# STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. SAMMAN DASS

- **Citation:** [1972] 3 S.C.R. 58
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1972-01-11
- **Bench:** J. M. Shelat, H. R. Khanna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-uttar-pradesh-v-samman-dass-5571
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

Criminal Trial-Murder-Trial Court
convictin11
and
••nt•"""'8
to death-Acquittal by High Court-Ground of Interference with OSI,.._
ment of,, evidence by Hi11h Court in appeal und.,. Art. 136-lnttrl•rence
justi,fied ii High Court reverses the iudgment of the trial court on lf'OUnd8
which are manifestly fallacious and untenable-Constitution of India, ht.
136.
The fact that the High Court, in a reference under S; 374 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, bas to appraise the evidence for itself and h .... to
arrive at its own independent conclusion would not prevent this Court
from interfering with the order of the. High Court if the High Court
reverses the judgment of the trial court on ground.t which are manifestly
fallacious and untenable.
This Court in an appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution does not
normally reappraise the evidence and interfere with the aaseosment of
that evidence by the High Court. Where, however, this Court find.t that
grave injustice bas been done by the High Court in interfering with the
decision of the trial court on grounds which are plainly untenable. and
the view taken bv the High Court is cle;trly unreasonable on the evidence
on record this Court would not stay its band, There are, bow"'"'• certain
cardinal rules which have always to be kept in view in appeals against
acqu)ttal. Firstly, there is a presumption or innocence in favour of the
accused which has to be kept in mini! especially when the accused bu
been acquitted by the Court below: Secondly, if two views of the .matter
are possible a view fa~ourable to the accused· should be taken; thirdly,
in case of acquittal by the trial judge the appellate court •hould take into
account the fact that the trial judge bad the advan'age of looking at the
demeanour of witnesses: and fourthly,. the accused is entitled to· the benefit of doubt. The doubt should, however, be reasonable and should be
such as a rational thinking man will reasMably, honestly .and c:On.cientiously entertain and not the doubt of a timid mind which .fighta
shy
thougb unwittingly it mav be or is afraid of the logical consequences,
if that benefit was not given. To put it difl'erently, it is "not the dou~
of a vacillating mind that. has not the moral courage to decide but obeiten
itself in a vain and Idle scepticism'", [69H-70Bl
·
·
Himachal Pradesh Admin!.rrration v. Shrl Om Prakash, Cr. Appeal
No. 61 of 1969 decided on December 1, 1911, referred to.

## Text

58
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
v.
SAMMAN DASS
January 11, 1972
[J. M. SHELAT AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.J
Criminal Trial-Murder-Trial Court
convictin11
and
••nt•"""'8
to death-Acquittal by High Court-Ground of Interference with OSI,.._
ment of,, evidence by Hi11h Court in appeal und.,. Art. 136-lnttrl•rence
justi,fied ii High Court reverses the iudgment of the trial court on lf'OUnd8
which are manifestly fallacious and untenable-Constitution of India, ht.
136.
The fact that the High Court, in a reference under S; 374 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, bas to appraise the evidence for itself and h .... to
arrive at its own independent conclusion would not prevent this Court
from interfering with the order of the. High Court if the High Court
reverses the judgment of the trial court on ground.t which are manifestly
fallacious and untenable.
This Court in an appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution does not
normally reappraise the evidence and interfere with the aaseosment of
that evidence by the High Court. Where, however, this Court find.t that
grave injustice bas been done by the High Court in interfering with the
decision of the trial court on grounds which are plainly untenable. and
the view taken bv the High Court is cle;trly unreasonable on the evidence
on record this Court would not stay its band, There are, bow"'"'• certain
cardinal rules which have always to be kept in view in appeals against
acqu)ttal. Firstly, there is a presumption or innocence in favour of the
accused which has to be kept in mini! especially when the accused bu
been acquitted by the Court below: Secondly, if two views of the .matter
are possible a view fa~ourable to the accused· should be taken; thirdly,
in case of acquittal by the trial judge the appellate court •hould take into
account the fact that the trial judge bad the advan'age of looking at the
demeanour of witnesses: and fourthly,. the accused is entitled to· the benefit of doubt. The doubt should, however, be reasonable and should be
such as a rational thinking man will reasMably, honestly .and c:On.cientiously entertain and not the doubt of a timid mind which .fighta
shy
thougb unwittingly it mav be or is afraid of the logical consequences,
if that benefit was not given. To put it difl'erently, it is "not the dou~
of a vacillating mind that. has not the moral courage to decide but obeiten
itself in a vain and Idle scepticism'", [69H-70Bl
·
·
Himachal Pradesh Admin!.rrration v. Shrl Om Prakash, Cr. Appeal
No. 61 of 1969 decided on December 1, 1911, referred to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal A~
1'119.
