Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11
PETITIONER:
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SAMMAN DASS
DATE OF JUDGMENT11/01/1972
BENCH:
KHANNA, HANS RAJ
BENCH:
KHANNA, HANS RAJ
SHELAT, J.M.
CITATION:
1972 AIR 677 1972 SCR (3) 58
1972 SCC (3) 201
CITATOR INFO :
E 1973 SC 399 (4)
R 1973 SC 863 (15)
RF 1973 SC1204 (7)
MV 1982 SC1325 (69)
R 1983 SC 308 (18)
ACT:
Criminal Trial-Murder-Trial Court convicting and sentencing
to death-Acquittal by High Court-Ground of interference with
assessment of evidence by High Court in appeal under Art.
136-Interference justified if High Court reverses the
judgment of the trial court on grounds which are manifestly
fallacious and untenable-Constitution of India, Art. 136.
HEADNOTE:
The fact that the High Court, in a reference under S. 374 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, has to appraise the evidence
for itself and has to arrive at its own independent
conclusion would not prevent this Court from interfering
with the order of the High Court if the High Court reverses
the judgment of the trial court on grounds which are
manifestly fallacious and untenable.
This Court in an appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution
does not normally reappraise the evidence and interfere with
the assessment of that evidence by the High Court. Where,
however, this Court finds that grave injustice has been done
by the High Court in interfering with the decision of the
trial court on grounds which are plainly untenable and the
view taken by the High Court is clearly unreasonable on the
evidence on record this Court would not stay its hand.
There are, however, certain cardinal rules which have always
to be kept in view in appeals against acquittal. Firstly,
there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused
which has to be kept in mind especially when the accused has
been acquitted by the Court below-, Secondly, if two views
of the matter are possible a view favourable to the accused
should be taken; thirdly, in case of acquittal by the trial
judge the appellate court should take into account the fact
that the trial judge had the advantage of looking at the
demeanour of witnesses; and fourthly, the accused is
entitled to the benefit of doubt. The doubt should,
however, be reasonable and should be such as a rational
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11
thinking man will reasonably, honestly and conscientiously
entertain and not the doubt of a timid mind which fights shy
though unwittingly it may be or is afraid of the logical
consequences, if that benefit was not, given. To put it
differently, it is "not the doubt of a vacillating mind that
has not the moral courage to decide but shelters itself in a
vain and idle scepticism,,. [69H-70E]
Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Shri Om Prakash, Cr.
Appeal No. 67 of 1969 decided on December 7, 1971, referred
to.
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 17 of
1971.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the June 1, 1970 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 1931 of 1969 and Referred No. 182 of 1969.
D. P. Uniyal and O. P. Rana, for the Appellant.
59
A. S. R. Chari, S. K. Mehta, K. L. Mehta and K. R.
Nagaraja, for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Khanna, J. Samman Dass alias Samman Lal, aged 19 years, was
convicted by Sessions Judge, Faizabad under section 302
I.P.C. for causing the death of his wife Putlibai by
throttling her and was sentenced to death. On appeal as
well as in the reference made to it for the confirmation of
the death sentence, the Allahabad High Court set aside the
conviction of the accused and acquitted him. The State of
Uttar Pradesh has filed this appeal by special leave against
the above judgment of the High Court.
The accused was married to Putlibai, who was near about of
the same, age as the accused, on May 14, 1968. Putlibai was
the daughter of Gurmukh Das (PW 8) of Azamgarh, while the
accused is the son of Shobhamal of Faizabad. The accused
lived with his parents in quarter No. 1831 in Ram Nagar
Colony of Faizabad. More than 300 familities of Sindhis
live in this locality. The non-Sindhis occupy only a couple
of houses. There are a number of blocks of buildings in the
colony. Each of those blocks consists of ten quarters.
Apart from the accused and his parents, his uncle Parumal
and the wife of Parumal, who is sister of the mother of the
accused, also lives in his quarter.
The accused had been engaged to Putlibai about a year before
the marriage. According to the prosecution case, about 5 or
6 months after the engagement the accused went to the house
of Gurmukh Das in Azamgarh to see Putlibai. After having a
look at Putlibai the accused came to Faizabad and stated
that he would not marry Putlibai as she was not of fair
complexion. When Gurmukh Das (PW) 8 learnt that the accused
had refused to marry his daughter, he convened a panchayat.
