Skip to content


Mt. Rup Devi and anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtHimachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal Nos. 14 and 15 of 1954
Judge
Reported in1955CriLJ679
ActsEvidence Act, 1872 - Sections 3 and 30; ;Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 32, 164, 236, 367 and 510; ;Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 107, 201 and 302
AppellantMt. Rup Devi and anr.
RespondentState of Himachal Pradesh
Appellant Advocate Kirti Ram Tewari, Adv. for Gokal and; D.R. Chaudhary, Adv.
Respondent Advocate D.N. Vaidya, Govt. Adv.
DispositionAppeal rejected
Excerpt:
.....design with g to cause murder of h - motive cannot form basis of conviction without clear and cogent evidence establishing crime - evidence on record does not establish beyond doubt that r did abet g in murder of h - r knew that h had been murdered and with view to screen g from legal punishment caused evidence of commission of that offence to disappear and also gave information respecting offence which she knew to be false - as per her confession she admitted that after murder she and g dragged dead body towards 'nala' and buried it - r guilty of offence under section 201 - conviction of r under section 302 set aside and she convicted under section 201 - conviction of g under section 302 maintained. - .....the sentence of transportation for life. the sentence of fine is, therefore, set aside. pine, if realized, must be refunded. subject to this slight modification, gokal's appeal is rejected.
Judgment:
ORDER

32. In view of all that has been said above, I allow appeal No. 14 of 1954, filed by Mt. Rup Devi in part. I set aside her conviction ofan offence under Section 302, read with Section 114, I. P. C, Instead, I convict her of an offence under Section 201, I. P. C., and, bearing in mind that she is only about 18 years of age and in all probability wasled astray by Gokal (who was old enough to be her father), sentence her to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment. As regards criminal appeal No. 15 of 1954, filed by Gokal, I maintain his conviction of an offence under Section 302, I. P. C., as well as the sentence of transportation for life inflicted upon him. He should thank his starsthat in spite of the fact that he committed a brutal and premeditated murder, he was let off with the lesser of the two penalties prescribedby law, There was, however, no point in tacking on a fine of Rs. 300/- to the sentence of transportation for life. The sentence of fine is, therefore, set aside. Pine, if realized, must be refunded. Subject to this slight modification, Gokal's appeal is rejected.


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