http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SAMMAN DASS

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/01/1972

BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ SHELAT, J.M.

CITATION:  1972 AIR  677            1972 SCR  (3)  58  1972 SCC  (3) 201  CITATOR INFO :  E          1973 SC 399  (4)  R          1973 SC 863  (15)  RF         1973 SC1204  (7)  MV         1982 SC1325  (69)  R          1983 SC 308  (18)

ACT: Criminal Trial-Murder-Trial Court convicting and  sentencing to death-Acquittal by High Court-Ground of interference with assessment  of evidence by High Court in appeal  under  Art. 136-Interference  justified  if  High  Court  reverses   the judgment of the trial court on grounds which are  manifestly fallacious and untenable-Constitution of India, Art. 136.

HEADNOTE: The fact that the High Court, in a reference under S. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has to appraise the evidence for  itself  and  has  to  arrive  at  its  own  independent conclusion  would  not prevent this Court  from  interfering with the order of the High Court if the High Court  reverses the  judgment  of  the  trial court  on  grounds  which  are manifestly fallacious and untenable. This  Court in an appeal under Art. 136 of the  Constitution does not normally reappraise the evidence and interfere with the  assessment of that evidence by the High Court.   Where, however, this Court finds that grave injustice has been done by  the High Court in interfering with the decision  of  the trial  court on grounds which are plainly untenable and  the view taken by the High Court is clearly unreasonable on  the evidence  on  record  this Court would not  stay  its  hand. There are, however, certain cardinal rules which have always to  be kept in view in appeals against acquittal.   Firstly, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused which has to be kept in mind especially when the accused has been  acquitted by the Court below-, Secondly, if two  views of the matter are possible a view favourable to the  accused should be taken; thirdly, in case of acquittal by the  trial judge the appellate court should take into account the  fact that  the  trial judge had the advantage of looking  at  the demeanour  of  witnesses;  and  fourthly,  the  accused   is entitled  to  the  benefit  of  doubt.   The  doubt  should, however,  be  reasonable and should be such  as  a  rational

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

thinking  man will reasonably, honestly and  conscientiously entertain and not the doubt of a timid mind which fights shy though  unwittingly  it may be or is afraid of  the  logical consequences,  if  that benefit was not, given.  To  put  it differently, it is "not the doubt of a vacillating mind that has not the moral courage to decide but shelters itself in a vain and idle scepticism,,. [69H-70E] Himachal  Pradesh  Administration v. Shri  Om  Prakash,  Cr. Appeal No. 67 of 1969 decided on December 7, 1971,  referred to.

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 17  of 1971. Appeal  by special leave from the Judgment and  Order  dated the  June  1, 1970 of the Allahabad High Court  in  Criminal Appeal No. 1931 of 1969 and Referred No. 182 of 1969. D.   P. Uniyal and O. P. Rana, for the Appellant.                              59 A.   S.  R.  Chari,  S.  K. Mehta, K. L.  Mehta  and  K.  R. Nagaraja, for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Khanna, J. Samman Dass alias Samman Lal, aged 19 years,  was convicted  by  Sessions Judge, Faizabad  under  section  302 I.P.C.  for  causing  the  death of  his  wife  Putlibai  by throttling  her  and was sentenced to death.  On  appeal  as well as in the reference made to it for the confirmation  of the  death sentence, the Allahabad High Court set aside  the conviction  of the accused and acquitted him.  The State  of Uttar Pradesh has filed this appeal by special leave against the above judgment of the High Court. The  accused was married to Putlibai, who was near about  of the same, age as the accused, on May 14, 1968.  Putlibai was the  daughter of Gurmukh Das (PW 8) of Azamgarh,  while  the accused  is the son of Shobhamal of Faizabad.   The  accused lived  with  his parents in quarter No. 1831  in  Ram  Nagar Colony  of  Faizabad.  More than 300 familities  of  Sindhis live in this locality.  The non-Sindhis occupy only a couple of houses.  There are a number of blocks of buildings in the colony.   Each  of those blocks consists  of  ten  quarters. Apart  from the accused and his parents, his  uncle  Parumal and the wife of Parumal, who is sister of the mother of  the accused, also lives in his quarter. The accused had been engaged to Putlibai about a year before the marriage.  According to the prosecution case, about 5 or 6 months after the engagement the accused went to the  house of Gurmukh Das in Azamgarh to see Putlibai.  After having  a look  at  Putlibai the accused came to Faizabad  and  stated that  he  would not marry Putlibai as she was  not  of  fair complexion.  When Gurmukh Das (PW) 8 learnt that the accused had refused to marry his daughter, he convened a  panchayat. The father of the accused then became agreeable to marry the accused with Putlibai.  The marriage accordingly took  place on  May  14,  1969.  After the  marriage  Putlibai  came  to Faizabad and lived with the accused in his parents’  quarter for  about  two and a half months.  Gurmukh Das,  father  of Putlibai, it is stated, then came and took her to his house. Putlibai  after  that came to the house of  her  husband  on October 15, 1968. The  death anniversary of Sain Kanwar Ram, a  Sindhi  saint, was  celebrated  by  the  Sindhis in  Ram  Nagar  Colony  of Faizabad  on the night between 17th and 18th October,  1968. The singing of the devotional songs continued up to 10  a.m.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

