Case: State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Shri Manohar Singh Thakur

other witnesses. There is no reason why the evidence of Mathru Devi and Durga Dass should be disbelieved. The High Court has rejected her evidence merely because there are more details in her evidence than her statement. It has failed to note that the statement was recorded at a time when Mathru Devi had suffered grievous head injuries and had been unconscious as a result, for several hours. The medical evidence relating to the post-mortem disclosing death on account of injuries caused on the head of the deceased by a heavy blunt object such as the back of the head of an axe is also unequivocal. The injuries on the head of Mathru Devi are similar. The evidence of Mathru Devi, an injured witness, ought not to have been discarded. The entire approach of the High Court is unsatisfactory. For example, (P.W.9) Mauji Ram, the brother of the deceased has deposed that he was not present at village Deola on 3rd of September, 1985 since he had gone to Shimla to receive his pension. On 4th of September, 1985 while returning he learnt about the murder of the deceased. The High Court has commented that it is surprising that Mauji Ram never saw the accused entering the house of Kula Datt. If Mauji Ram was not present at his house on 3rd of September, 1985 and was returning to the village only on 4th of September, 1985, one fails to see how he could be expected to have seen the accused on 3rd of September, 1985. Mauji Ram seeing or not seeing the accused on any other occasion is not of much significance when there is clear evidence of the accused being present on 3.9.1985 in village Deola at the house of the deceased.The High Court has also observed that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to establish that the accused had inflicted head injury to Kula Datt as a result of which he died. But the Sessions Court has set out the entire chain of circumstances leading to this inference alone. The evidence establishes that Kula Datt was last seen alive on the morning of 3rd of September, 1985 going to Village Bagh in the company of the accused. The accused returned alone to the house of Mathru Devi within 3 hours at 10 a.m. on 3rd of September, 1985 an d gave Mathru Devi an excuse for the absence of Kula Datt. The fact that Mathru Devi was searching for her husband on 3rd of September, 1985 is corroborated by the evidence of Durga Dass. He has deposed that the deceased was not seen by him in th e village that day. The presence of the accused at the house of the deceased on 3rd September, 1985 is also corroborated by the evidence of Bimla Devi. The entire narration of events by Mathur Devi has not been shaken in cross examination. She is an injured witness. She has deposed that the key of the box which used to be with the deceased was produced by the accused. She had given detailed evidence as to how she came to sustain those injuries at the hands of the accused and how she was duped by the accused into going to Panchayat Ghar at night with valuables which were taken away by the accused. There was no reason why her evidence would have been discarded by the High Court. There is also no reason why Mathru Devi should have falsely implicated the accused. The High Court ought not to have disbelieved Mathru Devi on the ground that the events as narrated by Mathru Devi were not convincing because the accused could have killed the old couple in their own house. These are pure conjectures. It is true that some details of the evidence given by Mathru Devi are missing in her initial statement to the police. But her statement substantially contains the entire narration of events to which she has deposed in he r evidence before the court. The Sessions Judge has rightly observed that the statement of Mathru Devi was recorded when she was in an injured and shocked condition and her mental faculties were not up to the mark. It is possible that she may have missed out some of the details. Thus the evidence of Mathru Devi clearly establishes the guilt of the accused under Section 307/394 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code.There is also sufficient circumstantial evidence against the accused to convict him under Section 302. The accused and the deceased were last seen together. The deceased gave a false explanation to Mathru Devi about the deceased having stayed back in the village; the key which used to remain on the person of the deceased was in the possession of the accused on the night of 3rd of September, 1985. The dead body of the deceased was found at bagh nulla - in the direction in which the accused and the deceased were observed as going. The death occurred on 3.9.1985. The injuries which were inflicted by the accused on the head of Mathru Devi on the night of 3.9.1985 are similar to the injuries which were found on the dead body of Kula Datt as per medical evidence. The axe of the acc used was found as directed by the accused who stated that he had delivered the axe for sharpening on 5th of September, 1985. The currency notes of Rs.2, 000/- were also found on the person of the accused when he was arrested.Looking to the totality of evidence the Sessions Judge rightly convicted the accused of all the charges. The observation of the Sessions Judge, however, that this was one of the rarest of rare crimes does not appear to be justified. Crimes such as murder are committed for gain and there is nothing exceptionally gruesome about the manner of committing this murder. A murder by its very nature is shocking. But that per se does not justify death penalty.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]The injuries which were inflicted by the accused on the head of Mathru Devi on the night of 3.9.1985 are similar to the injuries which were found on the dead body of Kula Datt as per medical evidence. The axe of the acc used was found as directed by the accused who stated that he had delivered the axe for sharpening on 5th of September, 1985. The currency notes of Rs.2, 000/were also found on the person of the accused when he was arrested.Looking to the totality of evidence the Sessions Judge rightly convicted the accused of all the charges. The observation of the Sessions Judge, however, that this was one of the rarest of rare crimes does not appear to be justified. Crimes such as murder are committed for gain and there is nothing exceptionally gruesome about the manner of committing this murder. A murder by its very nature is shocking. But that per se does not justify death penalty.