SANWARIYA LAL versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 943 · Decided: 14-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
SANWARIY A LAL 
A 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
SEPTEMBER 14, 2007 
IS.B. SINHA AND H.S. BEDl,JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860-s. 302-Murder-Deceased being son of the 
accused, out of his broken marriage-Accused doubting the paternity of the 
deceased and also having eye on the fixed deposit in the name of deceased- c 
At the relevant time deceased was with the accused-Multiple injuries on the 
deceased-Defence that the injuries were due to fall from bi-cycle-Witnesses 
to the incident turning hostile-Conviction by courts below on the basis of 
circumstantial evidence-On appeal, held: Conviction justified-The motive, 
the fact of the deceased being with the accused and, multiple injuries on the 
deceased leads to implicate the accused of the offence uls 302. 
D 
Appellant-accused was prosecuted u/s 302 IPC, for having caused death 
of his son. Prosecution case was that the deceased was the son of the accused 
out of his first marriage. On account of dispute between the couple, they got 
separated. Both of them got remarried. Deceased remained with his maternal 
grand parents. Under a settlement between the accused and his first wife Rs. E 
20,000/- had been deposited in the name of the deceased. Accused used to 
suspect paternity of the deceased and had also an eye on his fixed deposit. 
Accused and his second wife (PW 7) went to the school of the deceased, but 
the teacher did not grant permission to take him with them. He was sent with 
' 
them after the permission from the maternal grandmother of the deceased. F 
Thereafter PW 5 (maternal uncle) got an information that the deceased had 
succumbed to injuries in the hospital. Accused was charge-sheeted. During 
trial, the two eye-witnesses turned hostile. Defence version was that the death 
of the deceased was on account of fall from a bi-cycle. The same was supported 
by maternal grand-father (DW 2) of the deceased. Trial Court on the basis of 
circumstantial evidence, convicted the accused. High Court confirmed the G 
conviction. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The circumstances of the case clearly implicate the appellant 
943 
H 
944 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 9 S.C.R. 
A in the murder. The chain of circumstances against the appellant is nonetheless 
clearly made out. The fact of marriage with 'S' (his first wife), a dispute 
between them, which had resulted in a separation and a second marriage for 
both under custom has been virtually admitted. It also stands admitted that a 
sum of Rs. 20,000/- had been deposited in a fixed deposit for 20 months by 
B the appellant in the name of the deceased. The prosecution evidence further 
reveals that the appellant had suspected paternity of the deceased and believed 
that he was not the father and that he also had an eye on the fixed deposit -
which had been put in the name of the deceased. It is thus clear that the motive 
for the incident stands proved. !Paras 13 and 9) 1948-D; 947-A, Bl 
C 
2. It is found from the prosecution evidence, including the statement of 
the school teacher that the appellant had taken the deceased away from the 
school and the Court tends to believe that this exercise had been planned as 
the appellant intended to do away with him. (Para 10) 1947-C) 
3. In~iew of the medical evidence, such extensive injuries including a 
D fracture could not have been caused by a simple fall as has been suggested 
and clearly show the use of excessive force. The appellant has not been able 
to explain the presence of such a large number of injuries as he was called 
upon to do, as they had undoubtedly been suffered at home. The attempt by the 
defence to prop up grand father of deceased as a defence witness to support 
the story of a fall from a bi-cycle cannot be believed as he was not an eye-
E witness to the fall. !Para 121 [948-C, D) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1219 of 
2007. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.9.2005 of the High Court of 
F Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Crl. Appeal No. 362 of 2002. 
Shipra Ghose (A.C.)for the Appellant. 
Jatinder Kumar Bhatia for the Respondent. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. This is a case of filicide - the victim Rajesh aged eight years was the 
son of the accused/appellant. 
SANWARIY A LAL v. STATE [H.S.BEDI,J.] 
945 
3. This appeal arises out of the following facts. 
A 
4. The appellant Sanwariya Lal was married to Shanti Bai se

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