43 years later, Allahabad High Court finds husband guilty of killing his wife

The Allahabad High Court recently convicted a man for the murder of his wife in 1982 [State v Awadhesh Kumar and Ors].

The conviction came 43 years after the incident, with the Court overturning the trial court’s 1984 decision to acquit the accused.

It sentenced the main accused Awadhesh Kumar along with co-accused Mata Prasad to life imprisonment for the murder of Kusuma Devi. The Court directed the accused to surrender before the authorities within two weeks.

Two other accused in the case died during the pendency of appeal filed by the State against their acquittal.

As pert the prosecution, the victim was killed by her husband and three others in connection with his alleged illicit relationship with his younger brother’s wife. The incident happened on August 6, 1982.

Two witnesses later deposed that the victim was held down by the accused and throttled under the pretext of “driving out a ghost.” Her body was hurriedly burnt the same night.

In the verdict passed on September 25, the Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Harvir Singh called it a classic case of blind faith.

“The instant case is a classic case of blind faith and unfortunate realities of our times still prevalent in remote areas in different culture based on superstition and belief just to bring good fortune and to appease the Gods, which in our opinion, shocks the conscience of the civilized society and is to be condemned by one and all, to curb such social evils.”

On merits, the Court found the prosecution witnesses in their testimony had corroborated the police case in all material particulars, except minor contradictions here and there. 

However, the Court said that the trial court on absolutely flimsy and non-existing grounds had discarded their testimony by holding that they were not reliable witnesses at all primarily on the ground that police had not taken possession of a torch with which they had witnessed the incident. 

“However, when we go through, the testimony of the said witnesses regarding the said factum, we find that both the witnesses P.W.-2 and P.W.-3, in their testimony, has candidly stated that the said incident was witnessed by them in torch light and the said torch is still available at his house,” the bench said.

The Court opined that defence cannot gain any benefit of the police not having taken possession of the torch. It also did not agree with the trial court’s view that the witnesses’ testimony stood falsified since they had not lodged any report after the incident.

“It is not necessary that every person, who has seen a crime, must take the law to recourse, it is the aggrieved party, that brings law into motion, and a witness can adduce the evidence and can testify the testimony. Even the said finding recorded by the trial court is patently perverse and illegal.”

The Court also noted that immediately after the victim’s death, the accused took her dead body and burnt it without even informing the police and the relatives of the deceased. This disposal of the dead body in a most hurried and hasty manner with an intention to screen themselves from legal punishment speaks much of their unusual conduct pointing towards their guilt, it said.

In conclusion, the Court said that judgment of acquittal by the trial court suffered from patent perversity as it failed to consider material evidence on record.

“Consequently, the Govt. Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court recording the finding of acquittal against the accused-respondents is set aside and both the surviving accused-respondents Awadhesh Kumar and Mata Prasad are liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and also under Section 201 IPC and are sentenced for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 20,000/- each under Section 302/34 IPC and for a period of three years with fine of Rs. 5000/- each under Section 201 IPC, however, both the sentences to run concurrently,” the Court ordered.

Advocate Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal represented the State of UP.

Advocates Kumar Dhananjay and Rajiv Kumar Tripathi represented the accused.

[Read Judgment]