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.