UTTAM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The solitary accused stands convicted for an offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code with a sentence of imprisonment for life and fine for having murdered his wife Meena Bai on the 5th July,1998 at about 12 noon in the family home. It appears that the relations between the Appellant and his wife was strained as he suspected that she was not of good character. On the intervention of the family members, however, Meena Bai who had left the matrimonial home and gone to her parents, was persuaded to return. The Appellant nevertheless assaulted Meena Bai on the day in question with a tangia (an agricultural weapon easily available in all farming families) on which she cried out in pain whereupon her sister-in-law P.W. 7 Sulesan Bai who was preparing the food close by came running to the spot. She saw Meena Bai lying in a pool of blood and the Appellant standing by carrying a tangia in his hand. The Appellant also told Sulesan Bai that he had caused injuries to his wife and that he would go to the police station to lodge a report. Suleshan Bai thereupon conveyed the information to Derhin Bai P.W. 9,the step mother of the Appellant, and Derhin Bai also saw the Appellant leaving the house carrying his tangia. On enquiry from him he told her that he was going to the police station. A short while later Aiwa Ram P.W. 10,the father of the Appellant, also reached the place and was told by Sulesan Bai and Derhin Bai that the Appellant had killed his wife Meena Bai and had left for police station, Kasdol at about 6:10p.m. 24 kms. away from the village. It is admitted position that the Appellant never reached the police station. He was, however, arrested and was ultimately brought to trial.

(2.) During the course of the evidence P.W. 7 and P.W. 9 supported their statements to the extent of the extrajudicial confessions having been made to them and that they had conveyed the information to P.W. 10, but they resiled on some insignificant matters. P.W. 10, however, deposed that his wife and daughter had conveyed the information about the incident and the details there of to him after he had returned from the fields. The trial court accordingly, found that the statements of P.W. 7, 9 and 10 clearly proved the case against the Appellant.

(3.) The matter was thereafter taken in appeal to the High Court and the High Court has, by the impugned judgment, confirmed the judgment of the trial court. This matter is before us after the grant of special leave.