17 of 1971.
A
B
c
D
r
c
Appeal bv special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the June I, 1970 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal AJ)peal
No. 1931of1969 and Referred No. 182 of 1969.
H
D. P; Uniyal and 0. P. Rana, for the Appellant.
A
U.P. STATB v. SAMMAN DASS (Khanna, I.)
59
A. S. R. Chari, S. K. Mehta, K. L. Mehta and K. R. Nagaraja,
for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Khanna, J, Samman Dass alias Samman Lal, aged 19
years, was convicted by Sessions Judge, Faizabad under section
8
302 l.P .C. for causing the death of his wife Putlibai by throttling
her and was sentenced to death.
On appeal as well as in the
reference made to it for the confirmation of the death sentence,
the Allahabad High Court set aside the conviction of the accused
and acquitted him.
The State of Uttar Pradesh has filed this
appeal by special leave against the above judgment of the High
C Court.
The accused was married to Putlibai, who was neatabout of
the same age as the accused, on May 14, 1968. Putlibai was the
daughter of Gurmukh Das (PW 8) of Azamgarh, while the accused is the son of Shobhamal of Faizabad. The accused lived with
his parents in quarter No. 1831 in Ram Nagar Colony of FaizaD bad.
More than 300 familities of .Sindhis live in this locality.
E
The non-Sindhis occupy only a couple of houses.
There are a
number of blocks of buildings in the colony. Each of those blocks
consi&ts of ten quarters. Apart from the accused and his parents,
his uncle Parumal and the wife of Parumal, who is sister of the
mother of the accused, also lives in his quarter.
The accused had been engaged to Putlibai about a year before
the marriage.
According to the prosecution case, about 5 or 6
months after the engagement the accused went to the house of
Gurmukh Das in Azamgarh to see Putlibai. After having a look
at Putlibai the accused came to Faizabad and stated that he would
F
not marry Putlibai as she was not of fair
complexion. When
Gurmukh Das (PW) 8 learnt that the accused had refused to
marry his daughter, he convened a panchayat.
The father of the
accused then became agreeable to marry the accused with
Putlibai. The marriage accordingly took place on May 14, 1968.
After the marriage Putlibai came to Faizabad and lived with the
accused in his parents' quarter for about two and a half months.
G Gurmukh Das, father of Putlibai, it is stated, then came and took
her to his house.
Putlibai after that came to the house of her
husband on October 15, 1968.
The Cleath anniversary of Sain Kanwar Ram, a Sindhi saint,
was celebrated by the Sindhis in Ram Nagar Colony of Fai?.abad
H
on the night between 17th and 18th October, 1968. The singing
of the devotional songs continued up to 10 a.m. on October 1 8
in an open maidan in the Ram N agar Colony. The said maidan
is at about a distance of 90 paces from the quarter of the accused.
60
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 3 S.C.R
Most of the Sindhis of Ram Nagar Colony attended the celebra- · A
tions. The Prasad was distributed at about 10 a.m. on the close
of the celebrations.
The case of the prosecution is that Bhagwan Das (PW' 1),
who is brother of maternal grandfather of Putlibai, after talcing
Prasad took a riksha and started going to his grocery shop in B
Mohalla Chowk, Faizabad. When Bhagwan Das passed in front
of the quarter of the accused, he heard shrieks.
Bhagwan Das
then shouted as to what the shrieks were about. Bhagwan Das
also went to the front door of the quarter of the accused and
knocked there. On hearing the shouts of Bhagwan Das, Choith
Ram (PW 2), Ayal Das alias Ailmal (PW 6), Shobhraj (PW 7) c
and one Kirpal Das also joined Bhagwan Das.
Bhagwan Das,
Choi th Ram, Ayal Das and Shobhraj all live in that locality.
