# RAGHAV PRAP._ANNA TRIPATHI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - **Citation:** [1963] 3 S.C.R. 239 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1963 - **Bench:** S.K. DAs, J. L. Kapur, A.K. Sarkar, M. Hiday.A.· ' Tullar, Raghubar Dayal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/raghav-prap-anna-tripathi-v-the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-2611 - **Pages:** 42 ## Headnote 1f!Y• Oircu'f118tantial evidence-Murder-No direct evidenceSufficiency of proof-Inference from abscnnding-lriference from non-recovery of jup-lnference from presence of accused i11 houae where murder wa,/i alleged to have taken place-Indian . Penal Ooae, ss. 176, 201, 302.. · The appellants were prosecuted and ·Committed to the Sessions for trial. Raghav was convicted ·and sentenced to death under s. 302, I.P.C. He and Jai Devi, his mother, Ramanuj Das, Mohan SinJl'h and Udham Singh were convic· ted under section 201 IPC. Ramanuj Das was also convicted under section I 76 IPC. Their appeals were dismissed by the High Court. They came to this court by special leave. The appeal of Rar:hav, Mohan Singh and Udham Sinfl'h was > ·allowed by majority, that of Ramanuj Das and Jai Devi for ·~ • offence under s. 201, IPC was allowed unanimously and appeal ' of Ramanuj Das for offence under s. I 76 IPC was allowed by a majority. .. . , Helli (Kapur and Hidayatullaha, J J dissentin!?) that there ;~:'."";"'"Wl\:<;J. .no direct evidence ahout Rae;hav committinrt the· murder • • .,.. of ~amla and Madhusudan. There was no direct evid,nce ".~. ". •. abmtt his carryin!! away their dea ·allowed by majority, that of Ramanuj Das and Jai Devi for ·~ • offence under s. 201, IPC was allowed unanimously and appeal ' of Ramanuj Das for offence under s. I 76 IPC was allowed by a majority. .. . , Helli (Kapur and Hidayatullaha, J J dissentin!?) that there ;~:'."";"'"Wl\:<;J. .no direct evidence ahout Rae;hav committinrt the· murder • • .,.. of ~amla and Madhusudan. There was no direct evid,nce ".~. ". •. abmtt his carryin!! away their deaas, has murdered his wedded wife and son by firing at them with the gun of Mahant Ramanuj Das. He has gone somewhere with the two dead bodies in a car. There is a rumour about it in the whole of the village. Having heard of it, I went to the Mahant who is also the Pradhan of my village. I asked him to give me something in writing, so that I would go to the Police i::ltation and make a report. The Mahant then asked me to wait and to go only after Thakur Dalganjan Singh had come, I did not listen to him, although he kept on forbidding. I have come to make a report." Sub-Inspector . Brij Raj Singh Tomer, Station Officer, Airwa Katra, received the copy of the first information report at 11 a. m., and immediately proceeded to the spot and reached there at 2 p. m. He inspected the house of Ramanuj Das and prepared the site plan. He suspected blood stains at about 11 places in the house and took the stained plasters from those places and put them in different packets. All the 11 packets were then sealed m a single bundle. . The Chemical Examiner found the plasters in 5 of the-e packets to be stained with blood. The 1969 Ragh"v Prapanna 'Iripathi "· Stat• of U. P. Raghubar Dayal J, RaghalJ Prapanna Tripathi v. Sta•e of U. P. Boghubar Doyal J. 244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] Serologist could not determine the origin of the blood on account of its disintegration. The positions of the plasters found blood· stained are not clearly made out from the variOus documents, but, in view of the fact that 11, stained plasters were taken in possession from over the door in the front wall of the southern outer room or from its floor or its wall, that at least 2 of the blood s.tained plasters were from the southern outer room portions, even if the other three blood stained plasters were from the outer wall of the northern room, the roof of the temple and the floor of the southern inner room. Sub-Inspector Brij Raj Singh Tomer did not find any of the appellants in the village. On April 12, 1961, Bashir Hussain, Deputy Superintendent of police, vfsited the spot and recovered suspected blood-stained earth frooo the . parnalas of the roof of the house and also from the land on which the water "of the parnalas fell. He took 7 samples of such earth, put them in 7 packets and sealed them in a bundle. The Chemical Examiner found the earth of two such packets to be stained with blood. Again, the Serologist could not determine the origin of blood due to dis-integration. . On April 16, 1961, Bashir Hussain recovered Raghav's shirt and pyjama from ISnowhite, Cleaners & Dyers at Lucknow, as they were suspected to be stained with blood. No blood was detected on the pyjama. The Chemical Examiner found blood stains on the shirt. The Serologist could not diitect the origin of the blood. The police failed to discover the dead bodies of Kamla and Madhusudhan .and also the jeep car. ' - .