on  October  18 in an open maidan in the Ram  Nagar  Colony. The said maidan is at about a distance of 90 paces from  the quarter of the accused. 60 Most  of  the  Sindhis  of Ram  Nagar  Colony  attended  the celebrations.   The Prasad was distributed at about 10  a.m. on the close of the celebrations. The  case of the prosecution is that Bhagwan Das (PW 1)  who is brother of maternal grandfather of Putlibai, after taking Prasad  took a riksha and started going to his grocery  shop in Mohalla Chowk, Faizabad.  When Bhagwan Das passed in from of  the quarter of the accused, he heard  shrieks.   Bhagwan Das then shouted as to what the shrieks were about.  Bhagwan Das  also  went  to the front door of  the  quarter  of  the accused and knocked there.  On hearing the shouts of Bhagwan Das,  Choith  Ram  (PW 2), Ayal Das  alias  Ailmal  (PW  6), Shobhraj  (PW  7) and one Kirpal Das  also  joined  Bhagwan. Das.   Bhagwan Das.  Choith Ram, Ayal Das and  Shobhraj  all live in that locality.  Choith Ram and Shobhraj were passing through  the  lane at that time after taking  Prasad.   Ayal Das, who ’too had taken Prasad, was taking water at a  place about 40/50 paces away from the quarter of the accused  when Ayal Das heard shouts.  The front door of the quarter of the accused  was  found  bolted from inside  and  there  was  no response  to  the  knocking at the door.   Bhagwan  Das  and others who had joined him then went to the back door of  the quarter  of the accused and knocked at the back  door.   The back  door which opens in a very narrow lane was also  found bolted  from  inside.   There was no response  even  to  the knocking  at the back door.  Bhagwan Das and his  companions then  thought  of  going  again to the  front  door  of  the quarter.  When Bhagwan Das and his companions reached near a well  at  a distance of 10 paces from the back door  of  the house  of  the  accused, they heard  the  noise  of  someone jumping.   They  then looked back and saw  the  accused  who jumped  over  the  back wall of his  quarter.   The  accused wanted  to run away but Bhagwan Das and his four  companions caught  hold of the accused and did not allow him to  escape in spite of his entreaties.  The accused appeared worried at that time and there was redness in his eyes. At  the asking of Bhagwan Das, it is alleged, Choith Ram  PW went  inside the quarter of the accused by scaling over  the wall which is about 7 feet high.  Choith Ram then opened the back  door.   Bhagwan  Das along with  the  companions  went inside  the quarter of the accused and found Putlibai  lying dead on a cot in one of the rooms of the quarter.  The  door of this room was slightly open.  No one else was present  in the  quarter at that time.  Just then there was a  knock  at the front door of the quarter.  It was opened by Choith Ram. The  mother of the accused who had also gone to take  Prasad then  came inside the quarter.  On seeing the dead  body  of the  deceased,  the mother of the  accused  started  crying. Shobhamal, the father of the accused, whose shop 61 is situated in Sabzi Mandi, came after about one and a  half hour.   On the arrival of Shobhanial, Bhagwan Das  told  him everything.  Shobhamal then wanted to lift the dead body  of Putlibai  for consigning it in the river but he was told  by Choith  Ram  and others that they would not allow  the  dead body  to  be  removed till the arrival  of  the  parents  of Putlibai.   Bhagwan  Das,  in the  meanwhile,  directed  one Govardhan  Das,  brother of Choith Ram, to go in a  taxi  to Azamgarh and bring the parents of Putlibai. At  about  3  p.m. it is stated, Shobhamal,  father  of  the accused,  stated that there was no idea in keeping the  dead

