Back
1995 Supreme(All) 1229
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K. C. BHARGAVA, I. S. MATHUR
RAM BETI - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL 97 Of 1980
Decided On : 12/05/1995
Subhodh K.Shukla
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established, must be of a definite tendency pointing towards the guilt of the accused, and must form a complete chain that excludes all reasonable hypotheses except the guilt of the accused.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 IPC - MURDER - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - INSUFFICIENT MOTIVE - NO RECOVERY OF WEAPON - NO EYEWITNESSES - EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION NOT CORROBORATED - CONVICTION OVERTURNED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Srimati Ram Beti, was convicted of murdering her husband, Chhotey Lal, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the appellant shot her husband with a licensed gun due to marital disputes. The appellant denied the charges and claimed that she was falsely implicated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a sufficient motive for the murder. The alleged motive, based on marital disputes, was not supported by strong evidence. Additionally, the court noted that the recovery of the licensed gun and empty cartridges from the deceased's house did not conclusively link the appellant to the crime. The court also found that the two alleged eyewitnesses were unreliable and their testimonies were contradictory. The extrajudicial confession made by the appellant to one of the witnesses was not corroborated by other evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution established a sufficient motive for the murder. 2. Whether the recovery of the licensed gun and empty cartridges conclusively linked the appellant to the crime. 3. Whether the testimonies of the alleged eyewitnesses were reliable. 4. Whether the extrajudicial confession made by the appellant was corroborated by other evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish a sufficient motive for the murder. The alleged motive, based on marital disputes, was not supported by strong evidence. 2. The court found that the recovery of the licensed gun and empty cartridges from the deceased's house did not conclusively link the appellant to the crime. The court noted that the investigating officer did not take proper precautions to determine if the gun was freshly fired or if it had the appellant's fingerprints. 3. The court found that the two alleged eyewitnesses were unreliable and their testimonies were contradictory. The court noted that one of the witnesses changed his statement during the trial and that the other witness was declared hostile. 4. The court held that the extrajudicial confession made by the appellant to one of the witnesses was not corroborated by other evidence. The court noted that the confession was made to a single witness and was not supported by any physical evidence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant, and acquitted her of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of the judgement and order dated 19-2-1980 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kheri convicting the accused-appellant, Srimati Ram Beti, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing her to life imprisonment. The facts stated in brief are that Chhotey Lal, deceased, and his wife, the present appellant, were not having good relations. It is alleged that Chhotey Lal deceased used to beat his wife and had a suspicision that his wife was not sincere to him. Ram Gopal (P. W. 4) and Ved Prakash (P. W. 3) are said to have intervened in the matter and impressed upon Chhotey Lal not to beat his wife. The occurrence took place on 10-5-1978 at about 9. 30 p. m. On that day at about 9. 30 p. m. a gun shot was fired. At that time Ved Prakash (P. W. 3) was lying on the roof of the shop of his nephew. When he heard the noise he came out of the shop. He along with his nephew came to the house of Chhotey Lal. Ram Gopal (P. W. 4) also reached the spot. They found that the appellant had a gun in her hands and Chhotey Lal was lying on the cot in a pool of blood having gun shot wound on his head. It is the case of the prosecution that Chhotey Lal deceased had a licensed gun. When these witnesses reached the house of Chhotey Lal the appellant along with her daughter boarded a bus and went away from the place of the occurrence. It is alleged that she went to the police station on the same day and gave a report at the police station, a copy of which is Ext. Ka-6.
( 2 ) ON the basis of this report a chik report was prepared by Head Constable Bhagwati Singh. The investigation was done by Iqbal Singh, Station House Officer. He recorded the statement of Srimati Ram Beti at the police station and reached the place of occurrence and found the dead body of the deceased on the north of the Khoka on a cot. As there was no light therefore the Panchayatnama was prepared on the next day. After completing the investigation a charge-sheet, Ext. Ka-17, was submitted against the appellant under Section 302, I. P. C.
( 3 ) DR. S. C. Agarwal (P. W. 1) conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased Chhotey Lal and found the following ante-mortem injuries :-1. Gunshot wound of entry 2. 5 cm. x 2. 4 cm. x cranial cavity deep over left side head, temple region, just above left ear. Margins inverted and irregular. Blackening and tattooing present around the wound. Singeing of hair present. 2. Gunshot wound of exit 7 cm x 6 cm. x cranial cavity deep over right side head. Margins averted and irregular. Brain matter coming out of the wound. Right parietal bone fractured into pieces.
( 4 ) IN the opinion of the doctor the death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of gunshot injury. According to him the deceased should have died at 9. 00 or 9. 30 p. m. on 10-5-1978. There can be a difference of 4 to 6 hours in the time of death.
( 5 ) THE prosecution examined Dr. S. C. Agarwal (P. W. 1) Chhotey Singh Pradhan (P. W. 2), Ved Prakash (P. W. 3), Ram Gopal (P. W. 4), Head Constable Mahabir (P. W. 5) and Mool Chand S. I. (P. W. 6 ). Out of these witnesses Chhotey Singh (P. W. 2), Ved Prakash (P. W. 3) and Ram Gopal (P. W. 4) are eye witnesses of the incident. In the statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. the appellant stated that when she heard the noise of fire she saw that a man was running towards the eastern side. The investigating officer got her thumb impression on the first information report forcibly. She has denied the charge.
( 6 ) AFTER considering the entire evidence on the record the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that guilt of the accused-appellant is proved and as such he convicted and sentenced her in the manner aforesaid.
( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Government Advocate have been heard. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that it was the appellant who committed the murder
