cry from the place of occurrence) proceeded to the police station, but on the way they came across the police party to whom Prakram Chand gave First Information Statement (Ex. PD). Sub-Inspector of Police (PW-23) visited the scene on the morning and held the inquest, seized the gun and other articles. Appellant was later arrested and after completion of the investigation charge-sheeted him for the murder of Kanta Devi.
5. Appellant has denied his involvement in the incident which led to the death of Kanta Devi. However, he owned the gun produced in this case (Ex. P1) but he said that police had seized that gun from his house. He denied the allegation that he was ogling on Kanta Devi and later developed acerbity towards her.
6. Sessions Court made a scathing criticism on the Investigating Officer for his failure to trac
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