Choith Ram and Shobhraj were passing through the lane at that
time after 1aking Prasad. Ayal Das, who too had taken Pi'asad,
was taking water at a place about 40150 paces away from the
quarter of the accused when Ayal Das heard shouts. The front
door of the quarter of the accused was found bolted from inside
D
and there was no response to the knocking at the door. Bhagwan
Das and others who had joined him then went to the back door
of the quarter of the accused and knocked at the back door. The
back door which opens in a very narrow lane was also found
bolted from inside. There was no response even to the knocking
at the back door. Bhagwan Das and his companions then thoqght E
of going again to the front door of the quarter. When Bhagwan
Das and his companions reached near a well at a distance of 10
paces from the back door of the house of the accused, they heard
the noise of someone jumping. They then looked back and saw
the accused who jumped over the back wall of his quarter. The
accused wanted to run away but Bhagwan Das and his four comF
panions caught hold of the accused and did not allow him to
escape in spite of his entreaties. The accused appeared worried
at that time and there was redness in his eyes.
At the asking of Bhagwan Das, it is alleged, Choith Ram
PW went inside the quarter of the accused by scaling over the
wall which is about 7 feet high. Choith Ram then opened the
G
back door. Bhagwan Das along with the companions went inside
the quarter of the accused and found Putlibai lying dead on a cot
in one of the rooms of the quarter. The door of this room was
slightly open. No one else was present in the quarter at that time.
Just then there was a knock at the front door of the quarter.
It was opened by Choith Ram. The mother of the accused who
H
had also gone to take Prasad then came inside the quarter.
On
seeing the dead body of the deceased, the mother of the accused
started crying. Shobhamal, the father of the accused, whose shop
A
8
c
U.P. STATE v. SAMMAN DASS (Khanna, J.)
61
is situated in Sabzi Mandi, came after about one and a half hour.
On the arrival of Shobhamal, Bhagwan Das told him everything.
Shobhamal then wanted to lift the dead body of Putlibai for con·
signing it in the river. but he was told by Choith Ram and others
that they would not allow the dead body to be removed till the
arrival of the parents of Putlibai. Bhagwan Das, in the mean·
while, directed one Oovardhan Das, brother of Choith Ram, to
go in a taxi to Azamgarh and bring the parents of PutlibaL
At about 3 p.m. it is stated, Shobhamal, father of the accused,
stated that there was no idea in keeping the dead body for a long
time and that if Bhagwan Das and others had any suspicion, a
doctor could be sent for. Bhagwan Das and his companions then
told Shobhamal to call the doctor. Shobhamal thereupon deputed
one Bhagumal to call a doctor. Bhagumal then went and con·
!acted Dr. Hansraj Singhal (PW 4) at the latter's residence at
about 4 p.m.
Dr. Singhal, it is alleged, then went to his clinic and from
D
there took his diagonistic bag and thereafter came to the CJ.Uarter
of the accused. The doctor found the dead body of Putlibai lying
on a cot. The colour of her face was blue. The face was swollen
and the eyes were slightly open. Pupils were dilated and non·
reacting to light. The mouth was slightly open and there were
finger marks on the left and right side of her neck. There were
E
also marks of some abrasions on both the elbows besides a con·
, tusion on the right palm.
As Dr. Singhal was concerned only
with the question as to whether the death of the deceased was
normal or was. the result of some foul play, he did not make a
more detailed examination of the dead body. Dr. Singhal came
to the conclusion that the death of Putlibai was not natural but
was due to throttling. The doctor told this thing to Bhagumal.
F
The doctor added that the police should be informed and that
otherwise he would himself inform the police on reaching his ell·
nic. After saying this the doctor left the quarter. After the doctor
gone for a distance of about two furlongs he thought of enquiring
the name of the deceased, her husband and the particulars of the
address. He consequently returned to the quarter of the accused
G
and after getting the necessary information, went to his clinic.
Before reaching the clinic, the doctor also telephoned to the police
station about the death of Putlibai from a shop near his clinic.
H
In the meanwhile, immediately after Dr. Singhal had left the
quarter of the accused, Bhagwan Das PW got a report written by
Dayal Das (PW 10). The report was then signed by Bhagwan
Das and was taken to police station kotwali at a distance of
about two miles from the place of occurrence. The report was
handed over at the police station at 5 p.m. Mohd. Amin (PW 9),
62
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 3 S.C.R.
head clerk in the police station, then prepared a fonnal F.l.R. on
the basis of the report of Bhagwan Das. A copy of the first informatioo report was sent to Sub Inspector Ram Gulam Chaudhari
who was present in station :Fatehganj.
