Case: Udaipal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

2. Udaipal Singh, appellant, was admittedly married to Savitri Devi, deceased, in 1958 and since March, 1964 till her death which occurred on the night between April 18 and 19, 1964 she was staying in her husbands house in village Mundgaon in which her husband Udaipal Singh, appellant, herHarnath Singh and herBari Beti all lived together. She died an unnatural death in her bedroom which was also the bedroom of her husband on the night between April 18 and 19, 1964. Information about her death was lodged by herHarnath Singh at the police station Mohammadabad, four miles away from Mundgaon at about 10.30 a.m. on April 19, 1964. That report deserves to be reproduced in extenso as recorded in the general diary. It reads10.30 a.m. Mohammadabad.At this time Shri Harnath Singh son of Mahuker Singh Thakur of village Mandgaon which is at a distance of four miles from this police station and to its east came to the police station and informed that his son Udaipal Singh was clerk of Sri Babu Sigh Vakil of Fatehgarh. He used to go to Fatehgarh daily every morning. On the previous day when he was going there he found that his wife who belonged to Parbatpur, had not prepared his meals. The son abused his wife and left for Fatehgarh without taking any meals. He did not return to his house that evening. At about 8 or 9 p.m. hisinformed his wife that she had some headache. She went to her room to lie on a cot and when she did not get up early that morning his wife went to her room and found that she was lying dead on her cot. She conveyed that information to him. He also went there and saw everything himself. In all probability thein any mood has eaten something (poison) with the result that she is now dead.An inquest would be held because it is reported to be a case ofPrasad Tripathi (P.W. 3) who was at that time(II) at the police station Mohammadabad there upon left for village Mundgaon and arrived at the appellants house at about 12 noon. There he found Harnath Singh, father of the appellant, present at the door. Thethen collected the panchas and found the dead body of Savitri Devi lying on a cot inside a room close to the courtyard. The dead body was covered with a chaddar. Smt. Bari Beti, mother of the appellant, was present in the house. She was asked by theto remove the chaddar so that the necessary investigation into the apparent cause of death could be held. But Bari Beti declined to comply with this request. After some time, however, she was persuaded by theand the panchas to do so. She then went inside the room whether the dead body was lying and removed the chaddar but not completely. She kept the face of the dead body covered. When theinsisted on seeing the face for the purpose of preparing his report Harnath Singh, the father of the appellant, Jagdip Singh, brother of Harnath Singh and others present objected to it saying that it was a question of family honour and prestige and that the face of the deceased could not be uncovered. When every effort made by theto persuade the people to comply with his request failed, he himself removed the chaddar from the face of the dead body and saw an incised wound on her face. One corner of her sari was also besmeared with blood. Harnath Singh and Bari Beti then moved away towards the courtyard. On enquiry by theas to what they had to say about the injuries on the face of the deceased Harnath Singh and Bari Beti kept quiet and gave no reply. The atmosphere seems to have become tense and thefound it to be very difficult to continue the examination of the injuries on the body of the deceased. Harnath Singh and Bari Beti as also others present, started pleading with thenot to send the body forUltimately the panchas recorded their separate opinion on the report prepared by theThis opinion reads :"Smt. Savitri Devi died as a result of her having taken some poison."

Court's reasoning:
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.