LexKALAWATI AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
195,, Jan.19. 546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1953] KALAWATI AND ANOTHER v. 'THE s·rATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH. [PATANJALI SASTRI C.J., MUKHERJEA, CHANDRA- SEKHARA AIYAR, VIVIAN BOSE and GHULAM HASAN JJ.] Iiidian Penal Gode (XLV of 1860), ss. 114, 201, 802-Gharges under ss. 302 and 114, and s. 201-0onviction under s. 201 and acquittal on other chafge in Sessions Gonrt-Oonviction nnder ss. 114 and 802. and acquittal under s. 201 i1b High Gozwt-Avpeal to Su,preme Oourt-Poioer to restore ·conviction under s. 201, when State ha.< not apvealed-Gonstitution of India, 1950, Art. 184 (1) ( c) -Leave to appeal-Certificate of fitness-Death sentence passed by .Judicial Commissioner. The accused was charged under ss. 114 and 302, Penal Code, with abetment of murder. The Sessions Judge acquitted her of this charge and convicted her under s. 201, Penal Code, for sup- pressing evidence of murder and giving false information. On appeal by the accused aswell as the State, the Judicial Commis- sioner set aside tbe conviction under s. 201 and convicted the accused under ss. 114 and 302: Held, that it was open to the Supreme Court, in an appeR.l preferred by t·he accused, to restore the conviction under s. 201 on setting aside the conviction under ss.114 and 302, even though the State had not appealed, as the acquittal under s. 201 was in- timately connected with the conviction under ss. 114: and 302, and took place only because the accus~d was co'nvicted of the main charge under ss. 114 and 302. Begu v.·King Emperor (52 I.A.191) applied. The fact that in a p.rticular State there is only one Judicial Commissioner as the ultimate appellate authority and there is no Bench of tv.·o Judges as in the High Courts to confirm death sen- tences is not an adequate ground for granting a certificate that a case where the death sentence has been awarded is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court under article 134 (1) ( c) of the Constitution. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeals Nos. 73 and 74 of 1952. Appeals under arti- cle 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution of India from the Judgment and Order dated the i6th June, 1952, of the Judicial Commissioner's Court, Himachal Pradesh ~t Simla, in ll,1urqer Referen9e No.~ of l91H ~~cl • - •• S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 547 CriminaJ Appeals Nos. 10 of 1951 and 2 of 1952 arising . out·of the Judgment dated the 5th December, 1951, of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Mahasu, and Sirmur Districts, Simla-I, in Sessions Trial No. 7 .of 1951. Tara Chand Mathur for the appellant Kalawati. Bawa Shiv Charan Singh for the appellant R!j.njit Singh . G. 0. Mathur for the respondent in both the ap- peals, the State of Himachal Pradesh. 1953. January 19. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR J. -One Kanwar Bikram Singh was a relation of the Rana of Kuthar. He was a jamindar with some properties. Bishanpura within the police station, Solan. was his summer re- sort. Manimajra in the Ambala, District was his place of residence on the plains. He had married in 1938 Kalawati, one of the two appellants. She was herself a daughter of the late Raja of Nalagarh through a mistress. Kanwar Bikram Singh was murdered during the early mornirlg hours of 16th July, 1951, as he lay asleep on the roof of his haveli or mansion at Bishan- pura. He had several incised injuries on his person. The case for the prosecution is that Ranjit Singh, the other appellant, who was a distant cousin of the deceased, committed the murder with the help and conniva.nce of Kalawati. It is .stated for the prose- cution that the two appellants developed an illicit intimacy with ea0h other, and that they got rid of Kanwar Bikram Singh, as he was cruel in his be- haviour to Kalawati. The last act of ill-treatment is said to have been on the 6th July, when Kanwar Bikram slapped his wife. Unable to endure the con- tinued humiliation at the hands of her husband, and in the hope that her intrigue with Ranjit Singh would be facilit11tecl, Ralawati is said to have conspired with Ranjit Singh to do away with her husba.nd, 7J 1958 Ka!awati and Another v. The State of Himacha! Prade•h. • • 548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1953] R1tnjit Singh wits charged with murder under sec· tion 302, Indian Penal Code, find Kalaw1tti was Kalawati and•Another charged under sections 114 and 302, Indian Penal 1958 v, Oode, with abetment of murder, which was com
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.