Chhutanni vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case Number: Not extracted

Decision Date: 6 April 1955

Coram: Sinha, J.

In the matter titled Chhutanni versus The State of Uttar Pradesh, decided on 3 November 1955, the Supreme Court of India recorded a judgment authored by Justice Sinha. The appellant, identified as Chhutanni, had been convicted and sentenced to death in two distinct criminal trials, one for the murder of his wife, Gunga, and the other for the murder of his cousin, Chhanga. Medical evidence placed Gunga’s age at approximately forty years, while the defence asserted that she was closer to fifty years old; the latter estimate appeared more credible because Gunga was the mother of three daughters, all of whom were married, and the second daughter was married to Gokaran Pasi and had a child estimated to be five years of age. The defence also alleged that Gokaran, the son-in-law, participated with his father-in-law, the appellant, in the killings of both Gunga and Chhanga. Regarding the second victim, Chhanga, the prosecution maintained that he was about twenty-eight years old, whereas the defence claimed he was around twenty years of age. It was evident that Chhutanni, having no biological son, had brought Chhanga into his household not merely as a servant but as a member of the family, although his father declared that Chhanga was employed in the appellant’s service. An illicit relationship allegedly developed between Chhanga and Gunga, leading Gunga, several months prior to the occurrence dated 17 January 1954, to leave her husband’s protection and reside with Chhanga. The elderly appellant, finding himself without a domestic assistant, is said to have persuaded his wife and Chhanga to return to his home by promising to bequeath his property to both of them and to share his wife with Chhanga. In accordance with that promise, he executed a will dated 3 November 1953, in which he allotted his estate to both Gunga and Chhanga. It was further alleged that he alternated sharing his wife’s bed with Chhanga on successive nights.

On the morning of 18 January 1954, at approximately seven o’clock, the father of Chhanga, identified as Mansukhi, lodged a First Information Report at the Biswan police station in Sitapur district, which was recorded in his own words. The report succinctly encapsulated the prosecution’s case and is reproduced as follows: “I live in village Dhaukalganj. My son Chhanga was in the service of Chhutanni Pasi of the village, son of Maiku for the last three years. Chhanga contracted illicit intimacy with the wife of Chhutanni. Three months ago he abducted her away. A fortnight after the abduction Chhutanni brought back his wife and my son after beating and said to Chhanga, ‘you live in my house as master. My wife shall cook food and both of us shall eat. She would live one night with me and one night with you in your house (turn by turn). I shall have all my property bequeathed in your favour and in favour of my wife.’ Chhutanni executed a will: in favour of both in the Panchayat of Dhaukalganj. Whatever Chhutanni had said the same was being acted upon. Yesterday one pahar after nightfall Chhutanni took Chhanga from”

According to the first information report, the informant explained that his son Vishwanath had gone to his Bambiha field in the direction of Murkatta when he heard his other son Chhanga shouting, “Run, Chhutanni and Gokaran, etc. are killing me.” Vishwanath ran to Chhanga and raised an alarm. The report further stated that Lalji Sonar, Razzaq Pathan and Chhunni Kalwar, who were in the village checking their fields, also ran up, raised the alarm and witnessed Chhutanni, his son-in-law Gokaran and his brother-in-law Kalika assaulting Chhanga after felling him down and then fleeing the scene. The report noted that Chhutanni was holding a gandasa. When the informant observed that Chhanga’s neck was cut, that he was bleeding and unable to speak, Vishwanath sent for the informant through Lalji Sonar. The informant, together with his son Chiranju and Lalji Sonar, proceeded to Murkatta where they found Chhanga’s body with a cut neck and dead. The cap belonging to Chhutanni was found lying at the same spot and was collected. The informant recorded the statement, “I file the same.” He further recounted that after bringing the corpse to the door of Chhutanni, Ram Narain Brahman, Bhagwan Din Brahman, Duiney Pasi and other villagers met him at the door and told him, “Chhutanni and Gokaran ran away after cutting Manjhli, wife of Chhutanni. On the alarm being raised we and others came up and saw the occurrence and on our arrival and reprimanding Chhutanni etc., they ran away by jumping over the wall.” The report added that a gandasa and a scythe smeared with blood were lying near the corpse. The informant stated that he, together with the chaukidar, lodged a report after leaving the corpse of Chhanga in the charge of Chiranju and the wife of Chhutanni in the charge of Chheddu Bisardar. He complained against Chhutanni Pasi of the village, Gokaran Pasi of Tendwa and Kalika Pasi of Lachhmanpur for killing his son Chhanga. The report was read back to him, he affirmed its correctness and affixed his thumb impression. The FIR, while primarily addressing the murder of the informant’s son, also contained information concerning the murder of the appellant’s wife. It recorded the time of the occurrence as “one pahar after nightfall,” which corresponds to the period between eight and nine o’clock in the evening. Because the information was lodged by an illiterate person belonging to the Pasi caste and because Chhanga was decoyed around that time, the actual occurrence might have taken place shortly thereafter.