The Sub Inspector then
went to the quarter of the accused and reached there at about 6
p.m.
The Sub Inspector took the accused, who had been secured
at the spot, in his custody.
The dead body of the deceased was
found by the Sub Inspector lyi.i1g on a cot.
After preparing the
necessary docwnents, the Sub Inspector sent the dead body to the
mortuary.
Post mortem examination on the dead body of Putlfbai was
perfonned by Dr. Vijay Pal (PW 3) at 11.45 a.m. on October 19,
1968. In the opinion of Dr. Vijay Pal the death of Putlibai deceased was due to asphyxia caused by throttlmg.
After necessary investigations, a challan was put in against the
accused.
In his statement under section 342 Code of Criminal Procedure before the committing magistrate the accused denied the prosecution allegations and stated that on t11e day of occurrence, he
had gone to his father's shop at 9 a.m. He was caHed from that
shop at 9-30 a.m. after being told that the condition cf his wife
was serious. The accused ithen wanted to call a doctor but the
doctor was not available. According to the accused he was falsely
involved in this case at the instance of Bhagwan Das and Perum~l
who did not want that he should marry Putlibai.
In his statement under sectioo 342 of the Code of Criniinal
.Procedure in the court of Sessions, the accused admitted that he
had been married to Putlibai deceased on May 14, 1968 and that
they had been living together in the quarter of the accused along
with the parents of the accused as well as his uncle and aunt. The
accused further admitted that he had been engaged to Putlibai before his marriage but denied that he h.ad refused to marry her.
The allegation about the gathering of a panchayat too was denied
!ti the accused.
The accused admitted that Putlibai came to the
quarter of the accused on October 15, 1968 .. The fact that there
was a celebration by the Sindhis living in t11e locality of the death
anniversary of Sain Kanwar Ram on the night between 17th and
18th October 1968 was also admitted by the accused, but according to him, the Prasad was distributed at 6 or 7 a.m. The prosecution allegations about the hearing of shircks from his quarter as
well as abouf his jumping over the back wall was denied by the
accused.
The accused likewise denied the allegation that he was
secured by Bhagwan Das and others. The accused added that
Bhagwan Das, Choith Ram and father of Cloith Ram, were inimical to him b!ecause they did not want Putlibai to marry the accused.
A
B
c
D
E
p
G
H
t '
A
. B
c
D
E
F
G
H
U.P. STATE v. SAMMAN DASS (Khanna, J.)
63
According to the accused, on the day Of occurrence he had gone
to his lather's shop at about 9 a.m. Thereafter he came to the
place of occurr~ce at about 11 or 11.30 a.m. on being told that
the condition of his wife was serious.
In defence five witnesses were examined on behalf of the
accused .
The purport of the defence evidence was that on the day of
occurrence at 10.30 or 11 a.m. the aunt of the accused called
Tikam Das (DW 2), who is the cousin of the mother of the accused 8illd lives in the neighbourhood, and told him to go to the shop
of the father of the accused and inform him about the serious
condition of Putlibai deceased.
Tikam Das then went to the shop
of the father of the accused and met the accused and his father
there and conveyed the message to them.
Evid.ence was also Jed
to show that the accused called two doctors and sent a telegram
abput the death of the deceased to his sister's husband.
The learned Sessions Judge on consideration of the evidence
found that the following facts had ~
proved by the prosecution :
"I. The accused was the only person in the quarter
and, therefore, with, the deceased immediately before,
at the time c4' and immediately after her murder.
'
2. Instead of getting out of the quarter in the usual
way, he scaled the rear wall and jumped into the back
lane immediately after the murder of the deceased.
3. WhQll he was caught as soon as he jumped, he
was non-plussed, his eyes were red-shot and he begged
to be let off which exhibited his guilty conscience."
Reference was further made to the fact that the accused had failed
to explain as to why he had jumped from the back wall of his
quarter and had tried to run away.
It was also pointed out that
tho accused had made false denials and put forth false plea of alibi.
The above circumstances, m the opinion of the Sessions Judge,
were consistent only with the guilt of the accused. The defence
evidence produced by the accused was found to be not worthy of
credence and was rejected. In the result the accused was convicted for the murder of Putlibai and was sentenced to death.
