PRABHOO Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Sessions Judge of Rae Bareli tried the appellant Prabhu on a charge of murdering his own uncle and found him guilty of the offence and sentenced him to death. There were an appeal to the High Court and the usual reference for confirmation of the sentence of death. The High Court dealt with the appeal and reference by one judgment. It accepted the reference, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence. The appellant then asked for and obtained special leave of this Court to appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court. The present appeal has come to us in pursuance of the leave granted by this Court.

(2.) Shortly stated the case against the appellant was this. Bhagwan Ahir, step-brother of the appellant's father Budhai, was a resident of village Bandi in the district of Rae Bareli. The appellant and his father Budhai lived in another village called Gulariya at a distance of about two or three miles from Bandi. Bhagwan had about four bighas of pasture land and seven bighas of cultivated land. He had no male issue. He had several daughters who were all married and resided at the places of their respective husbands. Bhagwan was old near about 80 years of age according to the evidence of Maiku, and had no male member in the family to help him with his cultivation. Budhai, it appears, did not reside in village Gulariya all the year round, but was engaged in some job at Burdwan in Bengal. Some four years before the date on which Bhagwan was said to have been murdered the appellant and his mother came to reside with Bhagwan. The idea was that the appellant would be able to help Bhagwan with his cultivation. The appellant did not, however, render much assistance to Bhagwan and the prosecution case was that after about a year of their stay, Bhagwan turned them out of the house. The appellant and his mother then went back to village Gulariya. The prosecution case further was that about a month and a half before the murder of Bhagwan the appellant and his father came to Bhagwan and the appellant's father asked Bhagwan to transfer some of his land to the appellant. Bhagwan said that he had already kept the appellant with him for a year and had found that he was of no assistance. He, therefore, refused to give any land to the appellant. Bhagwan, it appears, had some grand-daughters and one of them called Kumari Sarju aged about five years was staying with him. Bhagwan said that he would give his lands to his grand-daughter Sarju.

(3.) On the night between March 19 and 20, 1961 Bhagwan was sleeping in front of his house on a cot with his grand-daughter. One Maiku (P.W. 1) was sleeping at a short distance from Bhagwan's house. Maiku was a neighbour of Bhagwan. At about midnight. Maiku heard some noise and called out to Bhagwan. There was no response. Maiku then heard the sound of shoes as though somebody was running away from the place. Maiku called out certain other persons and went near the place where Bhagwan was lying on his cot. It was found that Bhagwan had a large number of injuries on the head and neck, most of the injuries being of an incised nature. Bhagwan was already dead. The little girl Sarju though stained with blood which flowed from the body of Bhagwan was not herself injured. She was soundly sleeping on the cot and was not awake when Bhagwan was killed. Maiku gave an information to the police station of what he had heard and seen, the distance of the police station being about eight miles from village Bandi. The information which Maiku gave did not disclose the name of any accused person because Maiku had not seen who had killed Bhagwan.