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

body for a long time and that if Bhagwan Das and others  had any suspicion, a doctor could be sent for.  Bhagwan Das  and his  companions  then told Shobhanial to  call  the  doctor. Shobhamal  thereupon deputed one Bhagumal to call a  doctor. Bhagumal then went and contacted Dr. Hansraj Singhal (PW  4) at the latter’s residence It about 4 p.m. Dr. Singhal, it is alleged, then went to his clinic and from there  took his diagonistic bag and thereafter came  to  the quarter  of the accused.  The doctor found the dead body  of Putlibai  lying on a cot.  The colour of her face was  blue. The  face  was  swollen and the  eyes  were  slightly  open. Pupils were dilated and nonreacting to light.  The mouth was slightly  open and there were finger marks on the  left  and right  side  of  her neck.  There were also  marks  of  some abrasions  on  both the elbows besides a  contusion  on  the right  palm.   As Dr. Singhal was concerned  only  with  the question as to whether the death of the deceased was  normal or was the result of some foul play, he did not make a  more detailed examination of the dead body.  Dr. Singhal came  to the  conclusion that the death of Putlibai was  not  natural but  was due to throttling.  The doctor told this  thing  to Bhagumal.   The  doctor  added that  the  police  should  be informed  and  that otherwise he would  himself  inform  the police on reaching his clinic.  After saying this the doctor left  the quarter.  After the doctor gone for a distance  of about  two furlongs he thought of inquiring the name of  the deceased,  her husband and the particulars of  the  address. He consequently returned to the quarter of the accused and  after  getting the necessary information, went  to  his clinic.   Before  reaching  the  clinic,  the  doctor   also telephoned to the police station about the death of Putlibai from a shop near his clinic. In the meanwhile, immediately after Dr. Singbal had left the quarter of the accused, Bhagwan Das PW got a report  written by Dayal Das (PW 10).  The report was then signed by Bhagwan Das and was taken to police station kotwali at a distance of about  two miles from the place of occurrence.   The  report was handed over at the police station at 5 p.m. Mohd.   Amin (PW 9), 62 head  clerk  in the police station, then prepared  a  formal F.I.R. on the basis of the report of Bhagwan Das.  A copy of the  first information report was sent to Sub Inspector  Ram Gulam  Chaudhari who was present in station Fatehganj.   The Sub  Inspector then went to the quarter of the  accused  and reached  there  at about 6 p.m. The Sub Inspector  took  the accused,  who had been secured at the spot, in his  custody. The dead body of the deceased was found by the Sub Inspector lying  on a cot.  After preparing the  necessary  documents, the Sub Inspector sent the dead body to the mortuary. Post  mortem  examination on the dead body of  Putlibai  was performed  by Dr. Vijay Pal (PW 3) at 11.45 a.m. on  October 19,  1968.   In the opinion of Dr. Vijay Pal  the  death  of Putlibai deceased was due to asphyxia caused by throttling. After necessary investigations, a challan was put in against the accused. In  his statement under section 342 Code of Criminal  Proce- dure before the committing magistrate the accused denied the prosecution  allegations  and  stated that  on  the  day  of occurrence,  he had gone to his father’s shop at 9  a.m.  He was called from that shop at 9-30 a.m. after being told that the  condition  of his wife was serious.  The  accused  then wanted  to call a doctor but the doctor was  not  available. According  to  the accused he was falsely involved  in  this case at the instance of Bliagwan Das and Perumal who did not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

