PATI RAM Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After carefully going through the evidence on record with the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, we have come to the conclusion that this appeal has no merit. We shall now proceed to state our reasons in support of our conclusion.

(2.) The prosecution case is that the appellant hit deceased Mulia and and killed her on the morning of 7/08/1967, in the courtyard of their house. The appellant and the deceased were first cousins. The deceased was a chadless widow. She owned some properties. These are all admitted facts. It is also admitted that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained by her on the morning of 7/08/1967. The place where she sustained injuries is also not in dispute though there is some dispute as regards the time of the occurrence. According to the prosecution, she sustained the injuries in question at about 10 a. m. on the date mentioned earlier. But the defense suggestion was that she is likely to have sustained those injuries in the early hours of the morning when it was dark. But this is a mere suggestion. No evidence has been adduced to show that she sustained those injuries during the early hours of morning on that day.

(3.) It is said that the deceased and the appellant were not on good terms. There was a partition suit pending between them. That suit had been filed some time before this occurrence took place and that it had been posted for appearance of the appellant on 8/08/1967, i. e. the day following the day of the occurrence. Some days prior to the occurrence, the deceased had sold her residential house to P. W. 1 who is her second cousin. The evidence as regards the motive was furnished by P. W. 1. His evidence receives corroboration from Exh. K-15. The appellant is the nearest heir to the deceased. If the deceased had died intestate, he would have succeeded to her estate. The suggestion made on behalf of the prosecution is that because of the litigation between him and the deceased the appellant feared that the deceased would convey her properties to P. W. 1. There is evidence to show that that the deceased and the appellant were constantly quarrelling. It is said that the sale of her residential house by the deceased to P. W. 1 greatly infuriated the appellant. The motive proved is not a strong one but the adequacy of a motive largely depends on the reactions of the concerned individual. Different people react differently in different circumstances.