Himachal Pradesh Administration Vs. Om Prakash

Advertisements

AIR 1972 SC 975

DATE OF THE CASE: 07/12/1971

APPELLANT: Himachal Pradesh Administration

RESPONDENT: Shri Om Prakash

BENCH/JUDGES: Reddy, P. Jaganmohan Palekar, D.G

LEGAL PROVISIONS: Section 302 of IPC, and Sec 27 of Evidence Act

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Appeal by Special leave against the Judgement of Himachal Bench of THE HIGH COURT of DELHI acquitting accused who was given sentence to death under Section 302 of the IPC.
2. Accused Respondent was a Manager at Kotkhai Branch of the Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Bank.
3. Sunder Lal Chaturvedi the deceased was the General Manager of that Bank.
4. Later on, Om Prakash was employed by Sunder Lal in his own firm which he opened after retirement and later on when Om Prakash asked for raise in Salary his request was declined that’s why he resigned.

ISSUE RAISED

1. Whether the evidences are admissible or not?
2. The motive of the murder is there or not?
3. High Court acquitted the respondent so whether it is right or decision will be set aside?

CONTENTIONER OF THE PETITIONERS

1. Deceased had suspended the accused from the service and susquently he was dismissed by him and also later on his Salary was not increased.
2. The deceased was last seen with the accused.
3. Button of coat of accused matched with the coat button found from the crime scene and also five registers and vouchers were recovered after interrogation.
4. The Finger marks of the accused were found on the flask as well as on the glass panes at the place where murder took place.
5. Accused purchased the knife on that day which was later presented to the Magistrate and the shopkeeper recognised that the knife which was used for the murder was similar of that.

CONTENTION BY DEFENCE

1. Suspension from Bank don’t mean accuse have any grievance against deceased as he had given him employment in the Finance Company.
2. Both were seen going together doesn’t mean that accused entered the deceased building.
3. Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, all recovered things were recovered in front of those people who were known to Enquiry officer.
4. Finger print on the flask has only 3 Finger impressions.
5. Other things recovered also doesn’t directly supporting the accusation.
6. It can happen that P. W. 2 murdered as he has direct benefit from murder and it give benefit of doubt to the accused.
7. The greatest possible care should bee taken by the Court in convicting an accused who is presumed to be innocent till the contrary is clearly established which burden is always in the accusatory system, on the prosecution. The mere fact that there is only a remote possibility in favour of the accused is itself sufficient to establish the Case beyond ‘reasonable doubt.

JUDGEMENT

1. After excluding the recoveries made tinder Ex. 7 namely the Account Books etc. as police appears to be know to the place from where the things are discovered and therefore it cannot be said ‘that they were discovered as a consequence of the information furnished by the accused. so, its evidence against the accused which remains to be considered is, the motive, the recovery of the button, the finger prints on the flask and the window panes, blood-stained coat, sweater, shoes and socks alleged to be of the accused, blanket, the dagger and the deceased being last seen alive in his Company.
2. Court set aside High court view that there was no motive as may be accuse forgot that he was suspended by the deceased in 1964 as he employed him in His Finance Company but accused was not satisfied with his service and wanted an increase in the pay but his request was not accepted which cause him to resign again and this itself may given the accused to Nurse his grievance.
3. The accused finger prints are found at the place of deceased but it can so happen that he was there before as he was seeking for reemployment from the deceased but fingerprints being not blood stained doesn’t hide the fact that he was present there.
4.  The coat and the sweater were recovered from accused’s room while the shoes and socks from his person as the was wearing- them, There can be no doubt of the ownership being that of the accused.
5. Whether the knife could have been properly identified by P. W. 11 in the identification held before the Magistrate, there can be little doubt, if we believe his evidence, the accused had purchased a knife that day, which is similar in nature to the one he was selling. There is no reason why P.W. II should not be believed on this aspect. Also dagger was recovered only after accused information.
6. In bench view the evidence in this case is sufficient to justify the conviction of the accused for an offence of murder. Therefore, Honourable Supreme Court accordingly set aside the judgment of acquittal of the High Court, convict the accused under Sec. 302 and sentence him to life imprisonment.

CONCLUSION

Honourable Supreme Court set aside the Judgement of acquittal of the High Court and sentence the accused to life imprisonment. This Judgement is citied in many judgements of other courts and in this Judgement, it comes that it is necessary to rationalise every fact that comes in between of investigation and link of every incidence should be connected so at last a conclusion can be brought. Through this Judgement a human emotion of taking revenge could be understood that can be applied to other cases as accused murdered the deceased as there were a lot of rivalry nature happened between them i.e., suspending the accused First and later his resignation from company and then disagreement between both. During hearing this case honourable Supreme Court paid attention to each and every fact and incident to make the decision.

written by Shivanshu Shivam intern under legal vidhiya

Admin