The Supreme Court has directed an accused to surrender before the Trial Court saying that the murder was committed in a gruesome manner and that it was a daylight murder with a direct eye witness.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal held, “It has come in evidence that the deceased had fallen on ground after one blow of axe by Malkhan but still the other accused collectively assaulted him. It is corroborated from the Post Mortem Report. They even beheaded him and threw his severed head at a nearby place. The manner in which murder of the deceased was committed was gruesome. This shows their intention and criminal bent of mind. It was a daylight murder with direct eye witness account. … The appellant was released on bail by this court vide order dated 11.7.2014. He should surrender before the trial court within two weeks from today to undergo the remaining period of his sentence.”

The Bench said that the argument that the son himself had committed the murder of the deceased to usurp the property is merely out of frustration and that he was living with the deceased whereas the accused party had a grudge that they had been deprived of their share in the property.

Advocate Sunil Kumar Verma appeared on behalf of the accused/appellant while Advocate Krishnanand Pandeya appeared on behalf of the State/respondent.

Brief Facts -

An appeal was filed impugning the judgment of the Allahabad High Court vide which the conviction and sentence of the accused were upheld with regard to the incident that took place in 1982 at about 3.10 p.m. The Trial Court convicted the three accused persons under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and such a judgment was upheld by the High Court.

The case of the prosecution was that the son of the deceased, his grandson, along with one more person committed the murder and the reason for the fight was a property dispute. On an objection raised by the deceased to cutting their crops, the accused struck a blow on his neck with his axe and when the deceased fell down, all three accused started inflicting blows on the deceased as a result of which he died.

The Supreme Court in the above context observed, “The motive of crime was clearly established. It was that the deceased Durga had not given any share in his property to the appellant and his father Malkhan. The statement made by Mullu, PW-1, son of the deceased, who is eye witness to the offence, had withstood the test of cross-examination. … There is no document placed on record to substantiate the plea that there was any dispute in which accused, Malkhan had appeared as a witness. PW-2, Phula is also an eye-witness of the incident. She also corroborated what was stated by PW-1. There was no variation in the statements made by them.”

The Court, therefore, noted that no case is made for interference in the appeal and that there is no error in the judgment of the High Court. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title- Kallu v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Click here to read/download the Judgment