___, , r 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 245 Raghav surrendered in the Court of the Magistrate at Barabanki on April 20. Mohan was arrested on April 9, Rananuj Das surrendered in the Court of the Judicial Officer, Bidhuna, on April 24, 1961, Jai Devi applied for bail on April 27, presumably, she surrendered on that day. As a result of the investigation, ·the appel· lants were sent up for trial. All the appellants denied that they committed the offences with and stated that they had been falsely implicated. There is no direct evidence about Raghav's committing the murder of Kamla and Madhusudhan. Neither is there direct evidence about his carrying away the dead bodies of Kamla and Madhusudhan in the jeep that night from village Hamirpur RoOl'a as aileged for the prosecution. There is no direct evidence about Ramanuj :Qas or · any other accused being a party to the removal of the dead bodies from the house. The entire case against the appellants depends on circumstantial evidence. · We may deal with the circumstances which the learned t:)essions Judge and the High Court found established and from which they concluded that Raghav murdered Kamla and Madhusudb,an and that thereafter, Raghav, Mohan and Udham Singh, with the connivance of Ramanuj Das and Jai Devi, carried away the dead bodies in the jeep and disposed of them. These circumstances are1. On April 6, 1961, Kamla and Madhusudhan were in the house of Ramanuj Das. 2. Kamla and Madhusudhan were la.st seen alive on April 5, 1961, in the evening. 3. On April 5, 1961, Raghav Prapanna was also in the house of Ra.ma.nuj Das. 1962 Roghav Prapanna Tripathi v • . StateofU.P. Raghubar Dayal J 1962 Raghav Prapanna Tripathi •• Stale of U. P. /laghubaT Dayal J. 246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963] 4. On April 5, 1961, at about 5 or 6 p. m. three gun shots were fired on the roof of Hamanuj Das. 5. On April 5, 1961, at about 9 or 11) p. m. Raghav Prapanna, Mohan and Udham Singh left village Hamirpur Roora on the jeep of.Raghav. 6. On April 5, 1961, at about 11 p. m. Raghav Prapanna purchased petrol from Bidhuna Petrol Pump. 7. On April 6, 1961, at about 8. 30 a. m. Raghav Prapanna crossed Rawatpur barrier in Kanpur. 8. On April 6, 1961, Raghav Prapanna got a post card sent by his sister that Kamla had reached Lucknow safely. 9. On April 7, l 96i, blood-stained earth was recovered from the house of Ramanuj Das from 11 different places. 10. On April 14, 1961, blood-stained earth was recovered from the house of Ramanuj Das from 7 different plaoes. 11. All the accused absconded. after the alleged murder. 12, Blood-stained shirt and pyjama belonging to Raghav Praparina were recovered from the possession of Snow-white Dyers and Cleaners, Lucknow. 13, The police could not trace out the jeep of Raghav Prapanna in spite of best efforts. On behalf of the appellants it is not dispute that the circumstances numbered 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 1 .... -... I -- r - 3S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 247 and 13 have been established. It is contended for the appellants that the other circumstances have not been proved and that, even if proved, all the aforesaid circumstances are insufficient to lead to the sole conclusion that Raghav committed the murders of Kamla and Ma.dhusudhan and that he and the other appellants were parties to the removal of the dead bodies. Karola and Madhusudhan were in the house on April 5, 11!61. They were not seen after the evening of April 5, 1961, The third circumstance is disputed, Ragha.v states that he had left Hamirpur Roora on April 4, This finds support from the statement of Sri Ram, P.W. 3, that he had seen Raghav pass via Samain in a jeep that night. He saw this on Tuesday, April 4, 1961 was a Tuesday. Even if he was in the village on April 5, his presence in the house does not put him in such a position that his omission to furnish information about the whereabouts of Kamla and Madhusudhan or as to what happened to them should point to his committing their murders. He was not the only person in the house to know of what happened to them. There were other persons in the house. It