Ram Bharosey v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 704

RAM BHAROSEY V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Whether the deposition made by the wife be admissible if it was communication made during marriage under Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Whether the circumstantial evidence in the case is sufficient to sustain the conviction?

For a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence, the evidence must be strong enough to exclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence and must point conclusively to the accused’s guilt.

Ram Bharosey was convicted of murdering his father, Manna, and stepmother, Kailasha, on the night of May 26, 1952, following a longstanding family dispute.
The bodies, found with multiple injuries, were discovered on May 27, 1952, by the village chaukidar, who reported the incident.
When police investigated, they found Bharosey missing, but he was soon arrested while en route to another village.
At the time of arrest, he wore a blood-stained dhoti. During interrogation, Bharosey led officers to his house and produced blood-stained silver ornaments and a gandasa (sharp weapon).
All items except one tested positive for human blood. His wife testified seeing him descend from the roof on the morning of the murders and behaving suspiciously.
The trial court convicted him of murder based on circumstantial evidence.
The Allahabad High Court upheld this decision, and the Supreme Court, upon appeal, confirmed the conviction and death sentence, finding the cumulative evidence sufficient for a murder conviction.

The Supreme Court held that the wife’s deposition was not inadmissible under Section 122 of the Evidence Act, as it referred to the appellant’s acts and conduct rather than any communication made by him to his wife.
The Court held that if no other circumstances connected the accused with the murder, it would examine the facts and circumstances of the case to determine if they sufficiently fixed the appellant with the guilt of murder.
The presence of blood stains on the jewelry, along with the appellant being seen descending from the roof in the early hours and the recovery of a blood-stained gandasa (weapon) from him, was sufficient, in the Court’s opinion, to connect him to the offense of murder.
The Court further noted ample evidence that the appellant’s relationship with his father was strained, with frequent quarrels leading to a partition and ongoing differences, which the lower courts had accepted as establishing a motive for the crime.
Consequently, the Supreme Court confirmed the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and upheld the sentence of death.