LexDEVENDRA NATH SRIVASTAVA versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 714
DEVENDRA NATH SRIVASTAVA
v.
STATE OF U.P,
(Criminal Appeal No. 87 of2008)
APRIL 06, 2017
[N. V. RAMANA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.)
Penal Code, 1860 - s.304 fart-I - Appellant assaulted his
wife with a brick - Wife died of asphyxia on account of ante mortem
injuries - Trial court convicted appellant u!s.302 and awarded him
death sentence -.High Court set aside the conviction u!s.302, instead
convicted appellant u/s.304 part-I and sentenced him to rigorous
imprisonment for ten years with fine - On appeal, held: In the instant
case, the incident has occurred after quarrel between the appellant
and the deceased, which was not a planned act- It is also established
that appellant was a drunkard - Appellant _in a fit of anger caused
homicidal death of his wife - Jn facts and circumstances of the
case, the view taken by the High Court that appellant committed
offence punishable u!s.304 part~! !PC, requires no interference.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: The view taken by the High Court that it is clearly
established from the evidence on record. that the appellant caused
homicidal death of his wife, after quarrel between the two is
con-ect. It is established on the record that the appellant was a
drunkard. The First Information Report was lodged by none other
than the appellant's own nephew, immediately after the incident.
There is no version_ put fo~ard by the appellant as to how his
wife died homicidal death in his house. Considering the facts
and circumstances·of the case, it appears that the appellant acted
in a fit of anger. It is nobody's case that the appellant had any
concubine. Rather statement of PW-5 shows that suit for
restitution of conjugal rights, filed by the appellant, was decided
in terms of compromise, and they started living together with
their children. [Para 17)(720-G-H; 721-A-B)
2. As to whether the act on the par! of the appellant
constitutes the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC or
_714
DEVENDRA NATH SRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF U.P.
Section 304 Part I IPC, it is clear that the incident has occurred
after quarrel between the appellant and the deceased which is
not a planned act. It is also established that the appellant was a
drunkard. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the view
taken by the High Court, that the appellant has committed offence .
punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC, requires no interference.
[Para 18)(721-C-D]
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rauavarapu Punnayya &
another (1976) 4 SCC 382 : (1977] 1 SCR 601 - relied
011.
Case Law Reference
[1977) 1 SCR 601
relied on
Para 19
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
87 of2008.
715
A
B
c
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.08.2007 of the High Court o
of Judicature at Allahabad in Capital Sentence No. 2 of 2007 connected
Criininal Appeal No. 201 of 2007 Connected Crimi11al Appeal No. 23 7
of2007(from Jail)
WITH
Criminal Appeal Nos. 88-90 of2008.
K. K. Tyagi, Iftekhar Ahmad, Anoop Kumar, Sanjib K. Ray (for
P. Narasimhan), Manoj Swarup, Ms. Lalita Kohli, Abhishek Swarup (for
M/s. Manoj Swarup & Co.), Advs. for the Appellant.
E
C. D_. Singh, Ms. Sakshi Kakker, Vikas Bansal, Advs. for the
F
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
: ('._
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. These appeals are directed aga-inst
judgment and order dated 24.08.2007, passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, in Criminal Appeal No. 201
G
·· · of2007 whe1~eby said Court has disposed of Capital Reference No. 2 of
2007 along with criminal appeals filed by appellant Devendra Nath
Srivastava arising out of judgment and order dated 18.01.2007 passed
by Additional Sessio_ns Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act) Gonda, relating
. -.
\
....
"
H
716
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 3 S.C.R.
to conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code
(for short "IPC") in Sessions Trial No. 258 of 2005. By the impugned
order passed by the High Court, conviction of the appellant under Section
302 IPC has been set aside, instead he is convicted under Section 304
Part I !PC, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to
pay fine of ~I 0,000/-, in default to under further six months rigorous
imprisonment
2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that appellant Devendra Nath
Srivastava got married to Madhu Srivastava (deceased) on 04.03.1994.
The couple had foExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.