Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal in Murder Case, Upholds Conviction of Husband. The Court confirmed the conviction of Jagdish for murder while acquitting the other accused due to lack of evidence for common intention.

In Favour of Accused
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal arose from a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against four accused, including the husband of the deceased, Santro. The trial court had convicted all four for the murder, attributing motive to dissatisfaction with Santro's marriage and her inability to bear children. The prosecution alleged that Santro was smothered by the accused on the night of May 1-2, 1998. The father of the deceased, Lakhmi Chand, testified that he found Santro's body with an electric wire nearby, but investigations revealed no electric connection in the house. The trial court found that the evidence established a motive for the accused to kill Santro, leading to their conviction. The High Court upheld this decision. The Supreme Court, however, found that while there was sufficient evidence to convict Jagdish, the husband, for murder, there was insufficient evidence to prove common intention among the other accused. The Court noted that the motive was primarily linked to Jagdish's grievances against Santro, and thus, the convictions of the other accused were set aside. The appeal was partly allowed, confirming Jagdish's conviction while acquitting the others.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Conviction under Section 302 IPC - Evidence of Asphyxia - The Court upheld the conviction of Jagdish for murder, establishing that the cause of death was asphyxia due to smothering, while ruling out electrocution. The evidence indicated motive and opportunity for Jagdish, but not for the other accused. Held that the conviction of Jagdish was lawful, while others were acquitted (Paras 17-17).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was justified against all accused.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court confirmed the conviction of Jagdish for murder under Section 302 IPC, while acquitting Bija, Sona Devi, and Raghbir Singh due to lack of evidence for common intention.

Law Points

  • Murder
  • Common Intention
  • Circumstantial Evidence
  • Dowry Death
  • Asphyxia
  • Smothering
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2008 LawText (SC) (01) 240

Appeal (crl.) 344 of 2007

2008-01-10

C.K. Thakker, D.K. Jain

Bija & Ors.

State of Haryana

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for murder.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought to overturn their conviction.

Filing Reason

Conviction and sentence for murder under IPC.

Previous Decisions

Trial Court convicted all accused; High Court upheld the conviction.

Issues

Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC was justified against all accused. Whether there was sufficient evidence of common intention among the accused.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that there was no evidence for dowry demand or common intention. Prosecution maintained that circumstantial evidence established motive and opportunity.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court established that while there was sufficient evidence to convict Jagdish for murder, the lack of evidence for common intention among the other accused warranted their acquittal.

Judgment Excerpts

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kaithal dated May 17, 2001. The trial Court held that both the sisters-Shero and Santro got married to two brothers on one and the same day. The Courts below were right in not relying upon the deposition of DW1-Shero.

Procedural History

The trial court convicted the appellants on May 17, 2001; the High Court confirmed the conviction on July 6, 2006; the Supreme Court issued notice on January 12, 2007, granted leave on March 12, 2007, and expedited the hearing.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code: 302, 34, 498A, 304B
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 313
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Revision Against Quashing of Process in Tobacco Advertisement Case — Held That Complaint Under Section 5 of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 Is Maintainable Against Individuals and Companies for Prohibited Ad...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Amendment of Plaint in Eviction Suit — Foundational Pleadings Already Present, No Change in Nature of Suit. The court held that the amendment adding grounds of unlawful subletting and non-user did no...