want that he should mart)( Putlibai. In  his statement under section 342 of the Code of  Criminal Procedure  in  the court of Sessions, the  accused  admitted that  he  had been married to Putlibai deceased on  May  14, 1968 and that they had been living together in the  quarter of the accused along with the parents of the accused as welt as his uncle and aunt.  The accused further admitted that he had been engaged to Putlibai before his marriage but  denied that he had refused to marry her.  The allegation about  the gathering of a panchayat too was denied by the accused.  The accused  admitted that Putlibai came to the quarter  of  the accused  on  October 15, 1968.  The fact that  there  was  a celebration  by  the Sindhis living in the locality  of  the death  anniversary of Sain Kanwar Rain on the night  between 17th and 18th October 1968 was also admitted by the accused, but  according to him, the Prasad was distributed at 6 or  7 a.m.  The  prosecution  allegations about  the  hearing.  of shircks  from his quarter as well as about his jumping  over the  back  wall  was denied by  the  accused.   The  accused likewise  denied  the  allegation that  he  was  secured  by Bhagwan Das and others.  The accused added that Bhagwan Das, Choith  Ram and father of Cloitli Ram, were inimical to  him because they did not want Putlibai to marry the accused.                              63 According  to the accused, on the day of occurrence  he  had gone to his father’s shop at about 9 a.m. Thereafter he came to  the  place of occurrence at about 11 or  11.30  a.m.  on being told that the condition of his wife was serious. In  defence  five witnesses were examined on behalf  of  the accused. The  purport of the defence evidence was that on the day  of occurrence  at  10.30  or 11 a.m. the aunt  of  the  accused called Tikam Das (DW 2), who is the cousin of the mother  of the accused and lives in the neighbourhood, and told him  to go  to the shop of the father of the accused and inform  him about the serious condition of Putlibai deceased.  Tikam Das then  went to the shop of the father of the accused and  met the accused and his father there and conveyed the message to them.  Evidence was also led to show that the accused called two  doctors  and  sent a telegram about the  death  of  the deceased to his sister’s husband. The learned Sessions Judge on consideration of the  evidence found  that  the  following facts had  been  proved  by  the prosecution               "1.  The  accused was the only person  in  the               quarter  and,  therefore, with,  the  deceased               immediately   before,  at  the  time  of   and               immediately after her murder.               2.    Instead of getting out of the quarter in               the  usual  way, he scaled the rear  wall  and               jumped  into the back lane  immediately  after               the murder of the deceased.               3.When he was caught as soon as lie jumped, he               was  nonplused, his eyes were red-shot and  he               begged  to  be, let off  which  exhibited  his               guilty consciences" Reference was further made to the fact that the accused  had failed to explain as to why he had jumped from the back wall of  his  quarter  and had tried to run away.   It  was  also pointed out that the accused had made false denials and  put forth false plea of alibi.  The above circumstances, in  the opinion of the Sessions Judge, were consistent only with the guilt of the accused.  The defence evidence produced by  the accused  was  found  to be not worthy of  credence  and  was rejected.   In the result the accused was convicted for  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