When the matter came up before the High Court, the learned
Judges l>.eld that the prorecution had successfully established thlllt
the accused had a motive for the murder of Putlibai. lo the opinion
of the learned Judges, the circumstances in which the death of
Putlibai had occurred must have created a str<llllg suspicion
against the accused.
He was consequently involved in this case.
SUPREME COURT RBPO.RTS
[1972] 3 S.C . .R.
The learned Judges seem to have taken the view that the first information report was not lodged at the time when it purports to
have been made.
It was· also observed that the only witiness who
appeared to be independent was PW Shobharaj.
His statement
was found to be not true because the witness had given the distance
of his quarter from that of the accused as 50 'paces, while, according to another witmess, the distance was 150 paces. In the result,
the conviction of the accused was set aside and he was acquitted.
We have heard Mr. Unyal on behalf of the appellant and Mr.
Chari on behalf of the accused-respondent, and are of the opiinion
that the High Court set aside the conviction of the accused on
grounds which are wholiy untenable. There can be no ma!llller of
doubt that Putlibai deceased was throttled to death.
The evidence
Of Dr. Vijay Pal (PW 7), who performed post mortem ex&mination on the dead body of Putlibai deceased shows that he found
the following ante mortem ~njuries on the dead qody of the deceased Putlibai :
"Finger marks were present in front of the neck.
These marks looked like brownish and dry.
On the left
side of the neck, in front, upper aind outer part, thumb
mark was present which measured 1" x t" and the upper
pan of which was t" below the mandible.
On the right
side of the neck, in front upper and outer part of 4 finger
marks were present iin oblique directions downwards and
outwards one below the other measuring 1" x t",;t•xt",
t• x t• and !' x !'; the upper most mark was t"
below the mandible."
Besides the above injuries, there was a contusion on the right
thinner eminence and two abrasions on the elbows.
Extravascular blood was present in the sub-cute.neons tissues of the neckunder the finger marks in the adjacent muscles of the neck. There
was fracture of the corner of the hyoid bone. The larynx, the
trachea, the lungs, the liver, the gall bladder, the spleen and the
kidneys were congested. Dr. Vifay Pal accordingly came to the
conclusion that the death was due to asphyxia caused by throttling. The doctor added that the time of the death of the deceased
could be about 10.30 a.m. on October 18, 1968.
According to the prosecution case, the death of Putlibai
deceased was caused by the accused, while the accused has denied
this allegation.
The Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution
evidence in this respect, but the same was found by the High
Court to be not such as could warrant a conviction of the accused.
In order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution examined Bhagwan Das (PW 1), Choith Ram (PW 2),
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
U.P. STATE v. SAMMAN DASS (Khanna, J.)
65
A
Ayal Das (PW 6) and Shobhraj (PW 7). According to Bbag-
:wan Das PW, he heard shrieks when he passed in front of the
quarter of the accused at about 10.30 a.m. on the day of occurrence. The witness then shouted as to what the matter was
about and was immediately joined by the other three witnesses
and Kirpal Das. The witness then knocked at the front door as
B
well as at the back door of the quarter of the accused but got no
response. Just then, the witness and his companions saw the
accused jumping over the rear wall of his quarter in the back
lane. The accused was then secured and was not allowed to
escape in spite of his entreaties. Choith Ram PW then entered
c
the quarter by sealing over the back wall and opened the door.
When Bha~an Das and his companions went inside, they found
Putlibai lying dead on the cot.
Bhagwan Das also deposed
about the report lodged by him with the police after Dr. Singhal
had declared that Putlibai had been throttled to death.
The above evidence of Bhagwan Das is corroborated by the
D evidence of Choith Ram (PW 2), Ayal Das (PW 6) and Sbobh·
raj (PW 7). The evidence of the above mentioned four wit·
nesses was found by the learned Sessions Judge to be convincing
and reliable. After having been taken through that evidence,
we sec no cogent ground to take a view different from that of the
Sessions Judge. It is no doubt true \bat Bhagwan Das PW is
the brother of Bangamal, maternal grandfather of Putlibai,
E
deceased and that sister of Cboith Ram PW is married to Banga·
ma!. It is also true that Ayal Dass PW is a cousin of Gurumukh
Das, father of Putlibai.
