HEMENDRA PRATAP ALIAS MUNNA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 1st December, 1978, at about 7.30 A.M. one Smt. Ratan Devi aged about 60 years, widow of one Dr. Ripusudan Lal, was done to death in her own house in village Kotla within the jurisdiction of police station Narkhi, district Agra. The appellant faced the trial for the murder of the deceased and the learned Sessions Judge on 20th August, 1980 convicted him under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded him life imprisonment as sentence. This appeal is directed against the said judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge.

(2.) THE first information was lodged at the police station Narkhi, at a distance of six miles from the place of incident, by Hub Lal P.W. 1, the village Chowkidar. After the registration of this report the usual investigation followed. THE body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem which was performed on 2nd December, 1978, at 12 noon by Dr. R. K. Gupta P.W. 6. THE appellant was arrested on 3rd December, 1978, near village Kaunch in a grove. It is alleged that he had certain injuries on both his hands which were examined on 4th December, 1978 at 12.25 P.M. by the same doctor who preformed the postmortem examination of the deceased.

(3.) BEFORE we examine the testimony of Km. Krishan Kumari, we would like to make a reference to the motive of the crime as attributed to the appellant by the prosecution. It was said that the appellant, though not the natural son of Dr. Ripudaman Lal and the deceased, was brought up by them as a son from his very childhood. The appellant, therefore, not only claimed himself to be the son of Dr. Ripudaman Lal but had also aspirations of succeeding to the property of the said doctor which comprised of agricultural land to the extent of about 150 bighas. The prosecution came out with the case that the appellant apprehended that the deceased may deal with the property in such a manner so as to mar his prospects of succeeding to the same after her death and, therefore, he had every reason to do away with the mother even before she could take any steps to either disinherit him or alienate the same. It is in evidence that the entire 150 Bigha of land was under the cultivation of two different persons, namely, Amar Pal and Chandrapal. It is also in evidence that the name of the deceased was mutated in the revenue papers immediately after the death of her husband Dr. Ripusudan Lal. Therefore, the deceased was the tenure-holder of the said plots. We have examined the relevant provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and a combined reading of the provisions as contained in Sections 171, 172 and 174 makes it clear that since Dr. Ripusudan Lal, the original tenure-holder, died without leaving any male lineal descendant, his interest in the agricultural land devolved upon the deceased in her capacity as his widow. It is also clear from the said provisions that in the absence of a son the interest of the deceased will devolve upon the unmarried daughter and in this case it is the definite case of the prosecution that Km, Krishan Kumari was the only unmarried daughter. Therefore, from the legal stand point the appellant could gain nothing by committing the murder of the deceased. The agricultural plots would have been inherited straightaway by Km. Krishan Kumari. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to establish any real motive which may have impelled the appellant to commit the crime. It follows that the prosecution cannot use this motive as an indicative of the circumstance of the guilt of the appellant.