GOPI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by one Gopi who has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Kanpnr under Section 302, I.P. C. for committing the murder of his wife Srimati Mulia inside his house in village Dondiamau, P.S. Bhognipur, District Kanpur on the morning of the 22nd December, 1953 at about 7 a.m. and has been sentenced to death. The learned Sessions Judge has made the usual reference under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for confirmation of the death sentence.

(2.) IT appears that Srimati Mulia was a woman of loose character and had illicit connection with one Gaya Din Kurmi who was also living in the same village. There used to be frequent quarrels between the accused and Srimati Mulia on account of her immoral habits. About 10 days before the murder the accused had taken Srimati Mulia to the house of her parents and had left her there. She returned from there abdut four or five days after. On the night preceding the murder she disappeared from her house. She returned in the morning and there was a quarrel between her and the accused. The accused suspected that she had gone to the house of her peramour Gaya Din Kurmi and questioned her about it. She, however, denied the allegation and said that she had gone to her parents. During the quarrel the accused took out a Gandasa and struck several blows with it on her. She cried for help and on hearing her alarm Chhotey Lal Chowkidar, Gur Prasad Mukhia, Babu Ram, Puran, Malkhan and Ram Sarup went to her house. They saw the accused striking her with a Gandasa. On seeing them the accused gave the last Gandasa blow which severed her neck from her body. The accused was overpowered and the Gandasa was snatched from his hands. Gur Prasad Mukhia sent for another Chowkidar Jhunna and the accused along with Chhotey Lal and Jhunna Ghowkidars and the Gandasa which had been snatched from his hands was sent to P.S. Bhognipur which is at a distance of 10 miles from the place of occurrence. The first information report was made by ChoteyLal Chowkidar the same day at 10 a.m. within three hours of the occurrence. It was mentioned in the report that Srimati Mulia had illicit connection with Gaya Din Kurmi of the village and there used to be frequent quarrels on this account between the accused Gopi and his wife, and that there was also a quarrel over it that day preceding the murder. It was also mentioned in the report that Gur Prasad Mukhia, Babu Ram Kurmi, Punna Kumhar, Malkhe Kurmi and Ram Sarup Brahman and others of the village had reached the spot on hearing the hue and cry and saw the accused assaulting his wife. The accused along with the Gandasa which had been snatched from his hands was handed over at the police station. The clothes of the accused were blood stained and so they were taken off from his person and packed and sealed. The Gandasa was also stained with blood, and it was also packed and sealed. The accused was taken in custody and sent to the police lock -up.

(3.) THE accused in his statement before the Committing Magistrate denied that he had committed the murder. He, however, stated that somebody had killed his wife inside his house and that he came to know of it when he returned at night from the fields. He further stated that he informed everybody in the village about it and that the Sub -Inspector came later on and arrested him. He did not mention in his statement there at what time the Sub -Inspector came to arrest him. He was asked as to why the case had been started against him and he stated that he did not know anything about it. In his statement before the sessions court he denied that his wife was of loose character or that she had illicit connection with Gaya Din of his village. He also denied that there was any quarrel between him and his wife either previously or on the day of the murder. He admitted that he had reached his wife to her parents' place ten days before the murder and that after that he saw her only when he found her murdered inside his house. He further stated that he had been implicated by the prosecution witnesses on account of enmity though he did not mention the nature of any enmity between him and any of the prosecution witnesses.