is true that the circumstance of his presence in the house and the absence of any activity on his part to make enquiries about Kamla and Madhusudha.n when they were not seen in the house on April 6, is a conduct which is not expected from a. husband, even if the relations between the husband and the wife be strained. The fourth circumstance that three gun shots were fired from the roofs of Ramanuj Das at about 5 or 6 p.m. on April 5, cannot lead reasonably to the only conclusion or even to a reasonable suspicion that Raghav did fire those shots, that he 1962 Ragha• Prapann• Iripathi 9. State of U. P. Bathubar Dayal J. 1962 Raghav Prapann1 Tripathi v. State of U. P. Raghubar po.ya/ J. 248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963] fired them in the room and that he shot dead his wife and son by that firing· The. conn{ ction between the firing of gun shots from the side of the roof of Ramanuj Das and the alleged murders, seems to us to be too remote to arrive at the conclusion that Raghav had killed his wife and son. In this connection, reference may also be made to circumstances Nos. 9 and 10, relating to the recovery of the bloodstained earth from the house. The blood-stained earth has not been pro· ved to be stained with human blood, Again we a.re of opinion that it would be far-fetched to conclude from the mere presence of blood-stained earth '; -. that that earth was stained with human blood and that the human blood was of Kamla and Madhnsudhan. These circumstances have; therefore, no evidentiary value. The facts that Kanila. and Madhuaudhan have not been seen since the evening of April 5, 1961, and that blood stains, not proved to be of human· origin, were found in that room, are not sufficient for holding that they must have been murdered, however strongly one may suspect it in view of the unlikelihood of their having left the house for ally other place. In this connection, reference may also be made to circumstance No. 8. Exhibit ·Ka-7 ~as addressed by Govind Kumari, sister of Raghav, to Rama.nuj Das on April 6, 196 l, from Lucknow. It is stated in this post.ca.rd that 'Raghav etc., had arrived safely and that as 'bhabi' had also arrived, it was n·ot necessary for her to cook food etc.'. Thia letter, according to the post-mark, reached Samrin Post Office on April 10, and was not deli· vered till April 13, to the addressee, as he was not present, and was ultimately handed over to .. 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 249 the Deputy Superintendent of Police, in compliance with the orders of the Magistrate under s. 95, Cr. P. C. It is alleged that this letter was written at the instigation of Raghav in order to prepare evidence about Karola's reaching Lucknow on April 6. There is however no evidence on record about Raghav's having a hand in the sending of this letter by Govind Kumari. She was not examined to prove the contents of her Jetter and to explain to whorn she referred to as 'bhabi'. Raghav has stated that he had gone to Lucknow along with Rama Sewak's wife, whom he also called 'bhabi'. That may be true or not. The fact remains that there is no evidence that Govind Kumari wrote this postcard with a purpose and at the instigation of .Kaghav. The evidentiary value of this postcard is nil and the conclusions that Raghav got this letter sent is not justified when there is no evidence to that effeot and there is no definite proof that the expression 'bhabi' referred to Kamla. Support for the inference that the expression 'bhabi' referred to Kamla has been found, by the Court below, from complete omission to Govind Kumari's sending wishes to Kamla and Madhusudhan, as it is expected that if she knew that they were at Hamirpur Roora, she would have conveyed her wishes to them. One can normally expect this, but it is in the statement of Lakhan Prasad, P. W. 6, that there could not have been good relations between Govind Kumari and Karola. Lakhan Prasad deposed that on his asking Kamla the cause of her unhappiness for the last four years, she told him that one Sub-Inspector Iqbal visited her father-in.law's place and had iJlicit connection with Govind Kumari and that these persons, together with Raghav, used to take wine and meat in the temple. She further told him that her complaint to her mother-in-law iii this respect 19111 Ragl.ao p,apanna Tripathi v. State of U. !'. Raghurhar Da.