LexBHAGWAN SWARUP AND ANR. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A BHAGWAN SWARUP AND ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AUGUST 28, 1991 · B [S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA c REDDY, JJ.] Penal Code, 186()-..Sections 302, 201 and 120-/J-,Charges- Conviction by High Court-Modification of sentence by convicting accused no. 1 u/s. 202. lPC for making illegal omission to inform the authorities and acquitting the accused of the offences by Supreme Court u/s. 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of General Appellate Jurisdiction) Act. 1970. ~upreme Court (Enlargement of General Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970-Section 2(a)-Appeal-Appreciation of evidence-conspi- D racy cannot be proved by conjectures and surmises-Absence of evi- dence to connect accused with the offences-Modification of sentence by convicting accused no. 1 u/s. 202, lPC. for making illegal omission to inform the authorities. Evidence Act, 1872-Section 3--Appreciation of evidence- E Failure of P.rosecution to prove guilt of accused-Conviction of accused no. 1 u/s. 202, /PC for making. illegal omission to inform the authorities. F Penal Code, 186()-..Section 202-Ingredients to prove by prosecu- tion indicated. Penal Code, 186()-..Sections 202, 306--Suicide-Whether offence of abatement punishable-Whether father-in-law has obligation to inform the authorities the suicide of daughter-in-law. The appellants-father and son (A 1 and A 2)-were_ tried under G Sections 302, 201and120-B I.P.C. for causing murder of the wife of A.2. The deceased was married to A 2 in 1961. Two sons and one daughter were born to them. Their matrimonial Ufe was not smooth. There were frequent quarrels. It was in the evidence that the deceased H was not healthy both physically and mentaUy. She was also admitted in 820 ··.,.... BHAGWAN SWARUP v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 821 mental hospital once. She used to confine herself to her room and she A appeared to be somewhat mentally deranged. ...,,. On 18.3.82 the dead body of the deceased was found in her room in the house of the accused. At that time admittedly A 2 was not in the house and he was at Suratgarh. On being informed about the death, A 1 sent for a doctor, who examined the deceased and declared her to be B dead. Thereafter A 1 informed P.W. 5, the father of the deceased. The brother of the deceased, P. W. 6 told P. W. 5 that he had seen the dead body lying in the room and that it was giving rotten smell. P. W. 6 lodged a report before the Police. The investigation was taken up, held the inquest, examined the c witnesses and sent the dead body for post-mortem. The Doctor P. W. 2, who conducted the post-mortem, opined that the death was due to head injury and pressure in theneck region. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid. 22 witnesses were examined on behalf of the proseeution. The accused D denied the offences. A 1 stated that he was away from 14.3.1982 onwards. and was at Jodhpur in his daughter's house. In support of his I, plea D.W. I, the neighbour of A l's daughter and his grand-daughter, D. W. 2, namely the daughter of A 2 and the deceased were eQmined. A 2 stated that he was at Suratgarh from 11.3.1982 onwards. Beith of them denied the allegations of the ptosecution .• E The trial court held that there was no evidence of conspiracy between the A 1 and A 2 for murdering the deceased and th~ circums- tances relied upon by the prosecution were hardly sufficient to con- ~·· nect them with the murder and the accused were acquitted by the trial court. F The State preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court and the High Court convicted them under Section 120-B and Section 302 read with 34 of the l.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo Imprisonment for life, against which this appeal was prefer- red under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of General G ... Appellate Jnrisdiction) Act, 1970 • The appellants contended that the High Court acteil ~n prejndice and suspicion and that there was absolutely no material to prove the conspiracy and mucbless to connect the two accused in any manner with the murder. H A B c 822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991] 3 S.C.R. The respondent snpported the findings of the High Court and also contended that the accused would at least "' liable of having committed other offences. Disposing of the appeal by making modification in the sentence, this Court, HELD: 1. The second accused was not present in the scene-honse, wh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.