RATNESH KUMAR PANDEY versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [2015] 1 S.C.R. 469 · Decided: 15-01-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015) 1 S.C.R. 469 
RATNESH KUMAR PANDEY 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
(CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 454 OF 2011) 
JANUARY 15, 2015 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder - By the accused-
husband - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction and life 
C 
sentence by courts below - On appeal, held: The various 
circumstances of the case formed complete chain proving 
that it was the accus~d alone who could have committed the 
crime - However, in view of number of injuries and the 
manner of their infliction, there is no scope to modify the 
D 
sentence - Sentence/Sentencing. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The various circumstances of the case 
formed a complete chain without any break in its links and 
the said set of circumstances conclusively proved that it 
was the appellant and the appellant alone who could 
have committed the crime of the killing of the deceased 
as concluded by the trial court and as confirmed by the 
High Court. [para 8) [475-D-E) 
E 
F 
1.2. Once the plea of alibi put forth on behalf of the 
appellant though DW-1 is ruled out, then it will be for the 
appellant to satisfactorily show as to who else was 
responsible for the killing of the deceased. Though other 
G 
co-accused including the co-accused who were related 
to the appellant were arrayed along with one other friend 
of the appellant, it has come out in evidence that none 
of them were in any way responsible for the killing of the 
469 
H 
470 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 
A deceased. There was also no indication of any attempt 
to steal or rob any of the valuables from the bedroom. 
[para 8-9) [475-8-D, G] 
2. There is no scope to modify the sentence imposed 
8 
on the appellant. The deceased had suffered as many as 
20 injuries and all of them were of incised wounds. The 
deceased was assaulted in such a manner that the body 
was like a minced meat in the process of her killing. 
Therefore, no leniency can be shown to the appellant for 
C showing any sympathy in the matter of punishment. 
[Para 1 OJ [476-E-F] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 454 of 2011 
D 
From The Judgment and Order dated 15.12.2009 of the 
E 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 
3302 of 2003. 
S. K. Aggarwal, Shailendra Pratap Singh, V. P. Tripathi, 
Debasis Misra for the Appellant. 
M. R. Shamshad, Rajat Singh, Shashank singh, Aditya 
Samddar for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by. 
F 
FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA J. 1. The 
appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench 
of the High Court of Allahabad dated 15th December, 2009 
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3302 of 2003 confirming the 
conviction and sentence imposed on him under Section 302 
G of the Indian Penal Code. While convicting the appellant the trial 
court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment apart from fine 
of Rs. 10,000/- with default clause of one year rigorous 
imprisonment. 
H 
2. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. 
RATNESH KUMAR PANDEY v. STATE OF UTTAR 
471 
PRADESH [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.] 
3. According to the prosecution, the appellant was living 
A 
alone with his wife, the deceased Suman in his first floor portion 
at A 353, Awas Vikas Colony, Tiwaripur, Gorakhpur, Uttar 
Pradesh and the ground floor portion was lying vacant. They 
got married on 17th September, 1999. The occurrence took 
place on the intervening night of 30th and 31st January, 2001 
B 
at around 4:00a.m. 
3.1 As per the contents of the First Information Report, P.W. 
1 one Chandra Mohan Pandey, brother of the deceased 
received information about the death of his sister at 7:30a.m. 
through P.W.2 Ram Prakash Dubey who is none other than his 
C 
cousin who was also living in the same locality where the 
appellant and the deceased were living. P.W. 2 reached the 
spot along with his mother at 9:30 a.m. and at 10.05a.m., F.l.R. 
came to be registered. It was alleged in the F.l.R. that his sister 
was murdered by the appellant with the help of his friend. 
D 
3.2 Based on the .above F.1.R., after the registration of the 
crime though the close relatives of the appellant, as well as, one 
Ramzan were implicated as accused by supplement and 
additional charge sheets for offences under Sections 498A, 
E 
3048 read with Section 1208 as well as Sections 3 and 4 of 
the Dowry Prohibition Act, ultimately the appellant was charged 
for the offen

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