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

2015 Supreme(All) 4029

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J.
Prempati and others - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 672 of 1982
Decided On : 09-12-2015

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :- B.P. Singh, Brij Mohan Sahai, Raj Priya Srivastava, Advocates.
For the Respondent:- Govt. Advocate.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL APPEAL - [SECTION 302/34 AND 201/34 I.P.C.] - [U/S 374 CR.P.C.] - [AGAINST JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 28.8.1982 PASSED IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 223 OF 1981] - [MURDER OF HUSBAND BY WIFE WITH THE HELP OF HER PARAMOUR AND HIS FRIEND] - [CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT OF APPELLANT NO.1] - [RECOVERY OF DEAD BODY, SHEET OF PLASTIC WITH WHICH IT WAS TIED, STRING USED TO BIND THE DEAD BODY WITH THE HELP OF PLASTIC SHEET, BUCKET, IRON PESTLE AND BRICK, WEAPONS OF MURDER] - [EVIDENCE OF EYE WITNESS] - [MEDICAL EVIDENCE] - [TESTIMONY OF INVESTIGATING OFFICER] - [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS] - [FINDINGS OF THE COURT] - [DECISION] - [APPEAL DISMISSED].

Fact of the Case:

The instant appeal, filed by accused/appellants U/S 374 Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.8.1982 passed in Sessions Trial No. 223 of 1981 by Sri A.S. Tripathi, the then IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Faizabad, whereby the appellants were convicted U/S- 302/34 and 201/34 I.P.C,. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for five years respectively.

Finding of the Court:

The learned trial Judge has not committed any legal error, therefore the appeal fails the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Issues: 1. Whether the confessional statement of Appellant No.1 is admissible? 2. Whether the evidence of the eye witness is reliable? 3. Whether the medical evidence corroborates the prosecution's case? 4. Whether the testimony of the Investigating Officer is credible? 5. Whether the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants have any merit?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The confessional statement of Appellant No.1 is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, as it led to the discovery of the dead body and other incriminating articles. 2. The evidence of the eye witness, Ram Kumar P.W.2, is reliable and trustworthy. He was present at the time of the occurrence and had the opportunity to see the incident. His testimony remains unshaken during cross-examination. 3. The medical evidence corroborates the prosecution's case. The postmortem report reveals that the deceased died a violent death due to injuries inflicted by an iron pestle and a brick. 4. The testimony of the Investigating Officer, Bhagwati Prasad Misra P.W.5, is credible. He has given a detailed account of the investigation and the recovery of the dead body and other incriminating articles. 5. The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants lack merit. The appellants' guilt is fully proved on the basis of the evidence on record.

Final Decision: Appeal Dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Pratyush Kumar, J. –

Sri Raj Priya Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Umesh Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State have been heard at length and we have perused the material available on record.

2. The instant appeal, filed by accused/appellants U/S 374 Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.8.1982 passed in Sessions Trial No. 223 of 1981 by Sri A.S. Tripathi, the then IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Faizabad, whereby the appellants were convicted U/S- 302/34 and 201/34 I.P.C,. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for five years respectively.

3. Brief Facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are as under: -

On 16.6.1980 at 09.30 P.M. Sharda Prasad Misra handed a written report at P.S. Raunahi stating therein that he was resident of village Misrauli. Bhagwati Prasad also lived in his village. On 09.6.1980 in the evening he brought one pair of bullocks after purchasing them from the market, thereafter his whereabouts were not known. On 10.6.1980 in the morning Sobh Nath and Ram Prasad were seen by Sukh Dev Prasad, Dev Prasad and Ranjit Prasad, leaving his house, when inquired wife of Bhagwati used to reply that Bhagwati had left the house after saying that he was going to Bombay. That day the foul smell was coming out of the house of Bhagwati, when residents of the village asked her where was Bhagwati and why foul smell was coming out, at that she closed the door from the inside and refused to open. Wife of Bhagwati had illicit relations with Sobh Nath and that fact was known to all the villagers. All the residents were suspicious that Bhagwati had been murdered by his wife, Sobh Nath and Ram Prasad and his dead body was concealed in his house. Sobh Nath was not available in his house. Jamuna Prasad and other villagers were watching the house.

4. At this written report, chick F.I.R. was scribed and Case Crime No. 201 of 1980 was registered, requisite entry in the G.D. was made, thereafter investigation was entrusted to S.I. Bhagwati Prasad, who on the same night proceeded to the village and get the door opened by Appellant No.1, who immediately confessed that 08 days ago she with her paramour Sobh Nath and his friend Ram Prasad had murdered Bhagwati Prasad and after putting his dead body in a gunny bag hidden it in a pit dug at Ghoora (place for storage of garbage to convert that into bio fertilizer), she also volunteered to indicate the place where the dead body was hidden, she was immediately taken into custody and she led the Investigating Officer along with residents of village following, to Ghoora situated in the courtyard inside the house. After placing her hand at a particular point, she started to remove the garbage with her hands, foul smell was coming from there . She told that the dead body was hidden in deep pit where after with the help of residents of the village garbage was removed. After removal of garbage, one tied gunny bag became visible which was taken out, after seeing the gunny bag Appellant No.1 informed the Investigating Officer that inside that gunny bag dead body of Bhagwati Prasad had been kept. After opening the gunny bag the decomposed dead body was recovered, the deceased was wearing one Kurta, his dead body was taken into possession, gunny bag, panni and Rassi were sealed in a bundle and recovery memo was prepared, it was written and signed by the Investigating Officer and witnesses, copy was provided to the Appellant No.1, thereafter Appellant No.1 further volunteered the Investigating Officer that deceased was murdered with the help of Pestle (Iron Mungari) and Brick which were hidden in a kothari (Small room) after placing them in a bucket. She went, with them, to the kothari in question whose door was locked, she took out a key and opened the lock and went to southern side of kothari and took out one blood stained iron Pestle and one open piece of Brick following mark R(Swastik) out of the bucket.






















































































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top