UTTAM KUMAR Vs STATE OF M.P. (NOW CHHATTISGARH)
Bench: HARJIT SINGH BEDI,GYAN SUDHA MISRA, , ,
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000550-000550 / 2007
Diary number: 956 / 2007
Advocates: GP. CAPT. KARAN SINGH BHATI Vs
DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINHA
Crl.A. No. 550 of 2007 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 550 OF 2007
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.