Back
Supreme Court Of India
Decided On : (February 12, 1998)
STATE OF Uttar Pradesh
Versus
LAKHMI
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - EXCEPTION 1 TO SECTION 300 OF IPC - ADMISSIBILITY OF ACCUSED'S STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 OF CRPC - COURT'S DUTY TO CONSIDER - CIRCUMSTANCES SUGGESTING ADULTERY BETWEEN DECEASED AND ANOTHER MAN - BENEFIT OF EXCEPTION EXTENDED TO ACCUSED - CONVICTION ALTERED TO SECTION 304 (PART I), IPC.
Fact of the Case:
Husband was convicted by the Sessions Court for murdering his wife, but the High Court acquitted him. The prosecution alleged that the husband killed his wife by inflicting blows on her head with a spade-like agricultural implement. The husband admitted to killing his wife during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in holding that the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was murdered by the accused. The Court found that the accused's statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which he admitted to killing his wife, was admissible and could be considered by the Court. The Court also found that the circumstances suggested that the accused had witnessed an adulterous act between his wife and another man, which would have caused him to lose his equanimity and commit the crime.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court erred in holding that the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was murdered by the accused? 2. Whether the accused's statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was admissible and could be considered by the Court? 3. Whether the circumstances suggested that the accused had witnessed an adulterous act between his wife and another man, which would have caused him to lose his equanimity and commit the crime?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the High Court erred in holding that the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was murdered by the accused. The Court found that the accused's statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which he admitted to killing his wife, was admissible and could be considered by the Court. The Court also found that the circumstances suggested that the accused had witnessed an adulterous act between his wife and another man, which would have caused him to lose his equanimity and commit the crime. 2. The Court held that the accused's statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was admissible and could be considered by the Court. The Court noted that the purpose of examining the accused under Section 313 is to enable the Court to be apprised of what the accused has to say about the circumstances pitted against him by the prosecution. The Court held that the answers given by the accused during such examination are intended to be considered by the Court, and that such answers can be taken into consideration in deciding whether the prosecution evidence can be relied on and whether the accused is liable to be convicted of the offence charged against him. 3. The Court found that the circumstances suggested that the accused had witnessed an adulterous act between his wife and another man, which would have caused him to lose his equanimity and commit the crime. The Court noted that the accused had adopted an alternative defence during his examination under Section 313 of the IPC, suggesting that his wife and another man were together on the bed during the early hours of the date of occurrence. The Court also noted that the accused had made statements indicating that he had seen something lascivious between his wife and another man just when he entered the house from the field.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and convicted the accused under Section 304 (Part I), IPC, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for six years.
Judgment
THOMAS, J.
( 1 ) IN this case of uxoricide the husband was found guilty by the Sessions Court but the High Court found him not guilty and acquitted him. That judgment of the High Court is in challenge in this appeal by special leave.
( 2 ) PROSECUTION case can be compendiously stated thus. The deceased "omwati" was the young wife of the respondent-accused. They with their two little children were living together in the house of the respondent. Intermittent skirmishes used to erupt between them as the wife was accusing the husband for dissipating his money on alcoholic drinks. During the wee hours of 0. 2. 1570 respondent inflicted blows with a Phali (a spade like agricultural implement) on the head of the deceased. Her skull was smashed and she died on the spot. PW 2 (Ramey) who was working in the adjacent field, on hearing the screams of the deceased, rushed up and peeped through the window and witnessed respondent thrashing his wife with the said weapon. PW 2 made a hue and cry and some of the neighbours who heard the noise, ran to the place of occurrence. As the door of the room was bolted from inside they broke it open, over-powered the berserk assailant and turssed him up on a pole with a rope.
( 3 ) FIR was lodged by PW 1 Baljeet who was one of the persons rushed to the place of occurrence on hearing the noise of PW 2 (Ramey ). Police after registering the case, reached the place of occurrence and took the tethered assailant into custody and proceeded to conduct investigation.
( 4 ) AS the respondent too did not dispute the fact that his wife (deceased) was murdered by inflicting blows on her head it is unnecessary to further consider the question whether death of the deceased was a case of homicide.
( 5 ) LEARNED Sessions Judge, on evaluation of the prosecution evidence, found that the accused had killed the deceased and then considered whether he did the act without knowing the nature of it by reason of any unsoundness of mind. Though the trial Judge felt that accused was not quite a normal person it was not possible to conclude that his cognitive faculties were so impaired as to deprive him of the capacity to know the nature of his acts. Accordingly, learned Sessions Judge convicted him under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. BUT a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court which heard his appeal felt that the evidence of PW 2 (Ramey), which is of crucial importance in this case, was not credit-worthy and at any rate it was not supported by other reliable evidence. The Division Bench did not attach any importance to the statement of the respondent which he made while being examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (code for short) wherein he practically admitted that he murdered his wife. Learned Judges took the view that the prosecution cannot succeed on the strength of what the accused said during examination under Section 313 of the Code. Accordingly, the High Court sent the verdict of acquittal.
( 6 ) THIS being an appeal against acquittal we heard learned counsel for both sides in detail and scrutinised the evidence. In our considered opinion the High Court has gone wrong in holding that prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased was murdered by the accused. High Court has not given due regard to the cogent circumstances leading to the only conclusion that deceased was slashed to death by the accused.
( 7 ) AS a legal proposition we cannot agree with the High Court that statement of an accused recorded under Section 313 of the Code does not deserve any value of utility if it contains inculpatory admissions. The need of law for examining the accused with reference to incriminating circumstances appearing against him in prosecution evidence is not for observance of a ritual in a trial, nor is it a mere formality. It has a salutary purpose. It enables the Court to be apprised of what the indicated persons has to say about the circumstances pitted against hi
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
