Back
1996 JLJ 377
R.P. Awasthy and Rajeev Gupta, JJ.
State of M.P. v. Budhram
Ref No.7 of 1995; made by Addl. Judge to the Court of Session Judge, Sakti
Distt. Bilaspur, in Session Trial No. 41 of 1994; Decided on 13.11.1995.
(2) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 27 -- witnesses of memo of statement of accused and recovery memo of weapon not supporting prosecution case -- recovery not established. [Para 19
(3) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 27 -- recovery of blood stained clothes from accused -- report of serologist not produced -- source of blood found on clothes missing -- recovery is of no use. [Para 22
(4) Evidence Act, 1872 - Ss. 28 and 24 - confession made to village chowkidar -- not inadmissible in evidence -- he is not a police officer. 1987 JLJ 102 (FB) relied on. [Para 23
(5) Evidence Act, 1872 -- Ss. 28 and 24 - extra judicial confession of accused found reliable -- conviction can be based upon it. AIR 1985 SC 48 followed. [Para 23
(6) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S.134 -- solitary evidence found wholly reliable -- conviction even in case of capital offence can be based upon it. AIR 1957 SC 614, AIR 1957 SC 619, AIR 1981 SC 1122 and AIR 1993 SC 1193 followed. [Para 23
(7) Evidence Act, 1872 -- Ss. 134, 154 and 28 -- solitary witness of confession declared hostile - prepared to say anything suggested by prosecution -- deposed so many lies -- conviction of even heinous offence cannot be based upon his testimony.
(8) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 302 -- offence of murder of seven persons -solitary witness not reliable -- no conviction can be based upon his testimony.
It is very correct that such heinous offences of murders of seven persons is going unpunished. Nevertheless, in such a case where if the offence is proved there can be no other sentence except the sentence of death, the Court naturally expects that strict legal proof regarding complicity of the accused should be available on record. As has already been mentioned there is only one witness out of many examined in the case, by the prosecution, who has in reality supported the prosecution case regarding the complicity of the accused. This solitary witness, Kotwar Pateldas (PW/10), is pertaining to evidence of alleged extra judicial confession made by the accused. Such a witness has also been unnecessarily and without any rhyme or reason, declared hostile by the learned Govt. Pleader. Inspite of it, even if the said factum of the said witness having been unnecessarily declared hostile be ignored, it has still to be seen that the said witness was prepared to state and has stated such facts which, on the face of the record, are absolutely incorrect and wrong.
Under the said circumstances, the only irresistable inference would be to the effect that the said witness was completely under the control of the Prosecuting Agency which could make him to say anything which it liked, even when such a statement was absolutely incorrect or wrong. [Para 28
(9) Evidence Act, 1872--S.8-- mere motive -- not sufficient to punish the accused. [Para 29
(10) Law -- Courts are duty bound to give findings strictly in accordance with law - if persons are not inclined to state truth in Courts -- Courts of law cannot help the situations. [Para 30