The relationship of the above mentioned
three witnCSSC6 to Putlibai deceased would, in our opinion, be not
a sufficient ground for discrediting their testimony. It is well
known that the close relatives of a murdered person are most
F
reluctant to spare the real assailant and falsely involve another
person in place of the assailant.
Had Putlibai been killed by
some other person, the natural conduct of the above mentioned
three witnesses, who were related to Putlibai on her parents' side,
would have been to offer sympathy to Samman Dau accused and
help him In the apprehension of the real culprit, rather than to
faliely involve him In the murder of his wife. There Is no cogent
G
evidence on the record to show that any of the above mentlOned
tJlree witne&1e1 bad any animus against the accused. The accus·
ed, no doubt, took the plea that the above mentioned wltneues
were against his marriage with Putlibal, but that suggestion has
been denied by these witnesses.
H
Apart from the evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses, we
have the evidence of Shobhraj PW. Shobhraj is a wholly dis·
interested witness, and we see no cogent ground whatsoever u to
why his evidence he not accepted. The fact that accordlna to
66
.SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 3 S.C.R.
Shobhraj his quarter was at a distance of about 50 paces from the
A
quarter of the accused, while according to Bhagwan Das PW the
quarter of Shobhraj is at a distance of 150 paces from that of the
accused, would not go to show that Shobhraj is not, as held by
the High Court, a truthful witness.
The difference in the estimate of the distance of the quarter of the accused from that of
Shobhraj is not of great significance because nothing hinges on
B
that distance. According to Shobhraj, he arrived at the scene
of occurrence not from his quarter but from the place where the
celebrations of Sain Kanwar Ram were being held.
The afore·
said place is at a distance of less than 100 paces from the quarter
of the accused.
The view of the High Court thaf the first information report
C
was not lodged at the police station at the time, viz;., 5 p.m., at
which it purports to have been l<><Jged is based upon mere con·
iecture.
According to Bhagwan Das PW, immediately after Dr·
Singhal had declared at about 4.30 p.m. that Putlibai had been
throttled to death, he (Bhagwan Das) got written report from
Dayal Das (PW I 0) and signed it. The report was then sent to
D
the police station. The evidence of Bhagwan Das in this respect
is corroborated by Dayal Das PW.
We have then the evidence of
Mohd. Amin (PW 9). Mohd. Amin was head clerk in police
station Kotwali in those days.
According to Mohd. Amin. the
report was handed over to him .at the police station at 5 p.m. on
October 18, 1968. The witness then prepared the formal first
I!
information report.
An entry was also made in the general diary
of police station . at that time.
The ·witness further sent special
report regarding this case at 5.20 p.m. on that very day. Nothing
was brought out in cross-examination to shake the evidence of
Mohd.
Amin.
Apart from the fact that no reason has been
shown as. to why the evidence of Bhagwan Das and Mohd .. Amin
be not accepted regarding the time lit which the first information r
report was lodged at the l)CRice station, we find that there was
rtot even a remote su~estion in the cross examination of Mohd.
Amin that the formal firSt information report was not prepared
at the police station at the time, viz, p.m., at which it purports
to have been prepared. In the absence of any material pointing
to the inference that the formal first information report was not
G
prepared at 5 p.m., the High Court, in our view acted erroneously
in holding, on the basis of a pure surmise, that the first inform&.
tion report had not been lodged at the police 918.tion at 5 p.tn.
We are al.so not impressed by ·the argument that the police
acted on the telephonic intimation received ftom Dr. Singhal.
According to Dr. Singhal, he sent the telephonic intimation after
H
5 p.m., while the report of Bhagwan Das had been lodged at 1be
police station at 5 p.m. Dr. Singhal's evidence shows that after
A
B
c
D
I
F
G
H
U.P. STATE v. SAMMAN DASS (Khanna,/.)
61
examining the dead body of Putlibai at about 4.30 p 0m., he proceCded in a riksha to _his clinic. After he had gone for a distance
of two furlon~. he thought of getting details about ihe name of
the deceased, her husband's name and address.
He accordingly
returned to the quarter of the accused and got the necessary particulars.
After that, he again proceeded towards his clinic, but
his riksha was held UJI at the railway level crossing because the
gate at the crossing remained closed for 10 minutes.
In the circumS'tances, we find no reason to reject the prosecution evidence
that the police acted upon the report lodged by Bhagwan Das PW.
