STATE OF U.P. versus DR. RAVINDRA PRAKASH MITTAL

Citation: [1992] 2 S.C.R. 815 · Decided: 28-04-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
DR. RAVINDRA PRAKASH MITTAL 
APRIL 28, 1992 
[S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.] 
Penal Code, J8(j()-Sections 302, 201-Appeal against acquittal by High 
Court-Circumstantial evidence-Ingredients-Links of chain of circumstan-
ces established-Offences proved. 
-
Penal Code, J8(j()-Sections 302, 201-Conviction of accused by Trial 
f 
Court-Acquittal by High Court-Appeal against High Court's judgment suf-
fering from illegality-Delay in disposal of appeal-Whether a ground for 
+...-- non-inteiference of the findings of High Court. 
A 
B 
c 
The prosecutions's case was that the accused-respondent was a D 
private medical practitioner and the deceased was his second wife. He 
married her on 30.7.1971, when his first marriage was dissolved by an ex 
parte decree in a suit for dissolution filed by his first wife. 
The respondent. and his widowed mother and his two married E 
brothers and one unmarried younger brother were living under a common 
roof having common mess, butin separate rooms in the first Door ortbeir 
T 
house. 
The accused was a chronic alcoholic addict and he was having a large 
circle of friends. He used to come to his house in odd hours in drunken F 
state. This was resented by his wife, the deceased. She insisted the accused 
to return home early. On account of this, there were frequent quarrels 
between them. Accused, disliking bis wife's interference in his private 
affairs, even started suspecting the fidelity of bis wife. It was said that the 
accused had on more than one occasion unleashed threats to shoot and G 
kill the deceased. 
On the night of 11.10.1971 the accused and the deceased took their 
bed inside their room. On the next morning, on seeing smoke ollt of the 
bed room of the accused, a large number of people gathered at the house 
of the accused. 
H 
815 
816 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[199'2] 2 S.C.R. 
J 
A 
At about 7.30 a.m., PW-2 and another, the two brothers of the 
deceased arrived there With 'Ahoi Bayna' in baskets. Seeing the crowd in 
_>.-
front of accused house, they entertained a sospidon. When they wre told 
dlat .-.e a,t'usecl's wife~&. set fire to herself,. throwing the 'Bayna' baskets 
· in the courtyard, th9- \Vent up to the first Door and saw the dead body of 
B their sister lying OD the Door with extensive burns all over her body. When 
they confronted the accused, the accused told them that when be had gone 
~ 
tO" th~ latrine in the early morning, the deceased committed suidde, for no 
visible reason. The deceased's brothers did not believe the version of the 
accused. They shouted that the- accused murdered their sister. While they. 
were quarrelling, PW-4, a Head Constable came to the scene found the -
c accused standing in his night-gown. P.W.4 was informed by the accused 
~ 
that the deceased had bumt herself. 
The S.P.(PW-3) was informed over telephone by the accused that his ~ 
wife committed suicide and he instructed the accused to inform the local 
D 
police. He come to the scene at about 9.15 a.m., after directing the local 
police to come to the scene. After inspection, the S.P. left, giving instruc· 
tions to the Investigating Officer. 
The Investigating Officer (PW-4) examined the inmates of the house 
and made an entry in the General Diary and registered a case against tl,le 
E 
accused~ 
The accused was charged u/ss.302 and 201, IPC for the committing 
-~ 
the murder or his wife and for causing the evidence of the offence or murder 
to disappear with an intention of screening himself from legal punishment, 
by burning the dead body by sprinkling kerosene oil. 
-
F 
The Trial Court convicted the accused-respondent u/ss.302 and 201 
IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and rigorous 
imprisonment for a period of 3 years, respectively with a direction that the .'?'"" 
sentences were to run concurrently. 
.G 
"-·I 
The High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused-
respondent. 
Against the acquittal passed by the High Court, the present appeal 
.J...-.. 
was directed by the State, contending that the cumulative effect of all the·; 
1H pieces of circums.tantial evidence brought on record by the prosecutioni 
I 
I-
STATE v. DR. MITI'AL 
817 
justified the conviction or the respondent. 
A 
The respondent submitted that the circumstances relied upon by t:Jie 
prosecution were not clinching the issue; that the presence of the respon· 
dent at. the scene house at the time of the occurrence was disproved by 
C

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