>al J. 1962 Raghori Proponna Tri'jJathi •• State ofU. P. Raghubor Dayal J. • 250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] went un-heeded. It follows, therefore, that omission of the usual courtesies in the postcard from Govind Kumari need not lead to the conclusion that it was on account of the attempt to show, when need be, that Kamla and her son had reached Lucknow and were alive on April 6, 1961Circumstances 5 and 6, by themselves, are not sufficient to lead to the conclusion that Raghav had taken the corpses of Kamla and .Madhμsudhan in the jeep from the village on the night of April 5, 1961, when there is no evidence of any witness about seeing any such things in the jeep which might reasonably lead to the inference that they contained the dead bodies. The 7th circumstance, does not in any way go against Raghav, as he himself admits to have gone to Lucknow from village Bhuwain on April 6, 1961. In_ doing so he would pass Rawatpur barrier. This circumstanoe, in a way, supports his version and has nothing incriminating in itselfThe 11th circumstance, as stated, is not quite correct. All the accused did not abscond after the alleged murders. Ramanuj Das himself was in the village till the morning of April 7, according to the statement of Khushali, Chowkidar, who lodged the first information report. If he and others left the house after knowing of the report lodged by the chowkidar, that is understandable. The mere absconding, however, may lend weight to the other evidence establishing the guilt of the accused, but, by itself, is hardly any evidence of guilt. The 12th circumstance, is about Raghav's shirt being found to be stajned with blood by the Chemical Examiner. The bloodstain has not been proved to be "of human origin. In the circumstan- .Y ces, this circumstance has no evidentiary value in l _, 't 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 251 connecting Raghav with the offence of murder. Further, the shirt wa.s recovered from the Dry Cleaners on April 16. It was given to them on April 9. The murder is said to have taken place on April 5. Bloodstain on the shirt could have been due to reasons other than Raghav's taking part in the murder of his wife and son. In this connection, reference must be made to the statement of Babu Lal, P. W. 7, the proprietor of the Snowhite Cleaners & Dyers to the effect that when Raghav gave hiip. the shirt for washing it was not blood-stained. He has also stated that even when the Sub-Inspector took it in possession, it was not blood-stained. The High Court oonsidered Babu Lal's statement to be untrue as he had signed the recovery list which staterl that the shirt had stains suspected to be washed bloodstains. There was no statement that the shirt had bloodstains on April 9 when it was given for washing. Further, if the signing of the recovery list by Babu Lal as a witness to the recovery be taken to be his statement about the correctness of its contents. that statement would be inadmissible in evidence in view of s. 162, Cr. P. C. The last circumstance, as a piece of evidence against the accused, is that the police could not trace out the jeep of Raghav in spite of best efforts. The inability of the police to find the jeep does not prove that thP jeep, if found, would have furnished evidence against Raghav' by showing the existence of human blood-stains on its parts and thereby indicating that it was used in removing the corpses. If it had been recovered and human bloodstains had been found on it, there would have been some evidence against the accused a.bout the jeep having been used for removing the dead bodies. But it is too much to conclude from the non-recovery of the jeep that if recovered 1962 Raghav Pra~anno T1ipathi v. StateafU. P. Raghubar Doyal J. Raqha'O Prop3nna Tripalhi v. Stale a/ U. p. Raghubar Doyal J. 252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] it would have afforded evidence of existence of human bloodstains and thus of its having been used to remove evidence of murder. This circumstance has therefore .no evidentiary value. In this connection, we must refer to the unusual conduct of the Magi•trate in forwarding the letter of request by the Investigating Officer under s. 94 Cr. P. C., to the Jailor, requiring Raghav to convey information in whose charge he left his jeep No. 3807 while surrendering in Court at Barabanki, and the whereabouts of the jeep at the time. The Investigating Officer could have interrogated the accused in jail, as is usually done, of course, with the permission of the Magistrate. But, to attempt to get written replies from the accused, is unusual, if not unwarranted under the Code of Criminal Procedure,. Any way, any rPply given by the accused to such a query of the Investi11ating Officer, cannot be used in evidence in view of s. 