SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1965 Supreme(HP) 7

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
OM PARKASH
DASAUNDHI - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1965 and Cri. Ref. No. 1 of 1965
Decided On : 04/24/1965

Advocates Appeared:
L.D. Varma, for Appellant Chuni Lal Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the State. Chuni Lal Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State; L.D. Verma, for Respondent.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the analysis of extra-judicial confessions, the plea of unsound mind, and the applicability of S. 84, I.P.C. The court concluded that the appellant was of sound mind at the time of the murder and upheld the conviction under S. 302, I.P.C., but reduced the sentence to imprisonment for life.

Headnote:

S. 302, I.P.C. - Murder - [S. 302, I.P.C.] - The judgment discusses the prosecution's case against the appellant, the circumstantial evidence, extra-judicial confessions, and the appellant's plea of unsound mind. The court analyzes the evidence, the legal principles regarding extra-judicial confessions, and the applicability of S. 84, I.P.C. The court concludes that the appellant was of sound mind at the time of the murder and upholds the conviction under S. 302, I.P.C., but reduces the sentence to imprisonment for life.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife based on circumstantial evidence, extra-judicial confessions, and the plea of unsound mind. The court found the appellant guilty and rejected the plea of unsound mind, upholding the conviction under S. 302, I.P.C. The court reduced the sentence to imprisonment for life.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the appellant guilty of the murder of his wife based on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confessions. The plea of unsound mind was rejected, and the conviction under S. 302, I.P.C. was upheld. The court reduced the sentence to imprisonment for life.

Issues: The main issues were the guilt of the appellant for the murder of his wife, the applicability of the plea of unsound mind, and the appropriate sentence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the evidence, the legal principles regarding extra-judicial confessions, and the applicability of S. 84, I.P.C. The court concluded that the appellant was of sound mind at the time of the murder and upheld the conviction under S. 302, I.P.C., but reduced the sentence to imprisonment for life.

Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction under S. 302, I.P.C., but reduced the sentence to imprisonment for life.

JUDGEMENT

1. Dasaundhi, who has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahasu, Sirmur, Bilaspur and Kinnaur Sessions Division, under S. 302, I.P.C., for the murder of Shtimati Dhanni, and has been sentenced to death, has filed Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1965, against his conviction and sentence. The learned Sessions Judge has also submitted the proceedings, to this Court, for the confirmation of the death sentence. The reference, made by the learned Sessions Judge, has been registered as Reference No. 1 of 1965. This judgement will dispose of both the appeal and the reference.

2. The prosecution case against Dasaundhi appellant was as follows :

3. Shrimati Dhanni, deceased, was the wife of the appellant. He suspected that Shrimati Dhanni was carrying on with his younger brother, Hari Ram, and intended to do away with him, by poisoning. The appellant was so much obsessed with the suspicion that Shrimati Dhanni had poisoned him that be had consulted Shankru PW-9, who was known for extracting poison, from the body of the person, affected, by black art. Shankru had made the appellant to gargle with enchanted milk. The appellant had vomited 7 black pills. Previously, the appellant and Shrimati Dhanni had visited Chet Rain PW-13, who used to treat people of the bad effects of evil spirits.

4. On the 28th March 1964, the appellant had gone to Paonta to attend a case, pending in the Court of the Tehsildar, against Narainoo. Nanak Chand PW-6, a son of the appellant, and Hari Ram, younger brother of the appellant, were also there. The case was compromised. The appellant, Nanak Chand and Hari Ram had left the Court at about noon. Nanak Chand and Hari Ram had taken tea in Paonta Bazar. They had invited the appellant, as well, to take tea, but he had refused and had left for his village. The appellant had reached his home at about 1.00 P.M. His minor sons, Sajjan PW-7 and Maluka, were at home. The appellants wife, Shrimati Dhanni, was not at home. She had gone to the house of Mehar Singh Lambardar to get her grandson vaccinated. Shrimati Kashmari PW-3, appellants daughter, who had gone to Akalgarh village, to attend a tailoring class had come back at about 1-30 P.M. Shrimati Dhanni had also come home, by that time. The appellant had asked Sluimati Dhanni to accompany him to the jungle. He had told her that he would cut some poles from the jungle and she could help him in lifting the poles and could also collect some fuel wood. The appellant and Shrimati Dhanni had, then, left for the jungle. The appellant had taken the Takwa Ex. P-4, with him. He had murdered Shrimati Dhanni, by inflicting injuries, with the Takwa Ex. P-4, in the jungle. He had come back to his house. The appellant had patted Sajjan PW-7 and Maluka, his minor sons, on the head and had told them that he had killed their mother, whose body was lying near Bantiwala Khala. At this, Shrimati Kashmari PW-3 had asked her brothers to go to the jungle, in order to find out, whether what the appellant was saying was correct. Accordingly, Sajjan and Maluka had gone to the jungle. They had found that their mother was lying dead near the, Bantiwala Khala. There were injuries on her head. Blood was coming out of the injuries. Sajjan and Maluka had returned to their house and had informed Shrimati Kashmari that their mother had been killed. All the children had started weeping and had gone to the Bantiwala Khala.

5. From his house, the appellant had gone towards the house of Dhanni Ram PW-2, Shrimati Dhannis brother. Dhani Rani, Gulzar Singh PW-5, Bhagat Ram PW-8 and Khem Chand PW-11 were thatching the roof of Khem Chands house. Dhani Ram had inquired of the appellant why his children were weeping. The appellant had replied that he had killed his own wife in Bantiwala Khala and that Dhani Ram could go and see for himself. Thereupon Dhani Ram, Gulzar Singh, Bhagat Ram and Khem Chand had gone to the Bantiwala Khala. Shrimati Dhanni was lying there dead with injuries on her head. Other vill






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top