Coming to the question as to whether there was a delay in
lodging the report, we find that the evidence on record shows
that after Putlibai had been found dead, the father. of the accused
showed inclination to consign her dead body to the river. Bhagwan Das then insisted that the dead body of PuUibai should not be
disposed of till the arrival of her parents. The father of the
accused thereupon agreed to send for a doctor. Dr. Singhal was
accordingly called and he &tated, after examining the dead body,
that the deceased had been throttled to death.
Immediately thereafter, Bhagwan Das got the report written from Dayal Das and
lodged it at the police station. · In our opinion, there was no inordinate delay in lodging the report. It is obvious that Bhagwan
Das did not lodge the report rtill such tlme as he was certain that
the deaih of Putlibai deceased was not natural but was due to
violence.
The present was not a case wherein the deceased had
been killed by some sharp-edged weapon or a fire arm, or wherein
the deceased had been killed ~ sharp-edged weapon or a fire arm,
or wherein the body of the deceased had been found lying in a
pool of blood. In such a case, there can be no doubt about the
death being not natural. In cases, however, of death caused by
poisoning or throttling, a layman cannot be very sure of the cause
of death, and we find nothing improbable in the conduct of
Bhagwan Das PW in not lodging the report 'till he learnt from
Dr. Singhal that death of the deceased was due to throttling.
Bhagwan Das, Choith Ram, Ayal Das and Shobhraj PWs
reside in the locality wherein the occurrenee took place. The
fact that no one from the quarters adjoining that of the accused
has been examined by the prosecution would not, in our opinion,
introduce an infirmity in the prosecution case.
The evidence
Bhagwan Das shows that the adjoininJ!. quarters were closed at
the time of the occurrence, as most of the people in the locality
had 11:one to attend •the celebrations of Sain Kanwar Ram.
Argument was
advanced by Mr. Chari that it would not
be a natural act of the accused to have made the murderous
assault on his wife at about 10.30 a.m. when 'lhe people were
moving in the Jane in front of his quarter. In this respect we
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 3 S.C.R.
find that the accused chose the moment when no one else was A
present in the house.
The fact that no one was present there to
witness the actual murder of the deceased might well have been
considered by the accused to be an opportune time. Different
individuals act differently in a given situation, and we find nothing
improbable in the act of the accused in committing the murder
-0£ his wife at abQut 10.30 a.m. on the day of occurrence.
B
It has also been submitted by Mr. Chari that there was no
sufficient motive for the accused to murder his wife.
In this respect we find that the evidence of Choith Ram (PW 2) sh<lws that
the accused has told him that he did not like Putlibai.
We have
then the evidence of Bhagwan Das PW as well as that of Gurmukh
Das PW, father of Putlibai, that when it was learnt that the acC
cused was reluctant to marry Putlibai, Gurmukh Das convened
a panchyat. The accused was thereafter married to Putlibai.
The evidence on record • thus, reveals that the ·accused was
forced to rnary Putlibai in spite of his dislike, because of
the convening of the panchayat. It cannot, in the circumstances,
be said that the accused bad no motive to cause the death of bis D
wife. The learned iudges of ithe High Court too took the view
that the accused had a motive to cause the death of the deceased.,
In any case, motive is not very material when the other evidence
clearly points to the guilt of the accused.
Reference bas also been made by Mr. Chari to the fact that
I
cbere is no evidence about the existence of any injury on the
person of the accused. It is urged that the deceased, while being
throttled, must have offered resistance, and thus, there would
have been an i!liury on the person of the accused because of that
·resistance. We are not impressed by this argument because resis·
tance by the deceased resultinJ! in iniuries to the assailant is not
a necessary feature of every act of throttling.
Differe11t victim~ r
can act differently and it would depend upon a variety of
circumstances as to whether they were or not in a position to offer
resistance.
The absence of Injuries on the person of the accused
would not RO to show that he was not the person who had throttled
the deceased to death.
So far as the defence evidence is concerned, the same was
disbelieved by the Sessions Judge. The defence evidence was also
not relied upon by the High Court-ostensibly because no effort
was made to relv upen that evidence.
Likewise, no effort has
been made in this Court to rely upon the defence evidence.
G
There is no evewitness of the actual occurrence, but on the H
material on record, we tlnd that the following circumstances have
been proved a~alnst the accuaed.