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We have now dealt with the pieces of circumstantial evidence which were accepted by the Courts below and are of opinion that those circumstances are not sufficient to support the finding that Ral!'hav committed the murder of Kamla and Madhusudhan. The facts allPl!'ed to const.itute mot.ivEi for Raghav to commit the murders do not nereeR•.rily provide such a motive. R>Lghav married Bimla in 1954 and for seven yAars he appAars tn have conti nued his marital relations with Kamla as well. Madhusudhan was born in 1957. He mav not be showing the same affection tci Karola after his marriage with Bimla as before. There mi11ht have been something of an estrangement in his relations towards her. But all this would not afford a motive for murdering her, and also their son Madhusudhan. 'Ihe suggestion to Ramanuj Das to· pay ' t - t .... .. 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 253 I Rs. 10,000/- to Kamla and also to transfer 90 Bigha.s of land to her, even if true, need not have caused such a resentment to Raghav as to decide on murdering his wife and son. There is nothing on the record to indicate how such a transfer of ca.sh and property would affect the toti;Ll property of Ramanuj Das, and how, ultimately, Raghav would be affected by it. Apparently, Raghav would have no claim to the property left by Ramanuj Das as a mahant of the mutt or temple. The propnty would go to the successor of Ramanuj Das. Raghe.v who was leading a secular life, will not succeed to the Ma.hantship, just as his ftther Narain Das, though a senior disciple of Lachman Das, did not succeed to it. His leaving the place when Ra.manuj Das was approached by La.khan Das to transfer cash and land to Karola, does not necessarily indicate that he left a.<.1 he resented the suggestion. 'l'here is no evidence that he raised any protest at the time or indicated by any expresPion that Rama,nuj Das should not do so. We do not corn~ider it reasonable to conclude, from the mere fact of his leaving the place, that he did so on account of such keen resentment as would make him commit the murders of hi11 wife and son. Lastly, there is no such circumstantia.1 evidence which would establish that the appellants had removed and concealed the dead bodies. We have alreadv referred to the absence of evidence a.bout the ·dead bodies being carried in the jeep that night by Raghav. There is no evidence a.bout the part which Ra.manuj D11.s or Jai Devi played in the removal of the dead bodies. The fact that they were in the house and could hav~ possibly known of the removal of the dead bodies, if that was a fact, would not by itself establish that they . assisted in the removal of the bodies. We are therefore of opinion that no offence under s. 201 • 196t Raghao Prapanna Tripathi '· SI.le of U. P. Raghubar Dayal J. 1962 Raghati Prapanr.a Tripathi v. Stale of U. P. Raghubar Doyal J, Kapur J. 254 SUPREME OOURT REPOR'l'S [1963] . I. P. C. has been established against the appellants. Further, no offence under s. 176 I. P. C. can be held proved B!!'ainst Ramanuj Das when there is no proof' that Kamla and Madhu•uilhan were murdered. As a member of' t.he villaq;e Panchavat he was bound to convev inf'orm'l.tion to the near· P-•t Magistrate or Officer:in-charge of thA nearest Police Station about the commission of' an offence under s. 302, I. P. C., onlv when .a murder had . been committed and he knew about it. The conviction of the appellants for the various offences is therefore not iustified on the material on record. We therefore allow the appeal, ~et aside their oonviction and acquit them of the offences thev have been convicted of. They will be released forthwith from custodv, if not required to be detained under any other process of law. . KAPUR, J.-This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of AJ.lahabad confirming the conviction and sentences passed on the appelh.nts. Of the appellants Raghav Prapanna Tripathi was convicted of murdering his wife Kamla and his son M>tdhusudhan on the evening of April 5, 1961 at Hamirpur Roora and was sentenced to dflath. He and other appellants were also convicted under s. 201, Indian Penal Code for causing the disappearance of' the evidence of the crime and were sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Appellant Ramanuj Das was further con- . victed under s. 176, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 3 months' rigorous imprisonment. The conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. This Court in Anant Ghintaman Lagu v. The State of Bombay(') bas laid down the princi- (ll (1960)2 s.c.a. «o . • + ,- -k, • ... 