The investigation report noted that the Sub-Inspector of Police reached the scene, which was located eleven miles from the police station, at approximately eleven a.m. Upon arrival, the Sub-Inspector forwarded the dead bodies for post-mortem examination, secured the blood-stained soil from the field of Chandra Bhal where Chhanga was alleged to have been murdered, and seized the gandasa (Exhibit II) and the hasia (Exhibit III) from the barotha, the entrance hall of Chhutanni’s house. He also prepared site plans of the two locations where the incidents occurred. Following the police investigation, the three individuals named in the first information report were identified as the persons against whom the complaint had been made.

When the three accused were first presented before the Magistrate, the enquiry was conducted as a preliminary step before their commitment to the Court of Session. Up to the point of commitment, the investigation and charges were treated as a single proceeding. After the Magistrate issued a commitment order, the learned Sessions Judge received the order and determined that the matters should be tried in separate proceedings. Consequently, the murder charge relating to the death of Chhanga was assigned to Sessions Trial Number 103 of 1954, which was presided over by the District and Sessions Judge of Sitapur; this trial is referred to as the first trial. The murder charge concerning Gunga, also known as Manjhli, was allotted to Sessions Trial Number 147 of 1954, which was conducted by the Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge of Sitapur and is referred to as the second trial. The judgment rendered in the first trial was dated fourteen October 1954, whereas the judgment in the second trial was dated eighteen December 1954.

The post-mortem examination of the body of Chhanga revealed three incised wounds located on the front of the neck and on the left and right sides of the lower jaw. Internal examination showed that the middle ribs on both sides had been fractured and that the heart was ruptured. The examining doctor testified that death resulted from shock and haemorrhage caused by the division of the main vessels of the neck by a sharp cutting weapon, and that the pattern of injuries could have been produced by the gandasa shown as Exhibit II. He further explained that the rib fractures could have occurred if a person applied pressure to the chest while sitting on it. The post-mortem of Gunga disclosed eight incised wounds, the most severe of which were on the front of the neck, dividing the trachea, cutting the main vessels on both sides, and lacerating the oesophagus. Additional wounds were present in the neck region. The medical expert concluded that death was due to shock and haemorrhage from the division of the main neck vessels by a sharp-edged cutting instrument, and reiterated that such wounds could have been inflicted by a gandasa similar to Exhibit II.

In the first trial, the accused individuals were identified as Chhutanni, Kalika and Gokaran. Besides the formal evidence presented, the prosecution’s case relied heavily on the direct testimony of three alleged eye-witnesses: Vishwanath, who was the brother of the deceased Chhanga, Chhunni and Razzak, whose statements are recorded on pages five to seven of the trial record. These witnesses testified that on the night of the incident they were guarding their gram and pea crops against the attack of wild animals such as neelgai. Their fields surrounded the field of Chandra Bhal, where the gram crop was standing at the time and where Chhanga was alleged to have been murdered. The witnesses said they arrived at the scene at the precise moment they heard Chhanga’s shrieks, indicating that he was being killed. They reported that they saw Chhutanni seated on the chest of Chhanga, delivering blows with a gandasa, while the other two accused held the victim down by his head and his feet.

