Mani Ram, Appellant V. State Of Uttaranchal,
Respondent.
DATE : 18-06-2001
2001-(107)-CRLJ -3403 -UTT
JUDGE(S) :
A A Desai
M C Jain
UTTARANCHAL HIGH COURT
M. C. JAIN, J. :- The accused/appellant Mani Ram was tried by
the Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, in S.T. No. 28 of 2000. By judgment
dated 27-3-2001, he has been convicted and sentenced to death
u/S. 302, IPC for committing the murder of his wife and mother-in-law
and to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment u/S. 307, IPC for
attempting to commit murder of three others. Aggrieved, he has
preferred this appeal from jail.
Learned Sessions Judge, who passed the impugned judgment and order,
has also made a reference u/S. 366, Cr. P.C. for confirmation
of death sentence passed against the accused/appellant.
Broad essentials of the incident and the evidence may be set forth.
The incident took place on 30-5-2000 at about 9.30 a.m. in the
Sasural of the accused/appellant situated in village Kwaran, Patti
Patharkhani, Tahsil and District Pithoragarh. He had been married
with the deceased Vidya Devi daughter of another deceased Kamla
Devi one or two years before this incident. Vidya Devi was residing
with the accused/appellant, but 2-3 days before the incident,
she had been fetched by her mother Kamla Devi to her own house
and the accused/appellant had also accompanied the two ladies.
On the day of incident, the accused/appellant asked his wife Vidya
Devi to come back with him to his own house. However, she as well
as her mother Kamla Devi told him that that was Tuesday and it
was inauspicious for a married lady to return to her Sasural from
the house of her parents on that day. Both the ladies implored
him to stay there for a day or so more. Thereafter, Vidya Devi
could return with him to his house. The accused/appellant did
not agree and insisted to take Vidya Devi with him that very day
and as the two ladies did not abide by his wishes, he picked up
a sharp edged weapon (Bariath) and started striking blows on the
two ladies, who died of the injuries then and there. At that time
Vidya Devi was carrying pregnancy of 3-4 months. Vidya Devi's
cousin sister Chandrakala was also inside the house at that time.
Taken aback by the ghastly incident, she rushed out of the house
and raised shouts attracting her mother Jayanti Devi to the scene.
The accused/appellant, after committing the murder of his wife
and mother-in-law, also came out of the house with sharp edged
weapon and caused injuries to Chandrakala's mother Jayanti Devi.
Another Jayanti Devi who was the step mother of Vidya Devi had
gone out of the house with her son Vijay Kumar to a little distance.
She also rushed up with him on hearing the shouts of Chandrakala
and while fleeing the accused/appellant caused injuries to her
and Vijay Kumar also with the sharp edged weapon that he had.
He managed to make his escape good towards jungle with the weapon
of assault.
The report of the incident was lodged with the concerned Patwari
by P.W. 3 Kishan Singh at 11 a.m. on 30-5-2000. The three injured
namely, Chandrakala's mother Jayanti Devi, another Jayanti Devi
and Vijay Kumar were sent for medical examination. The investigation
was taken up as usual which culminated into the submission of
charge-sheet against the accused/appellant.
At the trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses including
the doctors, scribe of the FIR and eye-witnesses, namely, Km.
Chandra Kala, P.W. 1 her mother Jayanti Devi, P.W. 2 and another
Jayanti Devi, P.W. 4, step mother of the deceased Vidya Devi.
Accused/appellant admitted the incident and his presence at the
spot. He also admitted in his statement u/S. 313, Cr. P.C. that
his wife and mother-in-law had not acceded to his request for
his wife's coming with him to his house on the ground that being
Tuesday, it was an inauspicious day. It was also his case that
he had insisted that she was to go with him to his house that
very day urgently. However, his defence was that his mother-in-law
brought a sharp edged weapon "Darati" and she as well
as his wife started assaulting him therewith. He happened to snatch
the weapon from them and used the same in his self-defence. He
also admitted to have caused injuries with sharp edged weapon
to Chandrakala's mother Jayanti Devi, Vijay Kumar and his wife's
step mother Jayanti Devi. He did so in his self-defence. To be
short, the time and place of incident are admitted to the accused/appellant,
but he has raised the bogey of having used the sharp edged weapon
on the deceased and the injured in his self-defence.
It would be relevant to state here as a passing reference that
as per the post mortem reports of Vidya Devi and Kamla Devi, wife
and mother-in-law respectively of the deceased, they had received
a number of incised wounds including on head and had died due
to shock and hemorrhage owing to sharp edged injuries received
on head. The wife of the deceased was aged about 24 years and
his mother-in-law was aged about 45 years.
Jayanti Devi (step mother of Vidya Devi) had also received incised
wounds including on left side of neck. She was aged about 35 years.
Her sons, Vijay Kumar had also received two incised wound, one
of which was on right side of neck and the other on lower part
of right ear. Jayanti Devi w/o Umed Ram also received two incised
wounds, one on the right side of upper back and another on the
shoulder region. The injuries of all of them were grievous.
