| Citation | (2022) 8 SCC 576 |
| Date of Judgment | 2nd June 2022 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Type | Criminal Appeal No. 485 of 2012 |
| Appellant | Uttam |
| Respondent | State of Maharashtra |
| Bench | B.R. Gavai and Hima Kohli, JJ |
| Referred | Section 32(1) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.Section 302 and 304 of IPC, 1860. |
FACTS OF THE CASE
The accused, Uttam, was married to Pushpabai. There was no issue with the marriage. Uttam was a TV mechanic and was having an illicit relationship with a widow residing near their house, namely, Kusum Gaikwad.
On 26th March 1995, Uttam and Kusum Gaikwad went to watch a movie. When he returned home in the evening hours, he was confronted by his wife for having gone to watch a movie with Kusum Gaikwad. The couple had a heated argument and Uttam lost his temper. He assaulted his wife and poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. Pushpabai sustained severe burn injuries and succumbed to her injuries on 31st March 1995.
The accused was arrested and charged with murder under Section 302 of the IPC. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld the conviction, but later recalled its judgment and altered the conviction to Section 304, Part I of the IPC, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
ISSUES
- Whether the High Court had the power to recall its earlier judgment?
- Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to support the conviction of the accused under Section 302 of the IPC?
ARGUMENTS
Appellant
The counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the accused was not guilty of murder. They relied on the following arguments:
- The dying declarations were not reliable because they were made in a state of shock and trauma.
- The fact that the accused was having an illicit relationship with another woman was not relevant to the case.
- The fact that the appellant was alone with the deceased at the time of the incident did not mean that he was the one who killed her.
- The appellant had no intention to kill the deceased.
Respondent
The counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent argued that the appellant was guilty of murder under Section 302 of the IPC. The prosecution relied on the following evidence:
- The dying declarations made by the deceased.
- The fact that the appellant was having an illicit relationship with another woman.
- The fact that the appellant was alone with the deceased at the time of the incident.
- The intention of the appellant in pouring kerosene on the deceased and setting her on fire.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court in this case held that the High Court had committed a “grievous error” in recalling its earlier judgment and altering the conviction of the accused from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to Section 304, Part I of the IPC.
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the conviction of the accused under Section 302 of the IPC.
The Supreme Court began by noting that the High Court had no power to recall its earlier judgment unless there was a grave miscarriage of justice. The Court held that there was no such miscarriage of justice in this case.
The Court then went on to examine the evidence on record. The Court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction of the accused under Section 302 of the IPC. The Court noted that the dying declarations of the deceased were reliable and admissible in evidence. The Court also noted that the fact that the accused was having an illicit relationship with another woman was relevant to the case.
Finally, the Court examined the intention of the accused in pouring kerosene on the deceased and setting her on fire. The Court held that the intention of the accused was clear and showed that he had the intention to kill her.
Based on these findings, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the conviction of the accused under Section 302 of the IPC.
I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision to set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the conviction of the accused under Section 302 of the IPC. I believe that the evidence on record was sufficient to support the conviction of the accused and that the High Court had no power to recall its earlier judgment without good reason. I also agree with the Supreme Court’s analysis of the law on the admissibility and evidentiary value of dying declarations and the relevance of the fact that the accused was having an illicit relationship with another woman in a murder case. I believe that the Court’s decision is a sound one that will help to ensure that justice is served in future cases.
However, I do have some concerns about the Supreme Court’s emphasis on the intention of the accused in determining whether the accused is guilty of murder. I believe that the intention of the accused is important, but it is not the only factor that should be considered. I also believe that the Court should consider the circumstances of the case, such as the motive of the accused, the means used to commit the crime, and the impact of the crime on the victim and their family.
REFERENCE
This Article is written by Bejita Banerjee of Birla Global University, an Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
