RAJ KUMAR PRASAD TAMARKAR versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 13 · Decided: 04-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
.. 
RAJKUMARPRASADTAMARKAR 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. 
JANUARY 4, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860; s.302/Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; s. 313: 
Murder-Husband allegedly shot dead his wife-F.I.R.-Recovery of. 
revolver from the place of incident '!'ith smoke coming out-Trial Court 
found accused guilty of committing murder of his wife and sentenced him· 
imprisonment for life-Reversed by High Court-On appeal, Held: No 
positive defence taken by accused, only a suggestion given that deceased 
might have been killed by an outsider-Jn the event, death wo~ld have 
been caused by an outsider, accused would have pointed it out to her 
mother-in-lawlneighbours/PWl present there and also would have offered 
his explanation to IO but he did not do so-Ext. 7, a letter proved to be 
in handwriting of accused whereby deceased was warned of grave 
consequences even to the extent of killing-At the time of incident, accused 
and deceased were present in the same room-Nature of gun shot injury 
on deceased shows that it must have been inflicted by a person who 
intended to kill her at short distance-Strained relations between accused 
and deceased-Trial Court rightly found suicide theory wholly improbable 
in the facts and circumstances of the case-Accused brought a revolver 
with him, which shows that he wanted to kill the deceased-Thus, in the 
facts and circumstances of the case, guilt of accused proved beyond all 
reasonable doubt. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136: 
Jurisdiction of Supreme Court-Judgment 'of acquittal delivered by 
High Court when two views are possible-Interference with-Held: High 
Court failed to take into consideration relevant facts and misapplied legal 
principles-Hence, it is a fit case for this Court to exercise jurisdiction 
under Article 136 of the Constitution. 
Daughter of the appellant was married to respondent No. 2, a driver 
employed in Tata Engineering Locomotive Company (TELCO). Allegedly, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
the accused-husband had an affair with a woman, because of that there was 
H 
13 
A 
B 
14 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 1 S.C.R.. 
a strained relationship1>etween them. The wife was staying either at her 
maternal grandfather's residence at Calcutta or at her father's residence 
at Giridih. A day before the incident, accused-husband came to his father 
in Law's house to take her with him. On the next day, he allegedly shot her 
dead. Father of the deceased lodged an FIR. Investigating Officer found a 
revolver from the room where the incident took place and noticing smoke 
coming out from it. Accused was arrested. Trial Court found him guilty of 
committing murder of his wife and sentenced him to undergo rigorous 
imprisonment for life. On appeal, High Court observed that the 
circumstances obtaining in the prosecution case could not be said to have 
connected all the links in the chain and there was no eye witnesses to the 
C 
crime and acquitted the accused. Hence the present appeal filed by the 
father of the deceased. 
Appellant-State contended that the judgment of the High Court suffers 
from a manifest error insofar as it failed to take into consideration that not 
only the motive but also all other links in the chain ofcircumstances have 
D 
been proved by the prosecution. Allowing the appeal, the Court 
E 
F 
HELD: 1.1. No positive defence was taken by the accused-husband. 
Merely a suggestion was given by him while cross-examining the 
prosecution witnesses that the deceased might have been killed by an 
outsider. [Para 13) [22-A] 
1.2. Exhibit 7 is a letter written by the respondent-husband to the 
deceased. In that letter indisputably the respondent had warned the deceased 
of grave consequences if she continued to accuse him in regard to his affair 
with a woman. The letter was proved to be in the handwriting of the 
respondent. The contents of the said letter are not in dispute. It contained 
threatenings to the deceased. She was warned of grave consequences even 
to the extent of killing her. [Paras 14, 18) [22-B, G) 
1.3. The conspectus of the events which had been noticed by the Trial 
Court as also by the High Court categorically go to show that at the time 
G 
when the occurrence took place, the deceased and the respondent only were 
in the bedroom and the terrace connecting the same. There was no other 
person present there. The cause of death of the deceased i.e. by a gun shot 
injury is not disputed. [Para 21) [23-C] 
1.

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