Uttam Kumar vs State Of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh)

UTTAM KUMAR ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF M.P. (NOW CHHATTISGARH)..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. The solitary accused stands convicted for an

offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal

Code with a sentence of imprisonment for life and fine

for having murdered his wife Meena Bai on the 5th July,

1998 at about 12 noon in the family home. It appears

that the relations between the appellant and his wife

was strained as he suspected that she was not of good

character. On the intervention of the family members,

however, Meena Bai who had left the matrimonial home and

gone to her parents, was persuaded to return. The

appellant nevertheless assaulted Meena Bai on the day in

question with a tangia (an agricultural weapon easily

available in all farming families) on which she cried

out in pain whereupon her sister-in-law P.W. 7 Sulesan

Crl.A. No. 550 of 2007 2

Bai who was preparing the food close by came running to

the spot. She saw Meena Bai lying in a pool of blood

and the appellant standing by carrying a tangia in his

hand. The appellant also told Sulesan Bai that he had

caused injuries to his wife and that he would go to the

police station to lodge a report. Suleshan Bai

thereupon conveyed the information to Derhin Bai P.W. 9,

the step mother of the appellant, and Derhin Bai also

saw the appellant leaving the house carrying his tangia.

On enquiry from him he told her that he was going to the

police station. A short while later Dauwa Ram P.W. 10,

the father of the appellant, also reached the place and

was told by Sulesan Bai and Derhin Bai that the

appellant had killed his wife Meena Bai and had left for

police station, Kasdol at about 6:10p.m. 24 kms. away

from the village. It is admitted position that the

appellant never reached the police station. He was,

however, arrested and was ultimately brought to trial.

2. During the course of the evidence P.W. 7 and P.W.

9 supported their statements to the extent of the extra

judicial confessions having been made to them and that

they had conveyed the information to P.W. 10, but they

resiled on some insignificant matters. P.W. 10,

however, deposed that his wife and daughter had conveyed

Crl.A. No. 550 of 2007 3

the information about the incident and the details

thereof to him after he had returned from the fields.

The trial court accordingly, found that the statements

of P.W. 7, 9 and 10 clearly proved the case against the

appellant.

3. The matter was thereafter taken in appeal to the

High Court and the High Court has, by the impugned

judgment, confirmed the judgment of the trial court.

This matter is before us after the grant of special

leave.

4. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, the learned counsel for the

appellant has raised primarily one argument before us

during the course of the hearing. She has pointed out

that as the two primary witnesses, P.W. 7 and P.W. 9 had

been declared hostile, no reliance could be placed on

their testimony. We, however, find no merit in this

submission as the factum of the extra judicial

confession made to them had been affirmed by them in

their evidence. In any case, the evidence of P.W. 10 to

whom P.W. 7 and P.W. 9 had conveyed the information has

not been in any manner whittled down. P.W. 10 owned up

his statement made under Section 161 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure and reiterated the fact that the

Crl.A. No. 550 of 2007 4

information with regard to the murder committed by the

appellant had been conveyed to him by P.Ws. 7 and 9. We

also see that the medical evidence fully supports the

prosecution story. Dr. K.L. Banjare who had performed

the post mortem found five injuries on the person of the

deceased which could have been caused with a tangia. We

must also emphasise that as the incident happened while

the appellant and the victim were together in the family

home, some obligation lay on the appellant to explain

the circumstances which had led to the death of his

wife. There is however, a bare denial by him and he has

not given any explanation as to how and why his wife met

her death; a matter which should have been in his

special knowledge.

5. The appeal is dismissed for the aforesaid reasons.

6. Fee of the Amicus is fixed at `7,000/-.

.........................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

.........................J [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]

NEW DELHI JULY 13, 2011.