JAIPAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
LAWS(SC)-2002-10-41
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
October 01,2002
JAIPAL
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
ANANT CHINTAMAN LAGU VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]RAGHAV PRAPANNA TRIPATHI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
PHINO VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
SHARAD BIRDHICHAND SARDA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
BHUPINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
SMT. KRISHNA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2011-11-210] [REFERRED TO]GURDAS SINGH VS. AVTAR SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-7-98] [REFERRED TO]
THAKOR SEDHAJI RAVAJI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2008-7-494] [REFERRED TO]
NAVISHCHANDRA @ NAVESHCHANDRA YADAV, S/O VISHWANATH YADAV VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH POLICE STATION, PENDRA [LAWS(CHH)-2019-8-48] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2007-7-29] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-10-118] [REFERRED TO]
ASHWANI KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(DLH)-2016-9-160] [REFERRED]
JASHWANTBHAI MERVANBHAI KUKANA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2010-11-57] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF H.P. VS. SAMIR SOOD [LAWS(HPH)-2016-3-12] [REFERRED TO]
RAJBIR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-2022-8-80] [REFERRED TO]
SURJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2011-6-47] [REFERRED TO]
MANUBHAI BHANDUBHAI PARMAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2003-7-75] [REFERRED TO]
ANITA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2010-3-129] [REFERRED TO]
BABLI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-4-251] [REFERRED TO]
RASHPAL SINGH AND OTHERS VS. RIMPI AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2015-9-163] [REFERRED]
RANJU DEVI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2007-11-18] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2009-11-187] [REFERRED TO]
BHERU LAL VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
ATULKUMAR VIKASCHANDRA VAJPAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2007-9-28] [REFERRED TO]
RAMNARAYAN SHIVRAM KEVAT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2010-10-278] [REFERRED TO]
BASHEER PALLIYALI VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-7-260] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER [LAWS(SC)-2020-12-5] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U. P. VS. BRIJESH [LAWS(ALL)-2022-2-87] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF H.P. VS. AJAY CHADDA ALIAS AJU AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-4-103] [REFERRED TO]
SIKANDAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-2-208] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH @ RAJU RAMRAJ PASI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2007-12-176] [REFERRED]
RAMESHBHAI PITHABHAI GARASIYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2011-12-193] [REFERRED TO]
HARSING ALIAS SURSINGBHAI CHHITUBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2009-2-202] [REFERRED TO]
RAJVEER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2010-2-52] [REFERRED TO]
SUSILA VS. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2019-11-79] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
R. C. Lahoti, J. -
(1.)The accused-appellant stands convicted under S. 302, I.P.C. for murdering by poisoning his own wife Prakash Devi and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default to further undergo R.I. for 2 years. The case rests on circumstantial evidence.
(2.)Prakash Devi died an unnatural death on 7-8-1997 at about 4.50 p.m. About 15 years before his death she was married with the accused. The couple lived happily and peacefully for about 3-4 years. In 1986 they developed some differences leading to bickerings and strained relationship in marriage. The appellant was serving as a school teacher. It is alleged that he needed some money to construct a house and Sheotaj, P.W. 4 the father of Prakash Devi employed as Sub-Inspector of Police, had obliged the son-in-law by giving a sum of Rs. 50,000/- of his own and another sum of Rs. 30,000/- through his son. This obligation too failed to restore matrimonial harmony in the couple. The wife initiated proceedings for recovery of maintenance under S. 125, Cr. P.C. while the husband filed a suit seeking dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce. On 14-3-1997 the husband, i.e., the accused-appellant lost in his suit. He preferred an appeal in the High Court. On 16-7-1997 the matter was compromised with the intervention of elders of the village. As per settlement the wife was to join the husband which she failed to do.
(3.)The prosecution further alleges that some 3 or 4 days prior to the death of Prakash Devi her brother Virender Singh had come to Narnaul where the accused met him and directed him to send Prakash Devi to join with him.
(2.)Prakash Devi died an unnatural death on 7-8-1997 at about 4.50 p.m. About 15 years before his death she was married with the accused. The couple lived happily and peacefully for about 3-4 years. In 1986 they developed some differences leading to bickerings and strained relationship in marriage. The appellant was serving as a school teacher. It is alleged that he needed some money to construct a house and Sheotaj, P.W. 4 the father of Prakash Devi employed as Sub-Inspector of Police, had obliged the son-in-law by giving a sum of Rs. 50,000/- of his own and another sum of Rs. 30,000/- through his son. This obligation too failed to restore matrimonial harmony in the couple. The wife initiated proceedings for recovery of maintenance under S. 125, Cr. P.C. while the husband filed a suit seeking dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce. On 14-3-1997 the husband, i.e., the accused-appellant lost in his suit. He preferred an appeal in the High Court. On 16-7-1997 the matter was compromised with the intervention of elders of the village. As per settlement the wife was to join the husband which she failed to do.
(3.)The prosecution further alleges that some 3 or 4 days prior to the death of Prakash Devi her brother Virender Singh had come to Narnaul where the accused met him and directed him to send Prakash Devi to join with him.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.