The father of the accused then became agreeable to marry the
accused with Putlibai. The marriage accordingly took place
on May 14, 1969. After the marriage Putlibai came to
Faizabad and lived with the accused in his parents’ quarter
for about two and a half months. Gurmukh Das, father of
Putlibai, it is stated, then came and took her to his house.
Putlibai after that came to the house of her husband on
October 15, 1968.
The death anniversary of Sain Kanwar Ram, a Sindhi saint,
was celebrated by the Sindhis in Ram Nagar Colony of
Faizabad on the night between 17th and 18th October, 1968.
The singing of the devotional songs continued up to 10 a.m.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11
on October 18 in an open maidan in the Ram Nagar Colony.
The said maidan is at about a distance of 90 paces from the
quarter of the accused.
60
Most of the Sindhis of Ram Nagar Colony attended the
celebrations. The Prasad was distributed at about 10 a.m.
on the close of the celebrations.
The case of the prosecution is that Bhagwan Das (PW 1) who
is brother of maternal grandfather of Putlibai, after taking
Prasad took a riksha and started going to his grocery shop
in Mohalla Chowk, Faizabad. When Bhagwan Das passed in from
of the quarter of the accused, he heard shrieks. Bhagwan
Das then shouted as to what the shrieks were about. Bhagwan
Das also went to the front door of the quarter of the
accused and knocked there. On hearing the shouts of Bhagwan
Das, Choith Ram (PW 2), Ayal Das alias Ailmal (PW 6),
Shobhraj (PW 7) and one Kirpal Das also joined Bhagwan.
Das. Bhagwan Das. Choith Ram, Ayal Das and Shobhraj all
live in that locality. Choith Ram and Shobhraj were passing
through the lane at that time after taking Prasad. Ayal
Das, who ’too had taken Prasad, was taking water at a place
about 40/50 paces away from the quarter of the accused when
Ayal Das heard shouts. The front door of the quarter of the
accused was found bolted from inside and there was no
response to the knocking at the door. Bhagwan Das and
others who had joined him then went to the back door of the
quarter of the accused and knocked at the back door. The
back door which opens in a very narrow lane was also found
bolted from inside. There was no response even to the
knocking at the back door. Bhagwan Das and his companions
then thought of going again to the front door of the
quarter. When Bhagwan Das and his companions reached near a
well at a distance of 10 paces from the back door of the
house of the accused, they heard the noise of someone
jumping. They then looked back and saw the accused who
jumped over the back wall of his quarter. The accused
wanted to run away but Bhagwan Das and his four companions
caught hold of the accused and did not allow him to escape
in spite of his entreaties. The accused appeared worried at
that time and there was redness in his eyes.
At the asking of Bhagwan Das, it is alleged, Choith Ram PW
went inside the quarter of the accused by scaling over the
wall which is about 7 feet high. Choith Ram then opened the
back door. Bhagwan Das along with the companions went
inside the quarter of the accused and found Putlibai lying
dead on a cot in one of the rooms of the quarter. The door
of this room was slightly open. No one else was present in
the quarter at that time. Just then there was a knock at
the front door of the quarter. It was opened by Choith Ram.
The mother of the accused who had also gone to take Prasad
then came inside the quarter. On seeing the dead body of
the deceased, the mother of the accused started crying.
Shobhamal, the father of the accused, whose shop
61
is situated in Sabzi Mandi, came after about one and a half
hour. On the arrival of Shobhanial, Bhagwan Das told him
everything. Shobhamal then wanted to lift the dead body of
Putlibai for consigning it in the river but he was told by
Choith Ram and others that they would not allow the dead
body to be removed till the arrival of the parents of
Putlibai. Bhagwan Das, in the meanwhile, directed one
Govardhan Das, brother of Choith Ram, to go in a taxi to
Azamgarh and bring the parents of Putlibai.
At about 3 p.m. it is stated, Shobhamal, father of the
accused, stated that there was no idea in keeping the dead
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11
body for a long time and that if Bhagwan Das and others had
any suspicion, a doctor could be sent for. Bhagwan Das and
his companions then told Shobhanial to call the doctor.
Shobhamal thereupon deputed one Bhagumal to call a doctor.
Bhagumal then went and contacted Dr. Hansraj Singhal (PW 4)
at the latter’s residence It about 4 p.m.