3 s.c;R. . SUPREME COURT REPORTS 255 ples which govern such cases. In that case Hidayatullah J., at p. 516 quoting the observations of Baron Parke in Towell's case(1 ) where the learned Baron laid down the principles applicable to such cases observed that any circumstance which destroys the presumJi>tion of innocence, if properly established can be taken into acco1.1.nt to find out if the circumstances lead to no other inferenc'l but of guilt. Thus what we have to see is whether taking the totality of circumstances which are held to have been proved against the appellants it can be said that the case is established against the appellants i.e. the facts eRtablishecl are inconsistent with the innocence of the appellants and incapable of explanation on any hypotheRis other than that of guilt. See also Govind Reddy V• State of Mysore(2). It may also be observed here that ordinarily this court does not reassess the evidence and re-examine the findings reached by the courts below pa,rticularlv where there are concurrent findings of fact, 'but it was urged before us that this iR one of those cases where the rule laid down bv the Privy Council in Stephen Seneviratne v. ThP. king(') applifls i. e. on the evidence taken Rs a whole no t,rib1ma! could as a . matt.er of legitimate infncnce arrive at the conclnsion that the appdlants are guilty. The inference of guilt of the appellants hris been drawn from a number of circumstances which, according to the aopellants, do not, leftd to the irresistible conclution that thev are guilty anrl whioh, aocorrliog to the submi~sion of the respondent, lead to only one oonclusion and one alone that the appellants have been rightlv con_victed and sentenced. In order to satisfy ourselves at to the guilt of the appellflnts we have found it expPdient in this case to go into the evidence and see whether the conviction is rightly based. (l1 (IR'il) 2 S <.R. 31)). (2) A.LR, l960S.C. 29. (Sl A.! R. 1931 p,r:, W9, 2~9. 19()2 Raghav Prapanna TrifJalhi v. 8tal1 DJ '(J. P. -- Kapur J, 1962 ... RsJ!hav Prap"ana Tr;p111h; •• Stale of U. P. Kapur J. 256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] In village Hamirpur Roora which is in Itawah district there is a reli!!ious institution of which Lachhman Das was the Mahant. He had two chelas (disciples) the elder was ·Narain Das and the younger Ramanuj Das who is one of the appellants in the present case. Narain Das got married and was therefore excluded from succession. His wife is Jai Devi who is also an appellant and they has several child- · ren amoD"gst whom is their son Raghav who is another appellant in the case and they have got younger sons and some daughters amongst whom we need only · mPntion Govind Kumari who is M.A.LL.B. of the Lucknow University but she ia neither a witness nor an accused in the case. The other two accused are Mohan Singh and Udham Singh who are retainers of the Mahant. Ra.ghav in the year 1950 was married to Kamla who was the daughter of Ram Sarup, a. well-to-do gentleman living in another village. In 1954 Raghav married another girl who is also an M.A., LL.B. and she and Raghav with Govind Kumari and other sisters were living at Lucknow in a flat in Shankarpuri. The case for the prosecution is that after the marriage the relations between Kamla, the first wife, and Raghav were Atraiued and she wits ill-treated by h0r husband and Kamla harl to leave her fatherin-law's house and to go and Jive with her father in his village. Bflfore this Kamla aud Raghav had a son Madhusudhan who was 'oorn in 1957. While Kamh was staying with her father, P.W. Lakhan Prasad intervened and suggested to Rama.- nuj Das appellant to give to Kamla Rs. 1(1,000 in cash and 90 bighas of land and this waa agreed to by Ramanuj Das and on this assurance Ramanuj · Das went to Kamla's father's hous~ and brought back Kam la after the Bi promise in regard to Rs.10,000 and 110 bighas of land should be c11.rried into effect. Thereupon it is statPd that Raghav got up abruptly and left the place but Ramanuj Das promised to execute the document on the day Ram Sarup could come. . Lakhan Prasad told Ramanuj Das that he would go to R11m Sarup on Saturday i.e. April 8,· 1961 and bring him on the following day i.e. April 9,1961 and then the document could be exf>- cuted on Monday, April 10,1961. This arrangement was accepted by Hamanuj Das. Lakhan Prasad then went and informed Karola about it. ' .According to the prosr.cution both Kamla and Ma