9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of the confessional statement. 2. Sufficiency of evidence to justify the conviction. 3. Appropriateness of the death sentence. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Admissibility of the Confessional Statement: The defense argued that the confessional statement (Ex. PH) recorded by Shri Mahajan, a second-class magistrate, was inadmissible because he was not specially empowered by the State Government to record confessions. The court noted that under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, only certain magistrates are authorized to record confessions during an investigation. Since Shri Mahajan was not specially empowered, the confession could not be admitted under Sections 74 and 80 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court referenced previous rulings, including *State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh* and *Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor*, to support this conclusion. Despite this, the court considered whether the confession was recorded before the commencement of the investigation. The court determined that the confession was indeed recorded during the investigation, as the police had already been informed and were in the process of arresting the accused. Thus, the confessional statement was excluded from consideration. 2. Sufficiency of Evidence to Justify the Conviction: Even without the confessional statement, the court found sufficient evidence to convict the accused. It was established through multiple testimonies that the accused and the deceased were the only occupants of their house at the time of the murder. Witnesses like Girju (PW 1), Mani Ram (PW 8), and Bhagat Ram (PW 16) confirmed seeing the accused with the deceased on the day of the occurrence. The physical evidence, including the blood-stained Khokhri found near the deceased's body, further implicated the accused. The court also noted the strained relationship between the accused and the deceased, supported by testimonies from witnesses like Nagju (PW 2). The accused's behavior, such as not raising an alarm or reporting the murder, was inconsistent with innocence. The court concluded that the circumstantial evidence clearly pointed to the accused's guilt. 3. Appropriateness of the Death Sentence: The court reconsidered the death sentence initially imposed by the Sessions Judge and confirmed by the High Court. It took into account the motive behind the crime, which stemmed from the accused's suspicion of his wife's fidelity and the belief that their son was illegitimate. The court acknowledged that the accused's actions were influenced by these suspicions and the deceased's abusive response to his inquiries. Given these mitigating factors, the court decided that the extreme penalty of death was not warranted. Instead, the sentence was altered to life imprisonment, as this would meet the ends of justice. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused for the murder of his wife but altered the death sentence to life imprisonment, considering the circumstances and motives behind the crime. The confessional statement recorded by the second-class magistrate was deemed inadmissible, but the remaining evidence was sufficient to establish the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
