Ram had become divided from his father about 4 years due to the relations between the Ram Bharosey and his father were not cordial, that there were frequenty quarrels between them resulting in a partition as well as the differences continued even thereafter. Hence he was living apart in another house separated from his father by a gonad bitter feelings existed between Manna and his son Ram Bharosey since long thought in the house in which Manna also was living.
One day in
the early morning it was still dark, Ram was coming down the roof of his
house. He went inside the Bhusa Kothri.
As soon as he came out of the Bhusa Kothri, he had a bath on the 'nabdan' after
becoming naked. Later he wore the same dhoti which he was wearing before taking
his bath. Then Manna and Kailasha were found dead lying amidst blood with
multiple injuries on their bodies but the deceased had been murdered the night.
The Ram Bhrosey was missing few day he was arrested while going to a village
Gonda and brought back to Police Station that time he was wearing cloths dhoti
which was blood-stained. On being interrogated by the Ram took him to his
house, went into the 'bhusa kothri', brought out from it three silver
ornaments, a taria a pachhela and kare, and a gandasa and delivered them to
him. They were all blood-stained.
The ornaments, the taria, pachhela and kare by the
Ram was evidence that he had committed murder, that that would at the most
raise only a presumption that the Ram had committed theft of those ornaments,
or he had received them after they were stolen with the knowledge that they
were stolen and that it did not necessarily the inference that he had committed
murder. The only evidence against Ram Bharosey is that the recovery of stolen
property as well as thinking that the position may point to that the theft and
the murder must have been committed at the similar time as well as it is not
safe to pull the inferring that the person who is Ram Bharosey in possession of
the stolen property was the murderer. There was no another circumstance to
connect the Ram Bharosey with participation in the murder. The Court had to examine
the facts and circumstances established and determine whether they are such as
to fix the Ram with the guilt of murder.
The conclusion was that Ram firstly on the ground
that inadmissible evidence had been admitted and that that had vitiated the
finding and secondly on the ground that there had been miss direction in the
judgement of certain pieces of evidence as well as on position state that they
were not included there was not adequate legal evidence to convict the Ram
Bharosey.
The Serologist reported that the blood on the
pachhela had broken as well as could not be prove the identified that on the
taria, kare and gandasa was human blood. The dhoti which the Ram Bharose was
wearing at the time of his arrest was Blood-stained was proof that he had
participated in the crime. Ram Bharosey could be convicted on purely
circumstantial evidence, and that that could not be said of the bloodstains on
the dhoti, because the Ram Bharosey told when examined under Section 342 of the
Cr.P.C. that, affected with deep sorrow, then he fell on the dead body of his
father hence the dhoti became blood-stained. The charge against the Ram
Bharosey was that on the night of he murdered his father, Manna as well his
stepmother, Kailasha. There was no clear as well as no direct evidence
connecting him with the offence. The only question is whether the
circumstantial evidence in the case is adequate to sustain the conviction
according to of Indian Evidence Act.
The Ram Bharosey under Section 302, Indian Penal
Code, and the Courts has held that evidence, though fact was adequate to
convict him. This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of
Allahabad. After confirming the conviction of the Ram Bharose under Section
302, Indian Penal Code as well as the sentence of death passed on him by the
Sessions Court, Unnao.
The Supreme Court confirmed his conviction under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and the sentence of death passed on him, and dismissed the appeal.
Post a Comment