RAGHAV PRAP._ANNA TRIPATHI versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [1963] 3 S.C.R. 239 · Decided: 04-05-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
3 ~.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
239 
RAGHAV PRAP._ANNA TRIPATHI 
v. 
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
(S.K. DAs,J. L. KAPUR, A.K. SARKAR, M. HIDAY.A.· 
' TULLAR and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) 
1f!Y• 
Oircu'f118tantial evidence-Murder-No direct evidence-
Sufficiency of proof-Inference from abscnnding-lriference from 
non-recovery of jup-lnference from presence of accused i11 
houae where murder wa,/i alleged to have taken place-Indian 
. 
Penal Ooae, ss. 176, 201, 302.. 
· 
The appellants were prosecuted and ·Committed to the 
Sessions for trial. Raghav was convicted ·and sentenced to 
death under s. 302, I.P.C. He and Jai Devi, his mother, 
Ramanuj Das, Mohan SinJl'h and Udham Singh were convic· 
ted under section 201 IPC. Ramanuj Das was also convicted 
under section I 76 IPC. Their appeals were dismissed by 
the High Court. They came to this court by special leave. 
The appeal of Rar:hav, Mohan Singh and Udham Sinfl'h was 
> 
·allowed by majority, that of Ramanuj Das and Jai Devi for 
·~ • offence under s. 201, IPC was allowed unanimously and appeal 
' 
of Ramanuj Das for offence under s. I 76 IPC was allowed by 
a majority. 
.. . , 
Helli (Kapur and Hidayatullaha, J J dissentin!?) that there 
;~:'."";"'"Wl\:<;J. .no direct evidence ahout Rae;hav committinrt the· murder 
• • .,.. of ~amla and Madhusudan. There was no direct evid,nce 
".~. ". •. abmtt his carryin!! away their dea<l bodies in the jeep. There 
',. 1:-·was no direct evidence about Ramanuj Das or anv other 
-' · accused being a party to the removal of the dead bodies from 
·the house. 'The entire case· was based on circum•tantial 
evidence. 
Th~ circumstances proved 
a~ainst Raghav were 
not sufficient to support the finding that he had committed the 
murder. The mere abscondinl( may lend weir:ht to the other 
evidence establi•hing the guilt of the accused but bv itself 
; . 
\ 
l 
' 
that is hardly any evidence of guilt. It was too much to 
conclude from the non-recovery of the jeep that if it had been 
recovered it would have afforded evidence of existence of 
human bl~od-stain anrl of its having been used to remove 
evidence of murder. -That circumstance had no evidentiary 
value. There was no evidence about the part Ramanuj Das 
or .Tai Devi played in the removal of the dead bodies. The 
· fact that they were in the hou•e and could have possibly 
known of the removal of the dead bodies,.?f that was a fact 
' 
(. 
J.68 
May4 • 
1961 
Raghav Prapannc 
Trlpathi 
•• 
Stale of U. P. 
240 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963) 
would not by itself establish that they assisted in the removal 
vf the bodies. The conviction of the appellant was not 
justified on the material on record. 
Per Kapur and Hidayatullah JJ. 
The strained rela-
tion~ between husband and wife, the motive to escape the 
giving of money and land as maintenance to the wife or child, 
suddenly leaving the village at night with two others and 
almost sirr1ultaneous disappearance of ;Kamla and her son, 
no search for her and absolute callousness on the part of 
Raghav, giving of false explanation later on and his abscond-
ing were circumstances from which the Courts below were 
justified in concluding that Kamla and her son were murdered 
and Raghav had a predominant motive to commit the 
murder. The inculpatory facts proved against Raghav were 
not capable of explanation on any other hypothesis except 
his guilt. The Courts below had applied correct principles 
and found Raghav guilty and there was no reason to disagree 
with their conclusions. 
The non-production of the jeep 
was ·a circumstance against Raghav which the Courts below 
Were entitled to take into consideration. 
Articles like jeeps 
do not just disappear in thin air and 'Yhen they do disappear 
and cannot be traced and when the allegation is that they 
have been used for carrying away the dead bodies, their non-
production or their not being found is a circumstance which 
a·Court can take into consideration in d...'!termining the g"'Uilt 
of an accused person. 
No case under section 20 I of the· Indian Penal Code 
had been made out against Ramanuj Das and Jai Devi. 
What section 201 requires is causing any evidence of the 
commission of the offence to di<iappear or giving any inform a .. 
tion respecting the offence which a person knows or believes 
to be false. 
It was not proved that the two appellants had 
•
caused any evidence to disappear. 
There may be a strong 
\t(
suspicion that if from the house dead bodies were removed or 
blood 

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