PURAN CHANDRA PANT Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2012-4-114
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on April 17,2012

Puran Chandra Pant Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Barin Ghosh, C.J. - (1.) THE first information report in the instant case was lodged by the appellant on 5th August, 2000 alleging that, at around 08:30 P.M., on 3rd August 2000, while quarrelling with his wife, he hit his wife with his shoes, when his wife fell on the charpoy (cot), where after he ascertained that his wife has died. In the first information report it was stated that he is the Head Clerk of Government Intermediate College, Gangolihat and, he has already informed the Principal, a lecturer and other persons associated with the said college that his wife has died due to illness and, accordingly, he expects that they will come to visit him and at that time they will come to learn about the true state of affairs and, as such before they can come and lodge the first information report, he has come to the police station for lodging the first information report. After investigation into the first information report, a charge sheet was filed where it was alleged that the appellant is guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, inasmuch as, it was the appellant who murdered his wife. In the charge sheet, it was alleged that the appellant is also guilty of an offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, inasmuch as, as it appears to us, he gave informations relating to the death of his wife knowing that such informations are false. On the basis of the said charge sheet, charges were framed when however, no charge was framed for an offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The only charge that was framed against the appellant was for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In course of trial the inquest report as well as the postmortem report were proved. In the inquest report it was stated that the death was caused by the appellant. The witnesses to the inquest report duly accepted the fact that it was the appellant, who caused the death of the deceased. Since, no one witnessed the manner of causing the death, no prosecution witness deposed in that regard. In the postmortem report, it was indicated that the deceased received four injuries on her face, lip and head and two ribcage bone injuries. The postmortem report opined that the cause of the death was ante mortem injuries. When the case of the prosecution was put to the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant stated that the police obtained the first information report from him; that the deceased received injuries from a fallen log; and that the death was an accidental death. It was however not contended by the appellant that, the death did not take place on 3rd August 2000. At the same time, the appellant could not give any reason why on 5th August 2000, for the first time, he spoke about the death which had taken place on 3rd August 2000.
(2.) FROM the evidence brought on record by the prosecution it appears that without permission on 4th and 5th August 2000, the appellant did not attend his duties in the collage and, accordingly, the Principal of the college through a peon of the college, summoned the appellant on 5th August 2000. It has also come on record that on 5th August 2000, the appellant handed over a letter to the said peon of the college stating therein that, his wife has died due to illness and, as such he could not attend to his duties in the college on 4th and 5th August 2000. The appellant in answer to questions under Section 313 Cr.P.C. did not question that part of the evidence. If that part of the evidence, which is undisputed, is read with the first information report, the irresistible conclusion would be that after having had attended his office on 3rd August 2000, when the appellant returned to his home, he had a quarrel with his wife, whereupon he used his shoes on his wife and, as a result while the wife of the appellant received certain injuries caused by shoe -beating, she also received some injury by falling on the charpoy and, that caused her death around 08:30 P.M. on 3rd August 2000. The moment the appellant realized that his wife is no more the appellant became numb. He did not attend his office on 4th and 5th of August 2000. On 5th August 2000, when the peon came to the house of the appellant, searching for him, the appellant had to give a reason for not attending to his office on 4th and 5th August 2000. The only reason that could be given by the appellant was the death of his wife. He gave that information, but with that added that, the death has been caused due to illness. Because such information was given, the appellant apprehended that the Principal, Lecturer and others associated with the college will immediately turn on to his house and, by looking at the dead body, will realize what has happened. In those circumstances, the appellant went to the police station, before others could come to the police station for the purpose of lodging a first information report. In that background, he lodged the first information report and confessed the extent of his involvement in the death of his wife.
(3.) NO sooner the first information report was lodged, the appellant was arrested. Appellant remained in custody since 5th August 2000 and, continued to remain so while the trial was on and, even during the pendency of the appeal.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.