In the first trial the three accused were identified as Chhutanni, Kalika and Gokaran. The prosecution’s case rested on the direct testimony of three alleged eye-witnesses—Vishwanath, the brother of the deceased Chhanga; Chhunni; and Razzak—who were recorded in the witness statements as PW 5 to PW 7. According to those witnesses, on the night of the incident they were guarding their grain and pea crops when they heard shrieks from the field of Chandra Bhal, where Chhanga was being attacked. The witnesses claimed to have arrived at the scene at the very moment they heard the cries and observed Chhutanni seated on the chest of the dying victim while delivering blows with a large agricultural tool, a gandasa, to the victim’s neck. The other two accused were said to be holding the victim down by the head and the feet. The learned Sessions Judge gave weight to this direct testimony, found it corroborated by the nature of the injuries exhibited on Chhanga’s body, and noted a strong motive for the accused to remove Chhanga from their way. Consequently, the judge convicted all three under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing Chhutanni to death and imposing life transportation on Kalika and Gokaran.

In the second trial only two of the original accused, namely Chhutanni and Gokaran, were before the court. The learned Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge of Sitapur relied on the testimony of three other alleged eye-witnesses—Ram Narain (PW 3), Bhagwan Din (PW 4) and Dhina (PW 7). These witnesses asserted that Chhutanni struck the victim, identified as Gunga, with gandasa blows while sitting on the victim’s chest, and that Gokaran pressed the victim down. The judge examined every contention raised by the defence seeking to challenge the credibility of those eye-witnesses. After a detailed assessment, the judge concluded that the witnesses were independent and reliable. Accordingly, the judge convicted both accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing Chhutanni to death and Gokaran to life transportation.

Following the convictions and sentences in the first trial, an appeal identified as Criminal Appeal No. 759 of 1954 was filed and heard together with Capital Sentence Reference No. 43 of 1954 by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, comprising Justices Kidwai and Mulla. The learned judges rejected the testimony of the three eye-witnesses—Vishwanath, Chhunni and Razzak—and instead placed reliance on the evidence of Lalji, a person admitted by the prosecution as a witness to the occurrence but examined for the defence. On that basis, the High Court acquitted Kalika and Gokaran and ordered the immediate release of Kalika, though it did not release Gokaran because his conviction and sentence from the second trial were upheld. The appeal of Chhutanni was dismissed and his death sentence confirmed, the court chiefly basing its decision on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances considered against Chhutanni included his alleged deception of Chhanga by luring him away from his father’s house on the pretext of collecting wood, the subsequent discovery of Chhanga’s dead body, and the presence of homicidal injuries on the front part of his neck that were similar in character to injuries on the dead body of Chhutanni’s wife inflicted by the same type of weapon at a comparable time. Additionally, a blood-stained gandasa was recovered, and medical evidence indicated that the weapon could have caused the injuries observed on the deceased. The court noted the striking coincidences in the modus operandi of the two murders, concluding that such parallels could not be regarded as accidental.

On 6 April 1955 the Court delivered its judgment, having heard on the preceding day, 5 April 1955, the appeal against the conviction and sentence ordered by the trial Court in the second trial. The appeal, recorded as Criminal Appeal No. 915 of 1954, was heard together with Capital Sentence Reference No. 10 of 1955 before the same Bench. The learned Judges accepted the testimony of the three eye-witnesses named in the record and found that the appellant possessed a clear motive to commit the offence. They observed that the proximity and opportunity between the victim Chhanga and the woman Gunga, who was roughly twenty years his senior, made an illicit intimacy plausible, and dismissed the appellant’s claim that such a relationship was unbelievable. The fact that Chhanga, although married for four or five years, did not keep regular company with his wife reinforced the prosecution’s suggestion that a clandestine liaison existed between him and Gunga, both of whom met violent deaths in close succession. The Court also concluded that the appellant’s purported execution of a will in favour of the two victims and the alleged agreement to share the woman were mere pretences intended to lull the victims into a false sense of security. Moreover, the Court held that Gokaran, the appellant’s son-in-law, would naturally wish to eliminate the victims because their survival and the standing will would impede his own wife and child from succeeding to the appellant’s property. In full agreement with the findings of the trial Judge, the High Court affirmed the convictions and the sentences imposed on the appellants and dismissed the appeal.