murder of Putlibai and was sentenced to death. When  the matter came up before the High Court, the  learned Judges   held   that  the   prosecution   had   successfully established that the accused had a motive for the murder  of Putlibai.   In  the  opinion  of  the  learned  Judges,  the circumstances  in which the death of Putlibai  had  occurred must  have created a strong suspicion against  the  accused. He was consequently involved in this case. 64 The  learned  Judges seem to have taken the  view  that  the first information report was not lodged at the time when  it purports  to have been made.  It was also observed that  the only   witness  who  appeared  to  be  independent  was   PW Shobharaj.   His statement was found to be not true  because the witness had given the distance ,of his quarter from that of  the  accused as 50 paces, while,  according  to  another witness,  the  distance was 150 paces.  In the  result.  the conviction  of  the  accused  was  set  aside  and  he   was acquitted. We  have heard Mr. Unyal on behalf of the appellant and  Mr. Chari  on. behalf of the accused-respondent, and are of  the opinion that the High Court set aside the conviction of  the accused on grounds which are wholly untenable.  There can be no  manner of doubt that Putlibai deceased was throttled  to death.  The evidence of Dr. Vijay Pal (PW 7), who  performed post  mortem  examination  on  the  dead  body  of  Putlibai deceased  shows  that he found the  following ante  mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased Putlibai :               "Finger  marks  were present in front  of  the               neck.   These marks looked like  brownish  and               dry.  On the left side of the neck, in  front,               upper  and outer part, thumb mark was  present               which  measured 1" x 1/2 " and the upper  part               of which was 1/2 " below the mandible.  On the               right  side  of the neck, in front  upper  and               outer  part of 4 finger marks were present  in               oblique directions downwards and outwards  one               below  the  other measuring 1" x  1/2",  3/4"x               1/2"",  1/2 x 1/2" and 1/4" x 1/4"; the  upper               most mark was 1/2 " below the mandible." Besides  the  above injuries, there was a contusion  on  the right  thinner  eminence and two abrasions  on  the  elbows. Extravascular blood was present in the subcutaneous  tissues of  the neck-under the finger marks in the adjacent  muscles of the neck.  There was fracture of the corner of the  hyoid bone.   The larynx, the trachea, the lungs, the  liver,  the gall  bladder,  the spleen and the kidneys  were  congested. Dr.  Vijay Pal accordingly came to the conclusion  that  the death was due to asphyxia caused by throttling.  The  doctor added  that the time of the death of the deceased  could  be about 10.30 a.m. on October 18, 1968. According  to  the prosecution case, the death  of  Putlibai deceased  was caused by the accused, while the  accused  has denied  this  allegation.  The Sessions Judge  accepted  the prosecution evidence in this respect, but the same was found by  the  High  Court  to be not  such  as  could  warrant  a conviction of the accused. In  order  to  prove  the  case  against  the  accused,  the prosecution examined Bhagwan Das (PW 1), Choith Ram (PW 2), 65 Ayal  Das (PW 6) and Shobhraj (PW 7).  According to  Bhagwan Das  PW,  he heard shrieks when he passed in  front  of  the quarter  of  the accused at about 10.30 a.m. on the  day  of occurrence.  The witness then shouted as to what the  matter was  about  and was immediately joined by  the  other  three

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

witnesses  and Kirpal Das.  The witness then knocked at  the front door as well as at the back door of the quarter of the accused but got no response.  Just then, the witness and his companions saw the accused jumping over the rear wall of his quarter in the back lane.  The accused was then secured  and was  not  allowed  to escape in  spite  of  his  entreaties. Choith  Ram PW then entered the quarter by scaling over  the back  wall  and opened the door.  When Bhagwan Das  and  his companions  went inside, they found Putlibai lying  dead  on the  cot.  Bhagwan Das also deposed about the report  lodged by  him with the police after Dr. Singhal had declared  that Putlibai had been throttled to death. The  above  evidence of Bhagwan Das is corroborated  by  the evidence of Choith Ram (PW 2), Ayal Das (PW 6) and  Shobhraj (PW 7).  The evidence of the above mentioned four  witnesses was found by the learned Sessions Judge to be convincing and reliable.  After having been taken through that evidence, we see  no cogent ground to take a view different from that  of the Sessions Judge.  It is no doubt true that Bhagwan Das PW is   the  brother  of  Bangamal,  maternal  grandfather   of Putlibai,  deceased  and  that sister of Choith  Ram  PW  is married to Bangamal.  It is also true that Ayal Dass PW is a cousin   of   Gurumukh  Das,  father   of   Putlibai.    The relationship  of  the  above mentioned  three  witnesses  to Putlibai deceased would, in our opinion, be not a sufficient ground  for discrediting their testimony.  It is well  known that  the  close  relatives of a murdered  person  are  most reluctant  to spare the real assailant’ and falsely  involve another person in place of the assailant.  Had Putlibai been killed  by  some other person, the natural  conduct  of  the above  mentioned  three  witnesses,  who  were  related   to Putlibai  on  her parents’ side, would have  been  to  offer sympathy  to  Samman  Dass  accused  and  help  him  in  the apprehension  of  the real culprit, rather than  to  falsely involve  him in the murder of his wife.  There is no  cogent evidence  on  the  record  to show that  any  of  the  above mentioned  three  witnesses  had  any  animus  against   the accused.   The  accused, no doubt, took the  plea  that  the above  mentioned  witnesses were against his  marriage  with Putlibai,  but  that  suggestion has been  denied  by  these witnesses. Apart from the evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses, we have the evidence of Shobhraj PW.  Shobhraj is a wholly dis- interested  witness, and we see no cogent ground  whatsoever as  to  why  his evidence be not accepted.   The  fact  that according to 66 Shobbraj  his  quarter was at a distance of about  50  paces from the quarter of the accused, while according to  Bhagwan Das PW the quarter of Shobhraj is at a distance of 150 paces from that of the accused, would not go to show that Shobhraj is not, as held by the High Court, a truthful witness.   The difference in the estimate of the distance of the quarter of the   accused  from  that  of  Shobhraj  is  not  of   great significance  because  nothing  hinges  on  that   distance. According to Shobhraj, he arrived at the scene of occurrence not   from  his  quarter  but  from  the  place  where   the celebrations of Sain Kanwar Ram were being held.  The afore- said place is at a distance of less than 100 paces from  the quarter of the accused. The view of the High Court that the first information report was  not lodged at the police station at the time,  viz.,  5 p.m., at which it purports to have been lodged is based upon mere  conjecture.  According to Bhagwan Das PW,  immediately after  Dr.  Singhal  had declared at about  4.30  p.m.  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

