STATE Vs. JANG BAHADUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Criminal Revision which was registered when the record of the Sessions statement of Hardoi came to this Court and a learned Judge, when he perused the judgment in this case, found that the sentence awarded to the opposite party was inadequate and he issued a notice to him as to why the sentence should not be enhanced.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows. Jang Bahadur opposite party and his brother Hukum Singh resided in village Mahadain, police station Harpalpur along with their mother Smt. Phul Kuar. The opposite party was married to Smt. Shanti Devi, daughter of Mulaim Singh, tome days before the incident the ornaments of Smt, Phul Kuar were stolen and the two brothers suspected each other, Some evidence has been produced that Hukum -Singh and some others suspected that it was Smt. Shanti Devi who had stolen these ornaments. The opposite party trusted his wife completely and considered her to be the soul of honour. He stoutly defended his wife and suspected his brother for committing this theft. This created bad blood between the two brothers and their relations were highly strained. A day before the incident Mulaim Singh, the father of Smt. Shanti Devi, came to Mahadain. On the date of the incident the opposite party as usual had gone out to his fields in the morning and while he was working there, his brother Hukum Singh came there and told him that the ornaments have been recovered from the Jhola of Mulaim Singh by Smt. Phul Kuar and now the complicity of Smt. Shanti Devi was established. The opposite party was greatly shocked on receiving this information and he came back to his house in an angry mood. He told his father -in -law Mulaim Singh to clear out immediately and he also behaved in an excited manner. The relations succeeded in persuading him to go back to his field and work there. The opposite party worked there for about 1.1/2 to 2 hours and then after coming back to his house, he killed his wife Smt. Shanti Devi with a Gandasa, No one saw him killing his wife and from the evidence produced it appears that when the relations and neighbours were attracted they found the opposite party with a blood -stained Gandasa in his hand. The opposite party told some of them that Smt. Shanti Devi had abused him and so he had killed her. The opposite party then proceeded to police station Harpalpur and lodged the first information report of this crime himself and he also deposited the blood -stained Gandasa. He was prosecuted after the investigation was completed.

(3.) WE will, however, not discount their statements, but we will accept them at their face value. When the opposite party was prosecuted, perhaps his zeal to admit his crime became less and then he wanted to escape the punishment of his crime. The mood of repentance or the desire to justify his crime gave way to the primary urge for self -preservation which was but natural. He, therefore, made certain additions in his statement and when he was examined by the committing Magistrate, he gave the version that when he came back to the house after scraping the grass, he told his wife that she had brought disgrace to him by stealing the articles and handing them over to her father. On this Smt. Shanti Devi deceased abused him and caught hold of his neck and said that she would kill him also. Accidentally a Gandasa was lying nearby and losing his self control he killed her.