Case: Udaipal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Singh, accused, in giving wrong information to the police and the conduct of both Harnath Singh, accused, his wife in not helping the investigating authorities and also in setting up his alibi; and(5) Nature of the injuries found upon the person of the deceased.8. On appeal the High court held Udaipal Singh guilty of the murder of his wife for the following reasons;(1) He had very strong motive to get rid of his wife Smt. Savitri with whom his relations were very much strained for the four years preceding the murder.(2) He was present in village Mundgaon and must have been in his own house when the occurrence took place. He had, therefore, the opportunity to commit the murder.(3) The place of occurrence was his own room.(4) His conduct after the occurrence had taken place and the false explanation furnished by him. It was his duty to have given proper explanation as to how and in what circumstances Smt. Savitri met her death. However, he came forward with a false explanation and a false plea of alibi.(5) In the very first report which Harnath Singh made to the police an attempt was made to create an alibi for Udaipal Singh, That also clearly indicated that Udaipal Singh was the murderer and had to be saved.He was accordingly held guilty under Section 302, I.P.C. or in the alternative under Section 302, read with Section 34, I.P.C. The other two accused persons namely his parents were held not to have as strong a motive as the present appellant had in getting rid of the deceased. Though in the opinion of the High Court there were grave suspicions against the parents as well they were given benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charge of murder. Harnath Singh was held guilty of an offence under section 201, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. Bari Beti was given benefit of doubt for this offence as well.9. Special leave application on behalf of both Harnath Singh and Udaipal Singh was filed in this Court on September 17, 1968. On November 6, 1968 an application was filed on behalf of the petitioners praying for permission to take an additional ground of appeal objecting to the admissibility of evidence of the letters said to have been written by the deceased to her father. On November 7, 1968 this Court declined special leave to Harnath Singh but granted the same to Udaipal Singh, appellant and also permitted him to file the additional grounds of appeal.10. In this Court, Shri Yogeshwar Prasad strongly contended that the appellants case was distinguished by the High Court from that of his father and mother on the ground only of his having stronger motive for getting rid of the deceased. Letters written by the deceased to her father on which alone the evidence of motive is founded were contended to be inadmissible in evidence because they do not fall under section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act. He further contended that the circumstantial evidence did not conclusively establish the appellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt because it did not exclude reasonable possibility of his innocence.11. Now, from the very nature of things apart from the inmates of the house there could be no eye-witness of the occurrence of this case and the prosecution had, therefore, necessarily to rely on circumstantial evidence only. In cases where only circumstantial evidence is available at the outset one normally starts looking for the motive and the opportunity to commit the crime. If the evidence shows that the accused having a strong enough motive had the opportunity of committing the crime and the established circumstances on the record considered along with the explanation - if any - of the accused, exclude the reasonable possibility of anyone else being the real culprit then the chain of evidence can be considered to be so complete as to show that within all human probability the crime must have been committed by the accused. He may, in that event, safely be held guilty on such circumstantial evidence. On behalf of the appellant this proposition was not disputed. According to him the letters written by the deceased to her father alone distinguish the appellants case from that of his parents and if those letters are excluded from consideration, being inadmissible in evidence then he would also be entitled to acquittal like his parents. In our opinion, even excluding the letters written by the deceased to her father there is ample evidence showing the strong motive on the part of the appellant to get rid of his wife. The letter written by the appellant to his mistress (Ex. Ka-8) quite clearly brings out the feeling of disgust which he cherished towards the deceased. The admissibility of this letter has not been questioned on behalf of the appellant before us, and in our opinion, rightly so. When confronted with this letter the appellant came out with the explanation that he had written it in order merely to tease his wife. This explanation did not appeal to the Court below, and in our opinion, quite rightly. The trial Court considered this explanation to be absurd and an afterthought. In the opinion of the High court this explanation had only to be stated to be rejected. This letter, according to that Court, indicated that the appellant wanted to get rid of his wife. The circumstances which induced the High Court to uphold the appellants conviction have already been reproduced earlier. These circumstances were, in our opinion, rightly held by the High Court to be inconsistent with the innocence of the appellant and incapable of any other hypothesis than that of the appellants guilt. Whether or not his parents were also guilty along with him need not be considered because they have been acquitted of the charge of murder and there is not appeal against their acquittal. The appellants culpability on the facts and circumstances of this case is unaffected by the acquittal of his parents.12.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]In our opinion, even excluding the letters written by the deceased to her father there is ample evidence showing the strong motive on the part of the appellant to get rid of his wife. The letter written by the appellant to his mistress (Ex.quite clearly brings out the feeling of disgust which he cherished towards the deceased. The admissibility of this letter has not been questioned on behalf of the appellant before us, and in our opinion, rightly so. When confronted with this letter the appellant came out with the explanation that he had written it in order merely to tease his wife. This explanation did not appeal to the Court below, and in our opinion, quite rightly. The trial Court considered this explanation to be absurd and an afterthought. In the opinion of the High court this explanation had only to be stated to be rejected. This letter, according to that Court, indicated that the appellant wanted to get rid of his wife. The circumstances which induced the High Court to uphold the appellants conviction have already been reproduced earlier. These circumstances were, in our opinion, rightly held by the High Court to be inconsistent with the innocence of the appellant and incapable of any other hypothesis than that of the appellants guilt. Whether or not his parents were also guilty along with him need not be considered because they have been acquitted of the charge of murder and there is not appeal against their acquittal. The appellants culpability on the facts and circumstances of this case is unaffected by the acquittal of his parents.