LexBUDHI LAL versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A [2008]13 S.C.R. 1015 BUDHI LAL A v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND (Criminal Appeal No. 1537 of 2008) -* SEPTEMBER 26, 2008 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM .. SHARMA, JJ.] t ' Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302 and 304 (Part I) - Murder - Prosecution case· c that accused murdered his wife - Visitor in the house witnessed accused assaulting his wife - Conviction u/s 302 and RI for life by courts below - Justification of - Held: Presence of the -+ witness in the house established - Accused himself accepted that he was with deceased at the night of occurrence - Also D statement by the daughter of accused that herfather suspected his wife was having illicit relationship with witness- Thus, courts below rightly held accused guilty - However, on facts, convic- tion altered to one u/s. 304 (Part I) with custodial sentence of 10 years. E ss. 299 and 300 - 'Culpable homicide not amounting to murder' and 'murder' - Distinction between - Explained. .___. According to the prosecution case, the appellant was residing with his two wives in the same house. On the F fateful day, PW-3 had gone to the house of the appellant to purchase pair of bullocks and stayed in the house at . night In the intervening night, the appellant murdered his second wife-JD. Next day the appellant told the villagers that his wife died of pain in the stomach. FIR was lodged. G Investigation was carried out. The doctor-PW-1 con- ~ ducted post mortem. He opined that JD died due to suf- focation as a result of obstruction in the respiratory pas- sage. In the examination uls. 313 Cr.P.C., accused ac- 1015 H 1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 13 S.C.R. A A cepted that he and the deceased were sleeping together in the night of the incident. Witnesses were examined. PW- 3 stated that at the midnight, he saw the appellant sitting on the chest of JD and assaulting her. When PW-3 asked the appellant as to what he was doing, he told him that he ·- B was telling his wife to behave and that PW-3 should leave the place and sleep in another room. Trial court convicted the appellant u/s 302 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life. High Court upheld the order. Hence the present appeal. c Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 PW.3 gave enough reason as to why he was prei;ent in the house. Even otherwise, PW.4-daugh- ter of the accused, though, she resiled from the statement D made during investigation, clearly stated that PW.3 was t- sleeping in their house in a separate room. She further s?ted that her father suspected fidelity of the deceased and was under the impression that she was having illicit relationship with PW.3. In the examination u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. E also the accused had accepted this position. Therefore, the presence of PW.3 has been clearly established by evi- dence on record. Apart from that, the trial court and the High Court rightly noted that the accused accepted that he was with the deceased in the night of occurrence and F they were sleeping in the same room. Therefore, the trial court and the High Court were justified in holding the appellant guilty. [Paras 9 and 10) [1020,C-F] 1.2 Considering the factual scenario and the man- ner of assault, as alleged by the prosecution, the appro- G priate conviction would be u/s. 304 (Part-I) IPC. Custodial sentence of 10 years would meet the ends of justice. [Para 25) [1026,G] t-- Rajwant and Anr. v. State of Kera/a AIR 1966 SC 1874; Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465; State of H Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Anr. 1976 (4) BUDHI LAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 1017 .,;, SCC 382; Abdul Waheed Khan @ Waheed and Ors. v. State A of Andhra Pradesh JT 2002 (6) SC 27 4; Augustine Saldanha v . .State of Karnataka 2003 (10) SCC 472; Thangaiya v. State of Tamil Nadu 2005 (9) SCC 650; Sunder Lal v. State of Rajasthan 2007 (10) sec 371 - relied on. --~ Case Law Reference B AIR 1966 SC 1874 Relied on. Para 16 AIR 1958 SC 465 Relied on. Paras 17,18, 19,20,21 1976 (4) sec 382 Relied on. Para 24 c JT 2002 (6) SC 27 4 Relied on. Para 24 2003 (10) sec 472 Relied on. Para 24 2005 (9) sec 650 Relied on. Para 24 --~ 2001 (10) sec 371 Relied on. Para 24 D CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1537 of 2008 From the Judgment and Order dated 17/12/2007 of the E High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Crl. Appeal No. 169 of 2007 D.N. Goburdhan, Pinky Anand, Ankur Mittal an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.