Dr. Singhal, it is alleged, then went to his clinic and from
there took his diagonistic bag and thereafter came to the
quarter of the accused. The doctor found the dead body of
Putlibai lying on a cot. The colour of her face was blue.
The face was swollen and the eyes were slightly open.
Pupils were dilated and nonreacting to light. The mouth was
slightly open and there were finger marks on the left and
right side of her neck. There were also marks of some
abrasions on both the elbows besides a contusion on the
right palm. As Dr. Singhal was concerned only with the
question as to whether the death of the deceased was normal
or was the result of some foul play, he did not make a more
detailed examination of the dead body. Dr. Singhal came to
the conclusion that the death of Putlibai was not natural
but was due to throttling. The doctor told this thing to
Bhagumal. The doctor added that the police should be
informed and that otherwise he would himself inform the
police on reaching his clinic. After saying this the doctor
left the quarter. After the doctor gone for a distance of
about two furlongs he thought of inquiring the name of the
deceased, her husband and the particulars of the address.
He consequently returned to the quarter of the accused
and after getting the necessary information, went to his
clinic. Before reaching the clinic, the doctor also
telephoned to the police station about the death of Putlibai
from a shop near his clinic.
In the meanwhile, immediately after Dr. Singbal had left the
quarter of the accused, Bhagwan Das PW got a report written
by Dayal Das (PW 10). The report was then signed by Bhagwan
Das and was taken to police station kotwali at a distance of
about two miles from the place of occurrence. The report
was handed over at the police station at 5 p.m. Mohd. Amin
(PW 9),
62
head clerk in the police station, then prepared a formal
F.I.R. on the basis of the report of Bhagwan Das. A copy of
the first information report was sent to Sub Inspector Ram
Gulam Chaudhari who was present in station Fatehganj. The
Sub Inspector then went to the quarter of the accused and
reached there at about 6 p.m. The Sub Inspector took the
accused, who had been secured at the spot, in his custody.
The dead body of the deceased was found by the Sub Inspector
lying on a cot. After preparing the necessary documents,
the Sub Inspector sent the dead body to the mortuary.
Post mortem examination on the dead body of Putlibai was
performed by Dr. Vijay Pal (PW 3) at 11.45 a.m. on October
19, 1968. In the opinion of Dr. Vijay Pal the death of
Putlibai deceased was due to asphyxia caused by throttling.
After necessary investigations, a challan was put in against
the accused.
In his statement under section 342 Code of Criminal Proce-
dure before the committing magistrate the accused denied the
prosecution allegations and stated that on the day of
occurrence, he had gone to his father’s shop at 9 a.m. He
was called from that shop at 9-30 a.m. after being told that
the condition of his wife was serious. The accused then
wanted to call a doctor but the doctor was not available.
According to the accused he was falsely involved in this
case at the instance of Bliagwan Das and Perumal who did not
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11
want that he should mart)( Putlibai.
In his statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in the court of Sessions, the accused admitted
that he had been married to Putlibai deceased on May 14,
1968 and that they had been living together in the quarter
of the accused along with the parents of the accused as welt
as his uncle and aunt. The accused further admitted that he
had been engaged to Putlibai before his marriage but denied
that he had refused to marry her. The allegation about the
gathering of a panchayat too was denied by the accused. The
accused admitted that Putlibai came to the quarter of the
accused on October 15, 1968. The fact that there was a
celebration by the Sindhis living in the locality of the
death anniversary of Sain Kanwar Rain on the night between
17th and 18th October 1968 was also admitted by the accused,
but according to him, the Prasad was distributed at 6 or 7
a.m. The prosecution allegations about the hearing. of
shircks from his quarter as well as about his jumping over
the back wall was denied by the accused. The accused
likewise denied the allegation that he was secured by
Bhagwan Das and others. The accused added that Bhagwan Das,
Choith Ram and father of Cloitli Ram, were inimical to him
because they did not want Putlibai to marry the accused.
63
According to the accused, on the day of occurrence he had
gone to his father’s shop at about 9 a.m. Thereafter he came
to the place of occurrence at about 11 or 11.30 a.m. on
being told that the condition of his wife was serious.
In defence five witnesses were examined on behalf of the
accused.
