Skip to content


Kharaiti Ram Parshotam Vs. the State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 437 of 1952
Judge
Reported inAIR1953P& H255
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 300
AppellantKharaiti Ram Parshotam
RespondentThe State
Appellant Advocate V.K. Ranade, Adv.
Respondent Advocate Har Parshad, Assistant Adv. General
Disposition Appeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. - some fifteen days or so before the murder, which was on 3-3 1952, kharaiti ram noticed that his wife was not of good character......raj and babu ram and he (kharaiti ram) took both of them into the house and showed them where his murdered wife was lying. kharaiti ram was then taken to the police station, by these two witnesses. 3. before the additional sessions judge the fact of the liaison was deposed to by rattni, the mother-in-law of the accused, and the ill-treatment of the wife by the husband was deposed to by kamla, a sister of bimla. the fact that the accused came out of the house with a bloodstained knife and then took lekh raj and babu ram into the house and showed them the murdered woman is deposed to by lekh raj and babu ram. there is also evidence to show that kharaiti ram produced the knife. besides this evidence there is the confession of the accused which was made before a magistrate. all this.....
Judgment:

Kapur J.

1. In this appeal which is brought by Kharaiti Ram against his conviction under Section 302, Penal Code, and sentence of transportation for life for the murder of his wife Bimla, the sole point to be decided is whether the facts constitute murder or a lesser offence.

2. Kharaiti Rani appellant is aged twenty years and was married to Bimla some six or seven years before the occurrence. Some fifteen days or so before the murder, which was on 3-3 1952, Kharaiti Ram noticed that his wife was not of good character. On two occasions, that he went to his mother-in-law's residence, which was nothing more than a mere shop, he found that the outer door was locked from inside and his wife was with a fruit seller whose name has not been disclosed. On one of these occasions she was 'in flagrante delicto'. He had forgiven his wife for these delinquencies, but he warned her not to continue her liaison with this fruit seller and at the same time he purchased a knife, Ex. P. 2, from a shop near the Clock Tower and also warned his wife that if she continued to misbehave, he would murder her and then commit suicide. He hid this knife in the roof. On the day of occurrence at about 11-30 A. M. while Kharaiti Ram was about to go out with his 'chhabri' he warned his wife not to go to her mother's house and after having agreed not to go she insisted that she would go and if he stopped her she would run away from the house. The accused then called her to help him to pick up the 'chhabri'. He went upstairs, brought the dagger concealed in his pull-over and when he came near Bimla, he caught hold of her, took her inside the house, chained the doors and gave her several dagger blows as a result of which she died. He came out of his house holding the bloodstained knife. His shirt was also bloodstained and he mentioned to Lekh Raj and Babu Ram, both P. Ws., that he had murdered his wife as she did not obey him. The knife was taken from him by Lekh Raj and Babu Ram and he (Kharaiti Ram) took both of them into the house and showed them where his murdered wife was lying. Kharaiti Ram was then taken to the police station, by these two witnesses.

3. Before the Additional Sessions Judge the fact of the liaison was deposed to by Rattni, the mother-in-law of the accused, and the ill-treatment of the wife by the husband was deposed to by Kamla, a sister of Bimla. The fact that the accused came out of the house with a bloodstained knife and then took Lekh Raj and Babu Ram into the house and showed them the murdered woman is deposed to by Lekh Raj and Babu Ram. There is also evidence to show that Kharaiti Ram produced the knife. Besides this evidence there is the confession of the accused which was made before a Magistrate. All this evidence was believed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge who convicted the accused under Section 302, Penal Code, and awarded him transportation for life.

4. In appeal the correctness of the evidence has not been attacked nor is it challenged that the killing was done by the accused. The only point raised before us is whether on the facts which have been stated there was not a sudden and grave orovocation which would reduce the offence from murder to a lesser offence under Section 304, Penal Code, and reliance was particularly placed on the following part of the confessional statement of the accused:

'On Monday morning, i.e., on 3-3-1952 at about 11-30 or 12-0 A. M. I prepared my 'chhabri' for my routine work. I warned my wife not to go to the house of her mother. She agreed and came to the door and slipped away and said that there she was going. She also said that if I compelled her not to go to her mother, she would run away from my house.'

In my opinion this does not amount to either a grave or sudden provocation and it certainly is not a grave and sudden provocation and even if it could be called sudden provocation it is not grave. But if this portion of the confessional statement is read in the light of what followed and what preceded it, it cannot help the accused in any way. He had already purchased a knife and had threatened the wife with murder if she did not mend her ways and after what the wife had said he was not so enraged that there and then he picked up something and struck his wife. He asked her to help him in picking up the 'chhabri' went upstairs, brought down the dagger, caught hold of his wife, took her inside, chained the door from inside and then gave her dagger blows. This does not show that there was anything sudden, but it shows deliberateness and on these facts I am unable to hold that there was any grave and sudden provocation within Section 300, Excep-tion 1, Penal Code.

5. Taking all these circumstances into consideration I am of the opinion that the learned Judge has rightly convicted the accused under Section 302, Penal Code and has given him the lesser of the two penalties. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Dulat, J.

6. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //