1955 (11) TMI 49 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction and sentencing of the appellant for the murder of his wife, Gunga.
2. Conviction and sentencing of the appellant for the murder of his cousin, Chhanga.
3. Reliability of the eye-witness testimonies.
4. Separation of trials for the two murders.
5. Circumstantial evidence against the appellant.
6. Motive for the murders.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction and Sentencing of the Appellant for the Murder of His Wife, Gunga:
The appellant, Chhutanni, was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of his wife, Gunga, based on the testimony of three eye-witnesses: Ram Narain, Bhagwan Din, and Dhina. These witnesses testified that they saw Chhutanni dealing gandasa blows while sitting on Gunga's chest, with Gokaran pressing her down. The post-mortem examination revealed eight incised wounds, with the most serious ones on the neck, leading to death due to shock and hemorrhage. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence, agreeing with the trial judge that the witnesses were independent and reliable and that there was sufficient motive for the crime.

2. Conviction and Sentencing of the Appellant for the Murder of His Cousin, Chhanga:
In the first trial, Chhutanni was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Chhanga. The prosecution's case relied on the direct testimony of three eye-witnesses: Vishwanath, Chhunni, and Razzak, who claimed to have seen Chhutanni sitting on Chhanga's chest and giving gandasa blows. The High Court, however, acquitted the co-accused Kalika and Gokaran but confirmed the death sentence for Chhutanni based on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of a bloodstained gandasa and the similarity in the modus operandi of the two murders.

3. Reliability of the Eye-Witness Testimonies:
The reliability of the eye-witness testimonies was a significant issue in both trials. In the second trial, the High Court found the testimonies of Ram Narain, Bhagwan Din, and Dhina credible and independent, with no animosity towards the appellant that could lead to false deposition. In contrast, in the first trial, the High Court rejected the testimonies of Vishwanath, Chhunni, and Razzak, relying instead on the circumstantial evidence to convict Chhutanni.

4. Separation of Trials for the Two Murders:
The separation of trials for the two murders was challenged by the appellant, suggesting that a joint trial might have led to a different outcome. The learned Sessions Judge separated the trials to avoid objections to a joint trial, given that the murders occurred at different places. The High Court considered both cases on their merits and found no failure of justice due to the separate trials.

5. Circumstantial Evidence Against the Appellant:
The High Court relied on circumstantial evidence to convict Chhutanni in the first trial. The key circumstantial evidence included the appellant decoying Chhanga from his father's house, the similarity in the injuries and the weapon used in both murders, and the recovery of a bloodstained gandasa from the appellant's house. The High Court noted that the similarities in the modus operandi of the two murders were too significant to be coincidental.

6. Motive for the Murders:
The motive for the murders was a crucial factor in both trials. The appellant had a strong motive to kill both his wife and her paramour, Chhanga, due to the illicit intimacy between them, which disgraced him in the eyes of the villagers. The execution of a will in favor of Gunga and Chhanga and the agreement to share Gunga were seen as pretenses to lull the victims into security. The High Court found that the motive and the premeditated plan to get rid of both victims were evident in the appellant's actions.

Conclusion:
Both appeals were dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions and sentences, including the death sentence for Chhutanni, based on the reliable testimonies of eye-witnesses in the second trial and the compelling circumstantial evidence in the first trial. The separation of trials was deemed appropriate, and the strong motive for the murders was a significant factor in affirming the judgments.