TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 302 but was convicted under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for four years and a fine of ₹ 1000 and in default to undergo six months' simple imprisonment. She also was convicted under Section 498-A and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of ₹ 1000 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court consisting of B.N. Katju and D.S. Bajpai, J.J., however, by judgment dated 21-7-1988 in Criminal Appeal No. 2108 of 1987 acquitted both the respondents of all the charges and also rejected the reference for confirmation of death sentence. Thus this appeal by special leave. 4. This is one of the most horrendous bedroom murders of a young married girl, Urmila Devi, of 19 years on the intervening night of 26-9-1985/27-9-1985 in Karwi town in Banda District of Uttar Pradesh. She was married to Ramesh Prasad Misra, aged around 28 years, a practising advocate at Karwi, on 25-4-1985 and hardly after five months she met with cruel death. She was carrying 4 to 6 weeks' pregnancy. It is not in dispute an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned hostile to the prosecution. 7. The question is whether the first respondent was present at the time of death or was away in the village of DW 1, his brother-in-law. It is rather most unfortunate that these witnesses, one of whom was an advocate, having given the statements about the facts within their special knowledge, under Section 161 recorded during investigation, have resiled from correctness of the versions in the statements. They have not given any reason as to why the investigating officer could record statements contrary to what they had disclosed. It is equally settled law that the evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused, but it can be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence may be accepted. One clinching circumstances, viz., that PW 2 and PW 6 had heard some quarrels in the house of the respondents and the deceased was crying out, is not on record as substantive evidence. PW 2 and PW 6 had no regard for truth; they fabricated the evidence in their cross-examination to help the accused which did not find plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l human conduct of an innocent man, i.e., he should have been shocked to hear the news of the death of his young wife, married just five months back and an expectant mother of his child, in his absence. He should have rushed home to find out the cause for the death and search out whether the crime was for gain etc. and immediately swing into action and make the police investigate into the crime. On the other hand, although he had the news at 11 a.m. he went to the police station at 2.10 p.m. after finding no escape from further delaying the reporting to the police of the crime. This conduct is inconsistent and incompatible with normal human behaviour of an innocent man but seems to be one of a clever demeanour. The evidence of DW 2 regarding occasional faints and swooning and ultimate unconsciousness is a bunch of tissues of lies unsavoury to be accepted. 9. The question is whether this theory of alibi and of a stranger committing crime is true, likely and probable ? The deceased was hardly 19 years' old, a young teenager who was studying in intermediate standard at the time of marriage. PW 2, Chandra Shekhar had five daughters and Urmila Devi was the third one and being a m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edicine was given. The distance between Karwi and his sister's village is 70 kms. Even assuming that he had gone on 25th September, he would have returned on 26th evening. Yet another circumstance put forward and which is highly artificial and unbelievable and beyond credulity is that he started in the morning on 27-9-198 from DW 1's house and directly reached the court, covering a distance of 70 kms by 10 a.m. and he remained in the court up to 11 a.m. without going to the house which is situated hardly 1 1/4 kms from the court. It is highly unbelievable and unacceptable. It is also an admitted position that he had news of his wife's death in the court at 11 a.m. He did not disclose the name of the informer. Along with another two advocates, i.e. PW 5 and another he went to the police station at 2.10 p.m. on 27-9-1985 to lodge the written first information report, Ex. KA-3. A reading of Ex. KA-3 is quite interesting. He merely mentions that while he was in court at 11 a.m. he received the message that his wife had died and he went to the house and after seeing her dead body he went to the police station and lodged the report. There is no explanation as to where he was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Evidence Act. It is difficult to appreciate this line of reasoning. Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, 1872 is wide enough to include statements of the deceased regarding circumstances of the transactions which resulted in his death, i.e., the motive behind the criminal act in question. But even if Section 32 does not cover such evidence, the evidence of these witnesses can certainly be treated to be relevant for deciding whether the accused was guilty of offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, even assuming that Section 32 is inapplicable to the facts of this case as held by the learned Judges of the High Court, the narration of the facts of demand for dowry of sofa, motor cycle etc. and non-supply thereof is a piece of evidence to prove motive for committing the offence of murder. Such evidence would be relevant and admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. The deceased informed these witnesses of the ill-treatment meted out to her due to her inability to secure the articles demanded by Ramesh Prasad Misra. Further, the learned Judges blissfully forgot the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The learned Judges, therefore, have wrongl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