The purport of the defence evidence was that on the day of
occurrence at 10.30 or 11 a.m. the aunt of the accused
called Tikam Das (DW 2), who is the cousin of the mother of
the accused and lives in the neighbourhood, and told him to
go to the shop of the father of the accused and inform him
about the serious condition of Putlibai deceased. Tikam Das
then went to the shop of the father of the accused and met
the accused and his father there and conveyed the message to
them. Evidence was also led to show that the accused called
two doctors and sent a telegram about the death of the
deceased to his sister’s husband.
The learned Sessions Judge on consideration of the evidence
found that the following facts had been proved by the
prosecution
"1. The accused was the only person in the
quarter and, therefore, with, the deceased
immediately before, at the time of and
immediately after her murder.
2. Instead of getting out of the quarter in
the usual way, he scaled the rear wall and
jumped into the back lane immediately after
the murder of the deceased.
3.When he was caught as soon as lie jumped, he
was nonplused, his eyes were red-shot and he
begged to be, let off which exhibited his
guilty consciences"
Reference was further made to the fact that the accused had
failed to explain as to why he had jumped from the back wall
of his quarter and had tried to run away. It was also
pointed out that the accused had made false denials and put
forth false plea of alibi. The above circumstances, in the
opinion of the Sessions Judge, were consistent only with the
guilt of the accused. The defence evidence produced by the
accused was found to be not worthy of credence and was
rejected. In the result the accused was convicted for the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11
murder of Putlibai and was sentenced to death.
When the matter came up before the High Court, the learned
Judges held that the prosecution had successfully
established that the accused had a motive for the murder of
Putlibai. In the opinion of the learned Judges, the
circumstances in which the death of Putlibai had occurred
must have created a strong suspicion against the accused.
He was consequently involved in this case.
64
The learned Judges seem to have taken the view that the
first information report was not lodged at the time when it
purports to have been made. It was also observed that the
only witness who appeared to be independent was PW
Shobharaj. His statement was found to be not true because
the witness had given the distance ,of his quarter from that
of the accused as 50 paces, while, according to another
witness, the distance was 150 paces. In the result. the
conviction of the accused was set aside and he was
acquitted.
We have heard Mr. Unyal on behalf of the appellant and Mr.
Chari on. behalf of the accused-respondent, and are of the
opinion that the High Court set aside the conviction of the
accused on grounds which are wholly untenable. There can be
no manner of doubt that Putlibai deceased was throttled to
death. The evidence of Dr. Vijay Pal (PW 7), who performed
post mortem examination on the dead body of Putlibai
deceased shows that he found the following ante mortem
injuries on the dead body of the deceased Putlibai :
"Finger marks were present in front of the
neck. These marks looked like brownish and
dry. On the left side of the neck, in front,
upper and outer part, thumb mark was present
which measured 1" x 1/2 " and the upper part
of which was 1/2 " below the mandible. On the
right side of the neck, in front upper and
outer part of 4 finger marks were present in
oblique directions downwards and outwards one
below the other measuring 1" x 1/2", 3/4"x
1/2"", 1/2 x 1/2" and 1/4" x 1/4"; the upper
most mark was 1/2 " below the mandible."
Besides the above injuries, there was a contusion on the
right thinner eminence and two abrasions on the elbows.
Extravascular blood was present in the subcutaneous tissues
of the neck-under the finger marks in the adjacent muscles
of the neck. There was fracture of the corner of the hyoid
bone. The larynx, the trachea, the lungs, the liver, the
gall bladder, the spleen and the kidneys were congested.
Dr. Vijay Pal accordingly came to the conclusion that the
death was due to asphyxia caused by throttling. The doctor
added that the time of the death of the deceased could be
about 10.30 a.m. on October 18, 1968.
According to the prosecution case, the death of Putlibai
deceased was caused by the accused, while the accused has
denied this allegation. The Sessions Judge accepted the
prosecution evidence in this respect, but the same was found
by the High Court to be not such as could warrant a
conviction of the accused.
In order to prove the case against the accused, the
prosecution examined Bhagwan Das (PW 1), Choith Ram (PW 2),
65
Ayal Das (PW 6) and Shobhraj (PW 7). According to Bhagwan
Das PW, he heard shrieks when he passed in front of the
quarter of the accused at about 10.30 a.m. on the day of
occurrence. The witness then shouted as to what the matter
was about and was immediately joined by the other three
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11
witnesses and Kirpal Das. The witness then knocked at the
front door as well as at the back door of the quarter of the
accused but got no response. Just then, the witness and his
companions saw the accused jumping over the rear wall of his
quarter in the back lane. The accused was then secured and
was not allowed to escape in spite of his entreaties.
