STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. MANOHAR SINGH THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-accused, Manohar Singh, was tried for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 394 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. By his judgment and order dated 7-4-1986, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Sections 302, 307 and 394 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge held that the crime committed by the accused was callous and brutal and was one of the rarest of rare cases where the accused had murdered one old person and attempted to murder another unsuspecting old and helpless person without slightest provocation and simply to gratify his greed. He, therefore, awarded the death penalty to the accused for offence under Section 302. For offences under Sections 307 and 394 read with Section 397, he passed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In appeal, the High Court has given the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him of all the charges. Hence the present appeal is filed by the State.

(2.) Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is as follows: There lived an old couple in village Deola, Tehsil Suni, District Shimla. The husband's name was Kula Datt, since deceased. His wife's name is Mathru Devi. The couple had a daughter, namely, Pushpa Devi. She was married to one Khem Dass of village Auth about 15 or 20 years prior to the date of the crime. The accused, Manohar Singh, is the son of the sister of Khem Dass. He was thus a nephew by marriage of the daughter of the old couple. The accused used to visit Kula Datt and Mathru Devi. On the evening of 2nd of September, 1985, he visited the house of the couple. In the morning at about 7 a.m. the following day, that is to say, on 3rd of September, 1985 the accused left the house in the company of Kula Datt on the pretext that he wanted to buy some gold from one Nika Ram of village Bagh and Kula Datt being an elderly man, could provide requisite guidance in the purchase of gold. At about 10 a.m. on the same day, the accused returned to the house of Kula Datt alone. When Mathru Devi, the wife of Kula Datt, enquired as to where her husband was, the accused told her that he had stayed behind in the village to talk to the villagers about the ensuing panchayat elections. Mathru Devi served a meal to the accused and the accused had a nap thereafter. As Kula Datt had not returned, when the accused got up, Mathru Devi took him to the village in search of her husband. They went to the house of one Durga Dass who was a member of the village panchayat, and a lady named Hukmu to enquire about the whereabouts of Kula Datt. These persons told Mathru Devi that her husband had not been seen by them. Thereafter, the accused left the village.

(3.) However, at about 10 p.m. on the night of 3rd of September, 1985, the accused gave a knock at the door of Mathru Devi. Mathru Devi enquired as to who was knocking at her door. On being told that it was the accused, she opened the door. The accused produced a key of the box in which the couple kept their cash and ornaments. This key was normally kept always with himself by Kula Datt. The accused told Mathru Devi that her husband and her daughter Pushpa had been held hostages by some dacoits at Panchayat Ghar and the dacoits were demanding cash and ornaments as ransom. He gave the key to Mathru Devi. Mathru Devi thereupon opened the box and took out cash and ornaments of silver and gold and put them in a bag of cloth. A pattoo of Pashmina was also put in the bag by her as instructed by the accused. She then followed the accused to the Panchayat Ghar which is at a distance of about two furlongs from her house.