Putlibai  had been throttled to death, he (Bhagwan Das)  got written  report from Dayal Das (PW 10) and signed  it.   The report was then sent to the police station.  The evidence of Bhagwan Das in this respect is corroborated by Dayal Das PW. We  have  then the evidence of Mohd.  Amin  (PW  9).   Mohd. Amin was head clerk in police station Kotwali in those days. According to Mohd.  Amin, the report was handed over to  him at  the police station at 5 p.m. on October 18,  1968.   The witness  then prepared the formal first information  report. An  entry  was  also made in the  general  diary  of  police station  at  that time.  The witness  further  sent  special report  regarding this case at 5.20 p.m. on that  very  day. Nothing  was brought out in cross-examination to  shake  the evidence of Mohd.  Amin.  Apart from the fact that no reason has  been  shown as to why the evidence of Bhagwan  Das  and Mohd.  Amin be not accepted regarding the time at which  the first  information report was lodged at the police  station, we  find that there was not even a remote suggestion in  the cross  examination  of  Mohd.  Amin that  the  formal  first information report was not prepared at the police station at the  time,  viz,  p.m., at which it purports  to  have  been prepa red.   In the absence of any material pointing to  the inference  that the formal first information report was  not prepared  at  5  p.m., the High Court,  in  our  view  acted erroneously in holding, on the basis of a pure surmise, that the  first  information report had not been  lodged  at  the police station at 5 p.m. We  are also not impressed by the argument that the police acted on the telephonic intimation received from Dr. Singhal According to Dr. Singhal, he sent the telephonic  intimation after  5  p.m.,  while the report of Bhagwan  Das  had  been lodged  at  the  police  station at  5  p.m.  Dr.  Singhal’s evidence shows that after                              67 examining  the dead body of Putlibai at about 4.30 p.m.,  he proceeded in a riksha to his clinic.  After he had gone  for a  distance of two furlongs, he thought of  getting  details about  the  name  of the deceased, her  husband’s  name  and address.   He  accordingly returned to the  quarter  of  the accused  and got the necessary particulars.  After that,  he again proceeded towards his clinic, but his riksha was  held up  at  the railway level crossing because the gate  at  the crossing  remained  closed  for 10  minutes.   In  the  cir- cumstances,  we  find no reason to  reject  the  prosecution evidence  that  the police acted upon the report  lodged  by Bhagwan Das PW. Coming  to the question as to whether there was a  delay  in lodging  the  report, we find that the  evidence  on  record shows that after Putlibai had been found dead, the father of the  accused showed inclination to consign her dead body  to the river.  Bhagwan Das then insisted that the dead body  of Putlibai  should not be disposed of till the arrival of  her parents.  The father of the accused thereupon agreed to send for  a  doctor.  Dr. Singhal was accordingly called  and  he stated, after examining the dead body, that the deceased had been  throttled to death.  Immediately  thereafter,  Bhagwan Das  got the report written from Dayal Das and lodged it  at the police station.  In our opinion, there was no inordinate delay  in lodging the, report.  It is obvious  that  Bhagwan Das  did  not  lodge the report till such  time  as  he  was certain that the death of Putlibai deceased was not  natural but was due to violence.  The present was not a case wherein the deceased had been killed by some sharp-edged weapon or a fire arm, or wherein the deceased had been killed by  sharp- edged  weapon  or  a fire arm, or wherein the  body  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