Choith Ram PW then entered the quarter by scaling over the
back wall and opened the door. When Bhagwan Das and his
companions went inside, they found Putlibai lying dead on
the cot. Bhagwan Das also deposed about the report lodged
by him with the police after Dr. Singhal had declared that
Putlibai had been throttled to death.
The above evidence of Bhagwan Das is corroborated by the
evidence of Choith Ram (PW 2), Ayal Das (PW 6) and Shobhraj
(PW 7). The evidence of the above mentioned four witnesses
was found by the learned Sessions Judge to be convincing and
reliable. After having been taken through that evidence, we
see no cogent ground to take a view different from that of
the Sessions Judge. It is no doubt true that Bhagwan Das PW
is the brother of Bangamal, maternal grandfather of
Putlibai, deceased and that sister of Choith Ram PW is
married to Bangamal. It is also true that Ayal Dass PW is a
cousin of Gurumukh Das, father of Putlibai. The
relationship of the above mentioned three witnesses to
Putlibai deceased would, in our opinion, be not a sufficient
ground for discrediting their testimony. It is well known
that the close relatives of a murdered person are most
reluctant to spare the real assailant’ and falsely involve
another person in place of the assailant. Had Putlibai been
killed by some other person, the natural conduct of the
above mentioned three witnesses, who were related to
Putlibai on her parents’ side, would have been to offer
sympathy to Samman Dass accused and help him in the
apprehension of the real culprit, rather than to falsely
involve him in the murder of his wife. There is no cogent
evidence on the record to show that any of the above
mentioned three witnesses had any animus against the
accused. The accused, no doubt, took the plea that the
above mentioned witnesses were against his marriage with
Putlibai, but that suggestion has been denied by these
witnesses.
Apart from the evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses, we
have the evidence of Shobhraj PW. Shobhraj is a wholly dis-
interested witness, and we see no cogent ground whatsoever
as to why his evidence be not accepted. The fact that
according to
66
Shobbraj his quarter was at a distance of about 50 paces
from the quarter of the accused, while according to Bhagwan
Das PW the quarter of Shobhraj is at a distance of 150 paces
from that of the accused, would not go to show that Shobhraj
is not, as held by the High Court, a truthful witness. The
difference in the estimate of the distance of the quarter of
the accused from that of Shobhraj is not of great
significance because nothing hinges on that distance.
According to Shobhraj, he arrived at the scene of occurrence
not from his quarter but from the place where the
celebrations of Sain Kanwar Ram were being held. The afore-
said place is at a distance of less than 100 paces from the
quarter of the accused.
The view of the High Court that the first information report
was not lodged at the police station at the time, viz., 5
p.m., at which it purports to have been lodged is based upon
mere conjecture. According to Bhagwan Das PW, immediately
after Dr. Singhal had declared at about 4.30 p.m. that
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11
Putlibai had been throttled to death, he (Bhagwan Das) got
written report from Dayal Das (PW 10) and signed it. The
report was then sent to the police station. The evidence of
Bhagwan Das in this respect is corroborated by Dayal Das PW.
We have then the evidence of Mohd. Amin (PW 9). Mohd.
Amin was head clerk in police station Kotwali in those days.
According to Mohd. Amin, the report was handed over to him
at the police station at 5 p.m. on October 18, 1968. The
witness then prepared the formal first information report.
An entry was also made in the general diary of police
station at that time. The witness further sent special
report regarding this case at 5.20 p.m. on that very day.
Nothing was brought out in cross-examination to shake the
evidence of Mohd. Amin. Apart from the fact that no reason
has been shown as to why the evidence of Bhagwan Das and
Mohd. Amin be not accepted regarding the time at which the
first information report was lodged at the police station,
we find that there was not even a remote suggestion in the
cross examination of Mohd. Amin that the formal first
information report was not prepared at the police station at
the time, viz, p.m., at which it purports to have been prepa
red. In the absence of any material pointing to the
inference that the formal first information report was not
prepared at 5 p.m., the High Court, in our view acted
erroneously in holding, on the basis of a pure surmise, that
the first information report had not been lodged at the
police station at 5 p.m.