¼1½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 9 & x¡Mklk vijk/k ds vk;q/k ds :i esa ç;qDr & Qyd Hkkx dh ‘kuk[r yksgkj }kjk ugha dh tk ldrh tks ,sls vusd Qyd Hkkx cukrk gS & ijsM vk;ksftr dh tkuk pkfg,A , vkb vkj 1983 ,l lh 446 çHksfnrA ¿iSjk 20 rFkk 21 ¼2½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 27 & vfHk;qDr ds dFku ds Kkiu rFkk vk;q/k ds vfHkxzg.k Kkiu ds lk{khx.k }kjk vfHk;kstu ds i{kdFku dk leFkZu ugha & vfHkxzg.k LFkkfir ughaA ¿iSjk 19 ¼3½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 27 & vfHk;qDr ls jDrjafgr oL=ksa dk vfHkxzg.k & lhje foKkuh dh fjiksVZ çLrqr ugha dh xbZ & oL=ksa ij ik, x, jDr dk L=ksr vçdV & vfHkxzg.k fu#i;ksxh gSA ¿iSjk 22 ¼4½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 28 rFkk 24 & xzke pkSdhnkj dks dh xbZ laLohÑfr lk{; esa vxzká ugha & og iqfyl vf/kdkjh ugha gSA 1987 ts ,y ts 102 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¿iSjk 23 ¼5½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 28 rFkk 24 & vfHk;qDr dh U;kf;dsrj laLohÑfr voyacuh; ikbZ xbZ & naMkns‘k ml ij vk/kkfjr fd;k tk ldrk gSA , vkb vkj 1985 ,l lh 48 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 23 ¼6½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 134 & ,dek= lk{; iw.kZr% voyacuh; ik;k x;k&e`R;q ls naMuh; vijk/k ds ekeys esa Hkh naMkns‘k ml ij vk/kkfjr fd;k tk ldrk gSA , vkb vkj 1957 ,l lh 614] , vkb vkj 1957 ,l lh 619] , vkb vkj 1981 ,l lh 1122 rFkk , vkb vkj 1993 ,l lh 1193 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 23 ¼7½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 134] 154 rFkk 28 & laLohÑfr dk ,dek= lk{kh i{knzksgh ?kksf"kr & vfHk;kstu ds lq>ko ij dqN Hkh dgus ds fy, rS;kj & vusd >wBs vfHklk{; fn,&t?kU; vijk/k gksus ij Hkh naMkns‘k mlds ifjlk{; ij vk/kkfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼8½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 302 & lkr O;fDr;ksa dh gR;k dk vijk/k & ,dek= lk{kh fo‘oluh; ugha & naMkns‘k mlds ifjlk{; ij vk/kkfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ;g fcYdqy lgh gS fd lkr O;fDr;ksa dh gR;k ds ,sls t?kU; vijk/k nafMr jg jgs gSaA rFkkfi] ,sls ekeys esa tgk¡ ;fn vijk/k lkfcr gksrk gS] e`R;q naM ds vfrfjDr vU; dksbZ naMkns‘k ugha gks ldrk] U;k;ky; ;g LokHkkfod :i ls çR;k‘kk djsxk fd vfHk;qDr dh lg&vijkf/krk ds ckjs esa vfrfu;efu"B fof/kd lcwr vfHkys[k ij miyC/k gksA tSlk igys gh mYys[k fd;k x;k gS] vfHk;kstu }kjk ekeys esa ijhf{kr vusd lkf{k;ksa esa ls dsoy ,d gS ftlus vfHk;qDr dh lg&vijkf/krk ds ckjs esa okLro esa vfHk;kstu ds i{kdFku dk leFkZu fd;k gSA ;g ,dek= lk{kh] dksVokj iVsynkl ¼v lk 10½ vfHk;qDr }kjk dh xbZ vfHkdfFkr U;kf;dsrj laLohÑfr dh lk{; ds ckjs esa gSaA ,slk lk{kh Hkh fo}ku ljdkjh odhy }kjk vuko‘;d :i ls vkSj fcuk fdlh rqd vkSj dkj.k ds i{knzksgh ?kksf"kr dj fn;k x;k gSA blds ckotwn] ml lk{kh dks vuko‘;d :i ls i{knzksgh ?kksf"kr fd, tkus ds rF; dh ;fn mis{kk Hkh dj nh tk,] ;g fQj Hkh ns[kk tkuk gksxk fd og lk{kh ,sls rF; dgus ds fy, tks vfHkys[k ls çFken`"V;k iw.kZr % v;FkkFkZ vkSj xyr gSa] çf‘kf{kr Fkk vkSj mlus dgs HkhA mDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa dsoy bl vk‘k; dk vçfrjks/; fu"d"kZ fd mDr lk{kh iw.kZr% vfHk;kstu vfHkdj.k ds fu;a=.k esa Fkk tks mlls tks dqN Hkh og pkgrs] dgyok ldrs Fks] Hkys gh ,slk dFku iw.kZr% v;FkkFkZ vkSj xyr FkkA ¿iSjk 28 ¼9½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 8 & ek= gsrq & vfHk;qDr dks nafMr djus ds fy, i;kZIr ughaA ¿iSjk 29 ¼10½ fof/k & U;k;ky; vfrfu;efu"BkiwoZd fof/k ds vuqlkj fu"d"kZ nsus ds fy, vkc) gSa&;fn O;fDr U;k;ky; esa lR; dFku ds fy, ço`Ùk ugha & U;k;ky; mu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa lgk;d ugha gks ldrsA ¿iSjk 30
R.P. Awasthy, J.--1. It is a reference made under section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code for confirming the sentence of death awarded to the accused. The accused has also filed an appeal which has been registered as Criminal Appeal No. 1128/95 against the finding of holding him guilty for committing murders of his father Kunkuram, Step-mother Ravibai, Stepbrothers Nankua, Chatua and Shankarlal and Step-sisters Jugnabai and Muliabai and recommendation for sentencing him to death.