deceased had been found lying in a pool of blood.  In  such a  case,  there can be no doubt about the  death  being  not natural.  In cases. however, of death caused by poisoning or throttling,  a  layman cannot be very sure of the  cause  of death,  and  we find nothing improbable in  the  conduct  of Bbagwan Das PW in not lodging the report till he learnt from Dr.   Singhal  that  death  of  the  deceased  was  due   to throttling. Bhagwan Das, Choith Ram, Ayal Das and Shobhraj PWs reside in the  locality wherein the occurrence took place.  The  fact that no one from the quarters adjoining, that of the accused has  been  examined  by the prosecution would  not,  in  our opinion,  introduce  an infirmity in the  prosecution  case. The  evidence Bhagwan Das shows that the adjoining  quarters were  closed at the time of the occurrence, as most  of  the people  in the locality had gone to attend the  celebrations of Sain Kanwar Ram. Argument  was advanced by Mr. Chari that it would not  be  a natural  act  of  the accused to  have  made  the  murderous assault on his wife at about 10.30 a.m. when the people were moving in the lane in front of his quarter.  In this respect we 68 find that the accused chose the moment when no one else  was present  in  the house.  The fact that no  one  was  present there  to  witness the actual murder of the  deceased  might well have been considered by the accused to be an  opportune time.   Different  individuals act differently  in  a  given situation, and we find nothing improbable in the act of  the accused in committing the murder ,of his wife at about 10.30 a.m. on the day of occurrence. It  has also been submitted by Mr. Chari that there  was  no sufficient  motive for the accused to murder his  wife.   In this respect we find that the evidence of Choith Ram (PW  2) shows  that  the accused has told him that he did  not  like Putlibai.   We have then the evidence of Bhagwan Das  PW  as well  as  that of Gurmukh Das PW, father of  Putlibai,  that when  it was learnt that the accused was reluctant to  marry Putlibai, Gurmukh Das convened a panchayat.  The accused was thereafter  married  to Putlibai.  The  evidence  on  record thus, reveals that the accused was forced to mary  Putlibai in  spite  of his dislike, because of the convening  of  the panchayat.   It cannot, in the circumstances, be  said  that the  accused had no motive to cause the death of  his  wife. The learned judges of The High Court too took the view  that the accused had a motive to cause the death of the deceased. In  any  case, motive is not very material  when  the  other evidence clearly points to the guilt of the accused. Reference  has also been made by Mr. Chari to the fact  that there  is no evidence about the existence of any  injury  on the  person of the accused.  It is urged that the  deceased, while  being  throttled, must have offered  resistance,  and thus.  there would have been an injury on the person of  the accused because of that resistance.  We are not impressed by this  argument because resistance by the deceased  resulting in  injuries to the assailant is not a necessary feature  of every   act  of  throttling.   Different  victims  can   act differently   and  it  would  depend  upon  a   variety   of circumstances  as to whether they were or not in a  position to offer resistance.  The absence of injuries on the  person of  the  accused would not go to show that he  was  not  the person who had throttled the deceased to death. So  far as the defence evidence is concerned, the  same  was disbelieved by the Sessions Judge.  The defence evidence was also not relied upon by the High Court-ostensibly because no