We are also not impressed by the argument that the police
acted on the telephonic intimation received from Dr. Singhal
According to Dr. Singhal, he sent the telephonic intimation
after 5 p.m., while the report of Bhagwan Das had been
lodged at the police station at 5 p.m. Dr. Singhal’s
evidence shows that after
67
examining the dead body of Putlibai at about 4.30 p.m., he
proceeded in a riksha to his clinic. After he had gone for
a distance of two furlongs, he thought of getting details
about the name of the deceased, her husband’s name and
address. He accordingly returned to the quarter of the
accused and got the necessary particulars. After that, he
again proceeded towards his clinic, but his riksha was held
up at the railway level crossing because the gate at the
crossing remained closed for 10 minutes. In the cir-
cumstances, we find no reason to reject the prosecution
evidence that the police acted upon the report lodged by
Bhagwan Das PW.
Coming to the question as to whether there was a delay in
lodging the report, we find that the evidence on record
shows that after Putlibai had been found dead, the father of
the accused showed inclination to consign her dead body to
the river. Bhagwan Das then insisted that the dead body of
Putlibai should not be disposed of till the arrival of her
parents. The father of the accused thereupon agreed to send
for a doctor. Dr. Singhal was accordingly called and he
stated, after examining the dead body, that the deceased had
been throttled to death. Immediately thereafter, Bhagwan
Das got the report written from Dayal Das and lodged it at
the police station. In our opinion, there was no inordinate
delay in lodging the, report. It is obvious that Bhagwan
Das did not lodge the report till such time as he was
certain that the death of Putlibai deceased was not natural
but was due to violence. The present was not a case wherein
the deceased had been killed by some sharp-edged weapon or a
fire arm, or wherein the deceased had been killed by sharp-
edged weapon or a fire arm, or wherein the body of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11
deceased had been found lying in a pool of blood. In such
a case, there can be no doubt about the death being not
natural. In cases. however, of death caused by poisoning or
throttling, a layman cannot be very sure of the cause of
death, and we find nothing improbable in the conduct of
Bbagwan Das PW in not lodging the report till he learnt from
Dr. Singhal that death of the deceased was due to
throttling.
Bhagwan Das, Choith Ram, Ayal Das and Shobhraj PWs reside in
the locality wherein the occurrence took place. The fact
that no one from the quarters adjoining, that of the accused
has been examined by the prosecution would not, in our
opinion, introduce an infirmity in the prosecution case.
The evidence Bhagwan Das shows that the adjoining quarters
were closed at the time of the occurrence, as most of the
people in the locality had gone to attend the celebrations
of Sain Kanwar Ram.
Argument was advanced by Mr. Chari that it would not be a
natural act of the accused to have made the murderous
assault on his wife at about 10.30 a.m. when the people were
moving in the lane in front of his quarter. In this respect
we
68
find that the accused chose the moment when no one else was
present in the house. The fact that no one was present
there to witness the actual murder of the deceased might
well have been considered by the accused to be an opportune
time. Different individuals act differently in a given
situation, and we find nothing improbable in the act of the
accused in committing the murder ,of his wife at about 10.30
a.m. on the day of occurrence.
It has also been submitted by Mr. Chari that there was no
sufficient motive for the accused to murder his wife. In
this respect we find that the evidence of Choith Ram (PW 2)
shows that the accused has told him that he did not like
Putlibai. We have then the evidence of Bhagwan Das PW as
well as that of Gurmukh Das PW, father of Putlibai, that
when it was learnt that the accused was reluctant to marry
Putlibai, Gurmukh Das convened a panchayat. The accused was
thereafter married to Putlibai. The evidence on record
thus, reveals that the accused was forced to mary Putlibai
in spite of his dislike, because of the convening of the
panchayat. It cannot, in the circumstances, be said that
the accused had no motive to cause the death of his wife.
The learned judges of The High Court too took the view that
the accused had a motive to cause the death of the deceased.
In any case, motive is not very material when the other
evidence clearly points to the guilt of the accused.
Reference has also been made by Mr. Chari to the fact that
there is no evidence about the existence of any injury on
the person of the accused. It is urged that the deceased,
while being throttled, must have offered resistance, and
thus. there would have been an injury on the person of the
accused because of that resistance. We are not impressed by
this argument because resistance by the deceased resulting
in injuries to the assailant is not a necessary feature of
every act of throttling. Different victims can act
differently and it would depend upon a variety of
circumstances as to whether they were or not in a position
to offer resistance. The absence of injuries on the person
of the accused would not go to show that he was not the
person who had throttled the deceased to death.