U.P. STATE v. SAMMAN DASS (Khanna, J.)
69·
A
( 1 ) The accused was alone with the deceased in his quarter
at about 10.30 a.m. on the day of occurrence.
(2) Shrieks were heard at that time from inside the quarter
of the accused.
(3) Both the froDt and the back doors of the quarter of the
B
accused were found to be bolted from inside. Those doors were
not opened in spite of shouting and knocking.
( 4) The accused soon thereafter jumped over the rear wall
into the back lane.
He wanted to run away but· was secured by
BhaR,Wan Das and otlw witnesses. This accused appeared to be
C upset at that time and, in sipte of his entreaties, he was not allowed
to~ awav.
(S) Immediately thereafter, Bhagw11111 Das and other witnesses
went inside the quarter and found Putlibai, wife of the accused,
lvina dead on a cot.
( 6) According to medical evidence, the deceased had been
D throttled to death at about 10.30 a.m. on that day.
(7) The! accused had an animus against Putlibai because he
was forced to marry her in spite of the fact that he did not like her.
All the above circumstances, in our opinion, cleadv point to
the conclusion that the accused was the murderer of Putlibai.
E The above cju:umstances are inconsistent wid! his innocence.
Mr. Chari has referred to the case of-Ote State of Madr!IS v.
A. Yaidyanatha Iyer (1) wherein this Court held that the words
used In article 136 of the Constitution shciw that, in criminal
matter&, no distinction can be made as a matter of construction
F between a judgment of conviction and one of acquittal. This
Court, It! was further observed, would not readily interfere with
the flndinlll of fact ~ven by the High Court, but if the HiRh Court
llCts pervenely or otherwise improperly, Interference will lie called
for.
In our oPlnlon, the accused-respondent can derive not much
aulstance from the above authority because the HlRh Court In
the present cue reversed the flndlna of conviction on arounds
G which were wholly untenable. The view taken by the Hlah Court
Is clearly unreasonable and Is not warranted by the material on
record. The fact that the Him Court, In a reference under sec·
tion 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has to appraise the
evidence for itself and has to arrive at its own Independent con·
clusion would not prevent this Court from interfering with the
H order of the High Court if the High Court reverses the judgment
of the trial court on grounds which are manifestly fallacious and
untenable.
(1) tiflil $.C.R. 516.
10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972) 3 S.C.R.
This Court in an appeal under article 136 of the Constitution A
does not normally re-appraise the evidence and interfere with
the assessment of that evidence by the High Court.
Where, how·
ever, this Court finds that ~ve injustice has been done .by the
High Court in interfering with the decision of the trial court on
grounds which are plainly untenable and the view taken by the
High Court in interfering with the decision of the trial court on B
this Court would not stay its hand. There ·are, however, certain
cardinal rules which have always to be kept in view in appeals
against acquittal. Firstly, there is a presumption of innocence
in favour of the accused which has to be kept in mind, especially
when. the accused has been acquitted by the court below;
secondly, if two views of the matter are p05sible, a view favourable
to the accused should be .taken; thirdly, in case of acquittal by C
the trial judge, rthe appellate court should take into account the
fact. that the trial judge had the advantage of looking at the domeanour of witnesses; and fourthly, the· accused is entitled.tO the
benefit of doubt.
The .doubt should, however, be reasonable and
as observed recently by this Court, the doubt ·should be sueh
which rational thinking men will reasonably, honestly and conD
scientiouslv .11ntertain and not the doubt of a timid mind which
fights shy-though unwittingly it may be-or is afraid Qf the
logical consequences, if that benefit was nC11 given.
To put it
differently, it is "not the doubt of a vacillating mind that bas not
'the moral courage to decide but shel~ts itself in a vain ar.d idle
scepticism" (see Himachal Pradesh
Administration v. Shri Om E
Parkash, Cr. Appeal 67 of 1969 decided on December 7, 1971).
We, therefore, accept the appeal, set aside the judgment of
the High Court and convict the accused-respondent under section
302 I.P.C.
As regards the sentence, we find that the occurrence took
place more than three veal"$ ago.
The accused was aged about 'fl
19 years at the time of the trial. ·. Lookin~ to all '.he circumstances,
we are of the opinion that we meed not award the extreme penalty
in this case. We accordingly sentence the accused to undergo
imprisofunent for life.
K.B.N.
Appeal allowed.