PRABHU versus STATE OF U. P.

Citation: [1963] 2 S.C.R. 881 · Decided: 03-05-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

cl ' 
2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COUR'!'. REPORTS 
881 
contention which is accordingly rejected. In Crimi. 
nal Appeal 62 of 1960 an argument was advanced 
that the State had launehed prosecutions under the 
Act, some wit.h, and others withput sanction; and 
that was disorimin:ttion hit by Art. 14. 
'fhere is 
no substance in t;his contention, which also is 
rejected. 
In the result both these appeals are dismissed. 
Appeal dismissed. 
PRABHU 
ii. 
STATE OF U. P. 
(S. K. DAs, A. K. SARKAR, and 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ;) 
Evidence-.M,,rder-llecovery of blood 1tained axe and 
clothes ai instance of acrn.11ed-Sta'emenls by 
accu.~ed t}1at 
axe was one u~th u'hich he committed murder 
and that 
blood stained 
clof,hes were 
his-Admis8ibiUty of-Indian 
Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872), s. 27. 
, 
The appellant was tried and convicted for the murder 
of one B. 
The evidence against him was circumstantial and 
consisted of ( 1) 
a motive to kill B which he had in common 
with his father, (II) the recovery at his instance of an 
, axe, shirt and dhoti stained with human blood and (III) 
his statements made to a Sub-Inspector of Police before 
the recovery that the axe was one with which he had 
killed B and that the shirt and Dhoti belonged to him. 
No independent evidence was led to prove that the axe 
shirt and dhoti belonged to the appellant. 
' 
• 
J!el.d, that the statem~n.ts mad~ by the appellent were 
madm1ss1ble and the remaining evidence was not suffici-
ent to bring home the guilt to the appellant. The state. 
ments were ~ncriminating ones· made to a police officer 
and were !111 by ss. 
25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, 
19fl 
Jia Lal 
•• 
D1lh; Aim;nistro1ian 
MayB. 
1'6t 
Pr.bh 
.. 
814JIOf U. P: 
882 
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS (1963] 
The Statements were not 'admiasible under s . .2.7 as they 
did not lead to any discovery within the meaning of that 
section • 
Puluhri Kotayya v. King Emperar, 
( 1947) L. R. 74 
I. A. 65, relied on. ' 
Stale of U. P. v. Dttnna11 Upadhya, [1961] I S. C.R. 
14, distinguished. 
CBJ:mNALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal 
Appeal No. 50 of 1962. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment 
and order dated September 12, 
1961,. of the 
Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) at Lncknow 
in Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 1961. 
Nuruddin Ahmed, for the appellant. 
G. C. Mathur and C. P. Lal,, for 
the res-
pondent. 
1962. May 3. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
DoaJ. 
S. K. DAB, J.--The learned Seeeione Judge of 
Rae Bareli tried the appellant Prabhu on a charg11 
of murdering hie own uncle and found him guilty 
of the offence and sentenced him to death. There 
were an appeal to the High Court and ~~" usual 
reference for confirmation 
of the sentence of 
death. The High Court dealt with the appeal and 
reference by one judgment. 
It accepted the 
reference, diemieeed the appeal and confirmed the 
conviction 
and sentence. The appellant 
then 
asked for and obtained special leave of this Court 
to appeal from the judgment and order of the 
High Court. The present appeal has come to us 
in pursuance of the leave granted by this Court. 
Shortly stated the case against the appellant 
was this. 
Bhagwan Ahir, step-brother of the 
appt>llant'a father Budhai, was a 
resident of 
• 
.· 
2 S.C.R. 
.SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
883 
village Bandi jn the district of Rae Bareli. The 
1961 
1 
appellant and his father Budhai lived in another 
-
Ptabhu 
village called Gulariya at a distance of about two 
v. 
' 
or three miles from Bandi. Bhagwan had about 
SIDt,.fU.P. 
four bighaa of pasture land and sev:en bighaa of 
cultivated land. He had no male issue, He had 
DasJ. 
several daughters who were all married and reeid-
ed at the places of their respective husbands. 
Bhagwan was old, near about SO years of age 
according to the evidence of Marka, and had· no 
·-
male member in the family to help him with his 
cultivation. Budhai, it appears, did not reside 
{" ·-
in village Gulariya all the year round, but was 
engaged in some job at Burdwan in Bengal, Some 
four years before the date on which Bhagwan was 
said to have been murdered the appellant and his 
mother came to reside with Bhagwan. The. idea 
was that the appellant would be able to help 
Bhagwan with bis cultivation, The appellant did 
not, however, render much assistance to Bbagwan 
and the prosecution case was that after about a 
-;-
year of tht>ir stay, Bhagwan turned .them out of 
the house. The appellant and his mother then 
went . back to village Gulariya. T

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.