So far as the defence evidence is concerned, the same was
disbelieved by the Sessions Judge. The defence evidence was
also not relied upon by the High Court-ostensibly because no
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11
effort was made to rely upon that evidence. Likewise, no
effort has been made in this Court to rely upon the defence
evidence.
There is no eyewitness of the actual occurrence, but on the
material on record, we find that the following circumstances
have been proved against the accused.
69
(1) The accused was alone with the deceased in his quarter
at about 10.30 a.m. on the day of occurrence.
(2) Shrieks were heard at that time from inside the quarter
of the accused.
(3) Both the front and the back doors of the quarter of the
accused were found to be bolted from inside. Those doors
were not opened inspite of shouting and knocking.
(4) The accused soon thereafter jumped over the rear wall
into the back lane. He wanted to run away but was secured
by Bhagwan Das and other witnesses. This accused appeared
to be upset at that time and, in sipte of his entreaties, he
was not allowed to go away.
(5) Immediately thereafter, Bhagwan Das and other witnesses
went inside the quarter and found Putlibai, wife of the
accused, lying dead on a cot.
(6) According to medical evidence, the deceased had been
throttled to death at about 10.30 a.m. on that day.
(7) The accused had an animus against Putlibai because he
was forced to marry her in spite of the fact that he did not
like her.
All the above circumstances, in our opinion, clearly point
to the conclusion that the accused was the murderer of
Putlibai. The above circumstances are inconsistent with his
innocence.
Mr. Chari has referred to the case of the State of Madras v.
A. Vaidvanatha Iyer (1) wherein this Court held that the
words used in article 136 of the Constitution show that, in
criminal matters, no distinction can be made as a matter of
construction between a judgment of conviction and one of
acquittal. This Court, it was further observed, would not
readily interfere with the findings of fact given by the
High Court, but if the High Court acts perversely or
otherwise improperly, interference will be called for. In
our opinion, the accused-respondent can derive not much
assistance from the above authority because the High Court
in the present case reversed the finding of conviction on
grounds which were wholly untenable. The view taken by the
High Court is clearly unreasonable and is not warranted by
the material on record. The fact that the High Court, in a
reference under section 374 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, has to appraise the evidence for itself and has
to arrive at its own independent conclusion would not
prevent this Court from interfering with the order of the
High Court if the High Court reverses the judgment of the
trial court on grounds which are manifestly fallacious and
untenable.
(1) [1958] S.C.R. 580.
7 0
This Court in an appeal under article 136 of the
Constitution does not normally reappraise the evidence and
interfere with the assessment of that evidence by the High
Court. Where, however, this Court finds that grave
injustice has been done by the High Court in interfering
with the decision of the trial court on grounds which are
plainly untenable and the view taken by the High Court in
interfering with the decision of the trial court on this
Court would not stay its hand. There are, however, certain
cardinal rules which have always to be kept in view in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11
appeals against acquittal. Firstly, there is a presumption
of innocence in favour of the accused which has to be kept
in mind, especially when the accused has been acquitted by
the court below; secondly, if two views of the matter are
possible, a view favourable to the accused should be taken;
thirdly, in case of acquittal by the trial judge, the
appellate court should take into account the fact that the
trial judge had the advantage of looking at the demeanor of
witnesses; and fourthly, the accused is entitled to the
benefit of doubt. The doubt should, however, be reasonable
and as observed recently by this Court, the doubt should be
such which rational thinking men will reasonably, honestly
and conscientiously entertain and not the doubt of a timid
mind which fights shy-though unwittingly it may be-or is
afraid of the logical consequences, if that benefit was not
given. To put it differently, it is "not the doubt of a
vacillating mind that has not ,the moral courage to decide
but shelters itself in a vain and idle scepticism" (see
Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Shri Om Parkash, Cr.
Appeal 67 of 1969 decided on December 7, 1971).
We, therefore, accept the appeal, set aside the judgment of
the High Court and convict the accused-respondent under
section 302 I.P.C.
As regards the sentence, we find that the occurrence took
place more than three years ago. The accused was aged about
19 years at the time of the trial. Looking to all *he
circumstances, we are of the opinion that we need not award
the extreme penalty in this case. We accordingly sentence
the accused to undergo imprisonment for life.
K.B.N. Appeal allowed.
71