The appeal having been preferred by the accused/appellant from
jail, we appointed Sri Sandeep Tandon, Advocate as amicus curiae
on his behalf. We have heard him as well as learned A.G.A. on
behalf of the State. We have also gone through the evidence and
material on record.
The only argument from the side of the accused/appellant is that
he acted in self-defence and the case is covered by part I of
S. 304, IPC. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
matter. It is pertinent to observe that the theory of self-defence
advanced by the accused/appellant does not deserve a moment's
attention. It is significant to point out that there is nothing
to indicate that he received any injury in the incident. It does
not stand to reason at all that while engrossed in conversation
with the accused/appellant on the issue of one of them (his wife)
going to house with him on that day of Tuesday, his mother-in-law
would have brought out a sharp edged weapon. There does not appear
to be any grain of truth in the plea of self-defence raised from
the side of the accused/appellant in the absence of any injury
having been sustained by him in the incident. The said plea of
the accused/appellant does not stand the test of judicial scrutiny.
In case he had disarmed the two ladies of the weapon without suffering
any injury, at their hands, then that was the end of the matter.
There was hardly any occasion for him to strike blows with the
sharp edged weapon on them, cutting short their lives mercilessly
and also injuring three others with that weapon on their vital
parts. Therefore, on careful perusal of the evidence on record
and the attending circumstances, we are of the view that the theory
of self-defence has rightly been rejected by the trial Court and
we are in agreement with the view taken on this aspect of the
matter.
Actually, the incident took place in the manner as alleged by
the prosecution. Infuriated by the refusal of two ladies that
his wife would not go with him on that day of Tuesday, he took
up the sharp edged weapon which was available in his Sasural and
struck repeated blows on the two ladies, putting an end to their
lives and while fleeing from the scene he caused injuries with
the same weapon on Jayanti Devi w/o Umed Ram, another Jayanti
Devi (step mother of his wife) and her son Vijay Kumar. Consequently,
we reject the argument that the case falls under part I of S.
304, IPC.
It has now to be considered as to whether the case falls in the
category of rarest of rare cases calling for the extreme penalty
of death. No doubt, double murder committed by him was brutal
in nature. However, the shocking nature of the crime should not
induce an instinctive re-action as regards the consideration of
quantum of punishment. The entire set of attending circumstances
has to be taken note of to come to a judicial finding as to what
punishment should be awarded to the offender. Regard is to be
had to this aspect of the matter that it was not a pre-meditated
act of the accused/appellant. He had come to his Sasural with
his wife and mother-in-law one or two days before the incident
in normal circumstances. He had no arm with him. He was unarmed
initially at the time of the incident also. The incident occurred
at the spur of moment. He was engrossed in conversation with his
wife and mother-in-law to persuade them that his wife should accompany
him to his house that very day. But the two ladies were adamant
in putting their feet down, refusing his desire on the ground
that being Tuesday it was an inauspicious day. It appears that
the accused/appellant, who was a rustic, lost his temper and blood
quickly rushed to his head when he saw that his wife was not accompanying
him to his house that day. In the heat of passion and out of frustration
and desperation, he picked up sharp edged weapon lying nearby
in his Sasural and mercilessly struck repeated blows on his wife
and mother-in-law, who died then and there. As a natural instinct,
he came out of the house with the weapon of offence and assaulted
Jayanti Devi wife of Umed Ram, another Jayanti Devi (step mother
of his wife) and her son Vijay Kumar, who were close relatives
of his wife and mother-in-law and happened to cross his way outside
the house. He did so to avoid resistance from their side in order
to escape and in over anxiety to get away from the scene of occurrence.
As a matter of fact, he himself is the greatest sufferer of this
criminal offence committed by him in the circumstances aforesaid.
Out of the two ladies murdered, one was his wife, who was carrying
pregnancy of 3-4 months and the root cause of the incident was
that he wanted to take her to his house that very day. May be
that great affection that he cherished for his wife was the reason
of his insistence to take her that very day. But the anger turned
his head and he happened to commit this unpardonable felony. In
such backdrop, we form the opinion that this is not the rarest
of rare cases calling for the extreme penalty of death for the
two murders committed by him. The ends of justice would be met
by awarding him life imprisonment u/S. 302, IPC for the double
murder committed by him and ten years R.I. u/S. 307, IPC for attempting
to commit murder of three others, namely, Vijay Kumar, Jayanti
Devi and another Jayanti Devi w/o Umed Ram. Both the sentences
should be directed to run concurrently.
To terminate the discussion, we dismiss the appeal so far as the
conviction of the accused/appellant Mani Ram u/Ss. 302, 307, IPC
is concerned, but we modify the sentence passed against him as
under, setting aside the draft sentence : Accused appellant Mani
Ram shall undergo life imprisonment u/S. 302, IPC and ten years
R.I. u/S. 307, IPC. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
He is already in jail. He shall serve out the sentences as awarded
to him.
Sri Sandeep Tandon, Amicus Curiae, who argued the appeal on behalf
of the accused-appellant shall get Rs. 3000/- as his fee.
Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2001 made by the Sessions Judge is
hereby rejected.
Order accordingly.
Home
HOME