These appeals reached the Supreme Court by way of special leave granted by the Vacation Judge on 18 July 1955. The Court found it appropriate first to dispose of the appeal challenging the conviction and sentence in the second trial concerning the murder of Gunga, because the decision in that appeal would inevitably affect the outcome of the first trial. In both proceedings the appellant, Chhutanni, had been sentenced to death for the two murders. Consequently, if the death sentence from the second trial were to be upheld, the appeal arising from the first trial would become moot, as the appellant was the sole person convicted and sentenced to death by the High Court’s judgment on appeal. The conviction in the second trial rested principally on the testimony of the eye-witnesses Ram Narain (P. W. 3), Bhagwan Din (P. W. 4) and Dhina (P. W. 7). A sketch map prepared by the investigating police officer showed that the residences of these three witnesses were situated in the neighbourhood of the appellant’s house, supporting their capacity to have heard the cries of the woman being attacked inside the house.

Three eyewitnesses lived in the neighbourhood of the house occupied by the appellant, Chhutanni. The lower courts therefore treated those witnesses as competent persons who were in a position to hear the cries of the woman who was being killed inside that house. During their cross-examination, no evidence was produced to show that any of the three witnesses bore animosity toward the appellant that might have induced them to give false testimony. Having examined the eyewitness statements carefully and having accepted them as direct evidence that incriminated the appellant, the Court hearing the appeal on special leave indicated that it would not ordinarily set aside those findings. The counsel for the appellant repeated before this Court the arguments that had been presented to the lower courts for rejecting the direct testimony of the three witnesses, and the Court found that none of those arguments succeeded in establishing a basis for interference with the findings of the lower courts, even assuming that interference was permissible on an appeal by special leave.

The record shows that no question of law was raised, nor was there any suggestion that a defect in the procedural steps had caused a failure of justice, except for a contention that the appellant suffered prejudice because the two murders were tried in separate proceedings. It was submitted that, had all the accused been tried together, the High Court might have rejected the direct testimony of the three eyewitnesses in the same manner as it had done in the other appeal. The Court found that contention to be without substance. Initially, the learned Sessions Judge, exercising abundant caution, ordered separate trials for the two murders in order to avoid objections that could arise from trying both offences together, since the murders occurred at different locations. The Court indicated that it was not necessary at this stage to pronounce on the wisdom of conducting two separate trials. Holding separate trials of the same accused does not contravene the Code of Criminal Procedure, and there was no illegality or irregularity in the Sessions Judge’s decision to conduct two trials, which was viewed as the lesser of two evils. Moreover, the same learned judges heard both appeals in succession and considered the cases against the appellants on their merits. The refusal to rely on the three eyewitnesses in the first trial did not affect the admissibility of the eyewitness testimony examined in the second trial, because the two sets of witnesses testified about two distinct occurrences. Although two of the accused were common to both incidents, the incidents could be described as parts of the same transaction only insofar as the same motive drove the accused. No material was placed before this Court that would lead it to conclude that any failure of justice occurred in the second trial.

In the matter concerning the second trial, the Court observed that no injustice had occurred in that proceeding and consequently ordered that the appeal relating to it be dismissed. The Court therefore concluded that the challenge to the judgment of the second trial could not be sustained and that the order of the lower court remained intact.

Turning to the appeal arising from the first trial, the Court noted that only the appellant identified as Chhutanni had received a death sentence for the murder of his cousin, Chhanga. The Court acknowledged that, if considered in isolation, one could argue that the factual basis relied upon by the High Court in reaching a conviction was not decisive. However, the High Court had identified numerous parallels between the two incidents that resulted in the deaths of the two victims, and the Court held that these similarities dispelled any notion of mere chance. The Court found that the appellant possessed a strong motive to eliminate Chhanga, who had been disgraced in the eyes of the local community. It was the appellant who lured Chhanga on the night of 17-1-1954 under the pretense of fetching wood, after which Chhanga’s body was discovered. The appellant offered no explanation for the disappearance of his companion on that night. In addition, a blood-stained weapon was recovered from the appellant’s residence, and medical testimony indicated that this weapon could have caused the fatal injury. On the basis of the evidence, the Court concluded that the appellant was the principal agent in causing Chhanga’s death, although it was possible that one or two additional persons had assisted, given the victim’s youth and vigor compared with the appellant’s advanced age. The Court deemed it unnecessary to re-examine the cases of the two co-accused who had been acquitted by the High Court. Nonetheless, the Court determined that the appellant’s conduct appeared to be part of a pre-meditated scheme aimed at eliminating both his wife and her paramour. For these reasons, the Court dismissed both appeals.