Puran Chandra Pant vs State of Uttarakhand

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—The first information report in the instant case was lodged by the appellant on 5th August, 2000 alleging that, at around 08:30 P.M., on 3rd August 2000, while quarrelling with his wife, he hit his wife with his shoes, when his wife fell on the charpoy (cot), where after he ascertained that his wife has died. In the first information report it was stated that he is the Head Clerk of Government Intermediate College, Gangolihat and, he has already informed the Principal, a lecturer and other persons associated with the said college that his wife has died due to illness and, accordingly, he expects that they will come to visit him and at that time they will come to learn about the true state of affairs and, as such before they can come and lodge the first information report, he has come to the police station for lodging the first information report. After investigation into the first information report, a charge sheet was filed where it was alleged that the appellant is guilty of having committed an offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code, inasmuch as, it was the appellant who murdered his wife. In the charge sheet, it was alleged that the appellant is also guilty of an offence punishable u/s 201 of the Indian Penal Code, inasmuch as, as it appears to us, he gave informations relating to the death of his wife knowing that such informations are false. On the basis of the said charge sheet, charges were framed when however, no charge was framed for an offence punishable u/s 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The only charge that was framed against the appellant was for an offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In course of trial the inquest report as well as the postmortem report were proved. In the inquest report it was stated that the death was caused by the appellant. The witnesses to the inquest report duly accepted the fact that it was the appellant, who caused the death of the deceased. Since, no one witnessed the manner of causing the death, no prosecution witness deposed in that regard. In the postmortem report, it was indicated that the deceased received four injuries on her face, lip and head and two ribcage bone injuries. The postmortem report opined that the cause of the death was ante mortem injuries. When the case of the prosecution was put to the appellant u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant stated that the police obtained the first information report from him; that the deceased received injuries from a fallen log; and that the death was an accidental death. It was however not contended by the appellant that, the death did not take place on 3rd August 2000. At the same time, the appellant could not give any reason why on 5th August 2000, for the first time, he spoke about the death which had taken place on 3rd August 2000.

From the evidence brought on record by the prosecution it appears that without permission on 4th and 5th August 2000, the appellant did not attend his duties in the collage and, accordingly, the Principal of the college through a peon of the college, summoned the appellant on 5th August 2000. It has also come on record that on 5th August 2000, the appellant handed over a letter to the said peon of the college stating therein that, his wife has died due to illness and, as such he could not attend to his duties in the college on 4th and 5th August 2000. The appellant in answer to questions u/s 313 Cr.P.C. did not question that part of the evidence.

If that part of the evidence, which is undisputed, is read with the first information report, the irresistible conclusion would be that after having had attended his office on 3rd August 2000, when the appellant returned to his home, he had a quarrel with his wife, whereupon he used his shoes on his wife and, as a result while the wife of the appellant received certain injuries caused by shoe-beating, she also received some injury by falling on the charpoy and, that caused her death around 08:30 P.M. on 3rd August 2000. The moment the appellant realized that his wife is no more the appellant became numb. He did not attend his office on 4th and 5th of August 2000. On 5th August 2000, when the peon came to the house of the appellant, searching for him, the appellant had to give a reason for not attending to his office on 4th and 5th August 2000. The only reason that could be given by the appellant was the death of his wife. He gave that information, but with that added that, the death has been caused due to illness. Because such information was given, the appellant apprehended that the Principal, Lecturer and others associated with the college will immediately turn on to his house and, by looking at the dead body, will realize what has happened. In those circumstances, the appellant went to the police station, before others could come to the police station for the purpose of lodging a first information report. In that background, he lodged the first information report and confessed the extent of his involvement in the death of his wife.

No sooner the first information report was lodged, the appellant was arrested. Appellant remained in custody since 5th August 2000 and, continued to remain so while the trial was on and, even during the pendency of the appeal.

By the judgment and order under appeal, appellant has been convicted, proceeding on the basis that the appellant has committed murder of his wife. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted, after having had taken us through the entire material on record, that the evidence brought on record would not suggest that it was a case of murder. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that under no circumstances a prudent person can consider a shoe to be a murder weapon. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that from the evidence on record, there is nothing to suggest that the injuries sustained by the victim were caused by any other weapon, except the shoe. It was submitted that while the husband and wife were quarrelling, the husband took out the shoe and, started beating the wife. In the melee, the wife fell on the charpoy and, subsequent thereto, she breathed her last. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that, no motive was ascribed by the prosecution and at the same time, it has not come on record that the intention of the appellant in causing bodily injury to the victim was such that, to the knowledge of the appellant, the same was likely to cause death to the victim. It was submitted that the injuries, as were found, which could at the best be said to be intended to be caused, were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It was submitted by learned Amicus Curiae that the act complained of cannot be said to be eminently dangerous that, such act in all probability will cause death or bodily injury as is likely to cause death. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that it was, therefore, not a case of murder, but he fairly submitted that, by reason of the action on the part of appellant, a culpable homicide took place. He submitted that in the instant case, the learned court below should have punished the appellant for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. He submitted that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, when out of a fit of rage, the husband used his shoes on the wife and, as a result the wife died, no case for awarding of life imprisonment had been made out by the prosecution. It was submitted that intention of causing death, or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, having not come on the evidence, the learned court below should have taken a lenient view of the matter and awarded a punishment for a term lesser than ten years imprisonment to the appellant. We accept, in the circumstances narrated above and the submissions of the learned Amicus Curiae. We feel that it was a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and it was not a case of murder. We are also adidem with the learned Amicus Cuaire that the prosecution has failed to prove intention of causing death, or causing such bodily injury which is likely to cause death. We also feel that while beating the wife with a shoe, it was not within the knowledge of the appellant that, such beating is likely to cause death of the victim, or the injury to be sustained thereby is likely to cause death to the victim. That being the situation, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant could at the best be convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and, be awarded a sentence of imprisonment not for a term extending ten years. We, accordingly, modify the judgment and sentence under appeal and, substitute the sentence of life imprisonment with fine by ten years imprisonment. Having regard to the fact that the appellant is in custody since 5th August 2000, he has already been in prison for a period in excess of ten years, accordingly, he should be set free forthwith. Let a copy of this judgment be sent back to the court below with the lower court records with a direction upon the court below to ensure that the appellant is forthwith set free after recording that he has served out the prison term as awarded by this court.