2. It has not been disputed by the accused that Kumkuram (since deceased) had left about 20 years prior to the date of incident his married wife Hirabai, daughter Urmila and son accused Budhram at village Basti Baradwar where they used to reside. At that time the daughter of Kunkuram to wit Urmila was aged about 5 years and his son, accused Budhram was aged about 3 years. It had also not been disputed that Kunkuram had kept Ravibai, as his wife and had gone for earning his livelihood alongwith Ravibai towards Allahabad. The mother of the accused brought up the accused and his sister by cultivating the land belonging to Kunkuram. It was she who performed marriage ceremonies of Urmilabai and subsequent to it of accused Budhram also. During the said period the accused and his mother lived in the house belonging to Kunkuram.
3. About two years prior to the date of incident, Kunkuram returned alongwith Ravibai and their six children to village Basti Baradwar and started residing in separate portion of the same house in which Hirabai and accused Budhram were residing. After Kunkuram and Ravibai returned to village Basti Baradwar they performed marriage ceremony of their eldest daughter Kiranbai (PW /17), who was residing in the house of her husband from before the time of the incident.
4. It has also not been disputed and has been fully established from the evidence available on record that in the morning, on 26.11.93, Kunkuram, Ravibai and their five issues were found murdered.
5. The accused has further not disputed that when Kotwar Pateldas was returning from Police Station Baradwar, the accused had met him.
6. Prosecution case is that after returning from Basti Baradwar, Kunkuram took possession of the major portion of the house, in which the accused and his mother were residing. Kunkuram also took possession of the land which was being cultivated by the accused and his mother, and also seized cattle which were previously in possession of the accused. He used to beat Hirabai, and few months prior to the date of incident had compelled Budhram to leave his Village. About two months prior to the date of incident a daughter was born to Budhram. The said daughter died after few days of her birth. Kunkuram did not attend the obsequies of the daughter of accused. On the other hand, on the date, on which the funeral rites were being performed in the house of the accused, Kunkuram got meat prepared in his house for his dinner. Due to these reasosn the accused bore grudge against his father Kunkuram.
7. On account of the said ill-will and hatred towards Kunkuram, the accused entered, in the night intervening 25th and 26th of November 1993, that portion of the house in which Kunkuram was residing alongwith his kept Ravi Bai and their issues. The accused inflicted injuries on Kunkuram, Ravibai, Chatua, Nankua, Shankarlal, Juganabai and Muliabai by means of gandasa (Article-A), which was prepared by Tijauram (PW /2) for the accused. Thereafter, the accused changed his clothes and proceeded for the police station. In the way when he met Kotwar Pateldas (PW/10), he confessed to him extra judicially that he had committed murders of his father, step-mother, his step-brothers and step-sisters. Thereupon, Kotwar Pateldas (PW/10) took the accused/appellant to Police Station, where Kotwar Pateldas (PW/10) lodged first information report (Ex.P/17). On the basis of the information given by Pateldas (PW/10), the reports (Ex. P/18 to Ex. P/24) regarding untimely deaths of the
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