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

effort  was made to rely upon that evidence.   Likewise,  no effort has been made in this Court to rely upon the  defence evidence. There is no eyewitness of the actual occurrence, but on  the material on record, we find that the following circumstances have been proved against the accused. 69 (1)  The accused was alone with the deceased in his  quarter at about 10.30 a.m. on the day of occurrence. (2)  Shrieks were heard at that time from inside the quarter of the accused. (3) Both  the front and the back doors of the quarter of the accused  were found to be bolted from inside.   Those  doors were not opened inspite of shouting and knocking. (4) The   accused soon thereafter jumped over the rear  wall into  the back lane.  He wanted to run away but was  secured by  Bhagwan Das and other witnesses.  This accused  appeared to be upset at that time and, in sipte of his entreaties, he was not allowed to go away. (5)  Immediately thereafter, Bhagwan Das and other witnesses went  inside  the quarter and found Putlibai,  wife  of  the accused, lying dead on a cot. (6)  According  to medical evidence, the deceased  had  been throttled to death at about 10.30 a.m. on that day. (7)  The  accused had an animus against Putlibai because  he was forced to marry her in spite of the fact that he did not like her. All  the above circumstances, in our opinion, clearly  point to  the  conclusion  that the accused was  the  murderer  of Putlibai.  The above circumstances are inconsistent with his innocence. Mr. Chari has referred to the case of the State of Madras v. A.  Vaidvanatha  Iyer (1) wherein this Court held  that  the words used in article 136 of the Constitution show that,  in criminal matters, no distinction can be made as a matter  of construction  between  a judgment of conviction and  one  of acquittal.   This Court, it was further observed, would  not readily  interfere  with the findings of fact given  by  the High  Court,  but  if  the High  Court  acts  perversely  or otherwise  improperly, interference will be called for.   In our  opinion,  the accused-respondent can  derive  not  much assistance  from the above authority because the High  Court in  the present case reversed the finding of  conviction  on grounds which were wholly untenable.  The view taken by  the High  Court is clearly unreasonable and is not warranted  by the material on record.  The fact that the High Court, in  a reference  under  section  374  of  the  Code  of   Criminal Procedure,  has to appraise the evidence for itself and  has to  arrive  at  its own  independent  conclusion  would  not prevent  this Court from interfering with the order  of  the High  Court if the High Court reverses the judgment  of  the trial  court on grounds which are manifestly fallacious  and untenable. (1)  [1958] S.C.R. 580. 7 0 This   Court  in  an  appeal  under  article  136   of   the Constitution  does not normally reappraise the evidence  and interfere  with the assessment of that evidence by the  High Court.    Where,  however,  this  Court  finds  that   grave injustice  has  been done by the High Court  in  interfering with  the decision of the trial court on grounds  which  are plainly  untenable and the view taken by the High  Court  in interfering  with  the decision of the trial court  on  this Court would not stay its hand.  There are, however,  certain cardinal  rules  which  have always to be kept  in  view  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

appeals against acquittal.  Firstly, there is a  presumption of  innocence in favour of the accused which has to be  kept in  mind, especially when the accused has been acquitted  by the  court below; secondly, if two views of the  matter  are possible, a view favourable to the accused should be  taken; thirdly,  in  case  of acquittal by  the  trial  judge,  the appellate  court should take into account the fact that  the trial judge had the advantage of looking at the demeanor  of witnesses;  and  fourthly, the accused is  entitled  to  the benefit of doubt.  The doubt should, however, be  reasonable and as observed recently by this Court, the doubt should  be such  which rational thinking men will reasonably,  honestly and  conscientiously entertain and not the doubt of a  timid mind  which  fights shy-though unwittingly it may  be-or  is afraid of the logical consequences, if that benefit was  not given.   To  put it differently, it is "not the doubt  of  a vacillating  mind that has not ,the moral courage to  decide but  shelters  itself in a vain and  idle  scepticism"  (see Himachal  Pradesh  Administration v. Shri  Om  Parkash,  Cr. Appeal 67 of 1969 decided on December 7, 1971). We, therefore, accept the appeal, set aside the judgment  of the  High  Court and convict  the  accused-respondent  under section 302 I.P.C. As  regards the sentence, we find that the  occurrence  took place more than three years ago.  The accused was aged about 19  years  at  the time of the trial.  Looking  to  all  *he circumstances, we are of the opinion that we need not  award the  extreme penalty in this case.  We accordingly  sentence the accused to undergo imprisonment for life. K.B.N.                                    Appeal allowed. 71