{"id":93733,"date":"1971-03-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1971-03-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/matru-alias-girish-chandra-vs-state-of-utttar-pradesh-on-3-march-1971"},"modified":"2018-08-21T22:37:31","modified_gmt":"2018-08-21T17:07:31","slug":"matru-alias-girish-chandra-vs-state-of-utttar-pradesh-on-3-march-1971","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/matru-alias-girish-chandra-vs-state-of-utttar-pradesh-on-3-march-1971","title":{"rendered":"Matru Alias Girish Chandra vs State Of Utttar Pradesh on 3 March, 1971"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Matru Alias Girish Chandra vs State Of Utttar Pradesh on 3 March, 1971<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 1050, \t\t 1971 SCR (3) 914<\/div>\n
Author: I Dua<\/div>\n
Bench: Dua, I.D.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMATRU alias GIRISH CHANDRA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF UTTTAR PRADESH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT03\/03\/1971\n\nBENCH:\nDUA, I.D.\nBENCH:\nDUA, I.D.\nREDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN\n\nCITATION:\n 1971 AIR 1050\t\t  1971 SCR  (3) 914\n 1971 SCC  (2)\t75\n\n\nACT:\nCircumstantial evidence-- Weight of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe appellant and two others were charged with the  offences\nof murder of a woman and her three year old son by  brutally\nstabbing  them,\t and theft of cash and\tornaments  from\t the\nhouse  of the deceased.\t The offences were alleged  to\thave\nbeen committed between 10 and 11 a.m.\nAbout six months prior to the occurrence there was a quarrel\nbetween\t the deceased and the wife of the appellant who\t was\nthe next door neighbor during which the deceased received an\ninjury.\t  The  deceased\t wrote about this  incident  to\t her\nfather.\t  On the day of the occurrence when the\t husband  of\nthe  deceased received information of the murder  he  rushed\nhome from his shop and gave information of the occurrence to\nthe  police at about 12.40 p.m. but, as he did\tnot  suspect\nanyone,\t he merely, mentioned the circumstances in which  he\nhad come to know of the murder.\t The appellant was with\t him\ntill the time when the First Information Report was  lodged.\nNext morning one person informed the husband of the deceased\nthat  he  had  seen the appellant and  two  unknown  persons\nentering the house of the deceased at about 10 or 10.30 a.m.\non the previous day and another person gave the\t information\nthat  about  11.00 a.m. he had seen the\t appellant  and\t two\nother  persons coming out of his house.\t The husband of\t the\ndeceased  passed on the information to the police.  By\tthat\ntime  the appellant had disappeared.  Three days  later,  he\nwas  appellant handed.\tOn search of his person a  spectacle\ncase  containing a pair of spectacles and a gold  ring\twere\nrecovered from the folds of his dhoti.\tThe Sessions-  Judge\nfound  the  appellant guilty of murder and  the\t High  Court\nconfirmed  the\tconviction.   The  other  two  accused\twere\nacquitted.\nOn appeal to this Court,\nHELD  : The cumulative effect of circumstantial evidence  in\nthe  present  case  falls short of  the\t test  required\t for\nsustaining  a  conviction.   When proof\t of  guilt  depended\nsolely\ton circumstantial evidence, it was incumbent on\t the\ncourts to properly consider and scruitinise all the material\nfactors and circumstances for determining whether the  chain\nof circumstantial evidence is so complete as to lead to\t the\nonly conclusion of guilt. [928 F-H]\n(1)  Normally  this  Court  does not go\t into  evidence\t and\nappraise it for itself in criminal appeals under Art. 136 of\nthe  Constitution,  because, the Article does not  confer  a\nright  of  appeal.   It\t merely\t clothes  this\tCourt\twith\ndiscretionary  Power to scrutinise and go into the  evidence\nin  special  circumstances in order to satisfy\titself\tthat\ninjustice  has\tnot  been done.\t In  the  present  case\t the\nexceptional  features  were  that  it was  a  case  of\tcir-\ncumstantial  evidence,\tthe  identification  of\t the  stolen\narticles  was unsatisfactory, and the other two accused\t who\nhad  been  charged  along  with\t the  appellant,  had\tbeen\nacquitted. [919 F-G]\n(2)  (a)  The husband of the deceased himself did not  think\nthat the appellant was inimical towards the deceased and  he\ndid not suspect him\n\t\t\t    915\nof  complicity\tin  the\t murder.   The\talleged\t altercation\nbetween the deceased and the appellant's wife did not  leave\nany  serious  impact  on  the mind of  the  husband  of\t the\ndeceased, and the appellant's admitted presence in the house\nof  the\t deceased till the lodging of the  F.I.R.  indicated\nthat relations between them were not hostile or\t unfriendly.\n[921 D-F]\n(b)  The letter written by the deceased to her father  about\nthe  quarrels does not prima facie fall within the   purview\nof S. 32, Indian Evidence Act.\t   But\teven if this  letter\nwere held to be admissible the motive which it Suggested was\nnot  of such a strong and impelling nature as to induce\t the\nmurder of the deceased and her infant child. [927 H, 928  A-\nB]\n(3)  (a)  It  is  unbelievable that the\t appellant  and\t his\ncompanions entered the house of the deceased for the purpose\nof  committing\tmurder\tand theft in broad  day\t light\twhen\npersons\t who  knew him were likely to see him  entering\t the\nhouse.\tThe movements and behavior of the appellant did\t not\nshow  any  abnormality.\t On the contrary, the  behavior\t and\nconduct\t of the appellant, Judged by normal  standards,\t was\nnot  suggestive of his involvement in such a heinous  crime.\nIn  the absence of direct evidence this consideration  could\nnot be ruled out as irrelevant. [922 A-B, D-E,\t  G-H]\n(b)The\t appellant's   conduct\tin   absconding\t  does\t not\nnecessarily lead to the inference of a guilty mind.  Even an\ninnocent  person  may feel panicky and try to  evade  arrest\nwhen  wrongly suspected of a grave crime.   Normally  courts\nare  disinclined  to attach much importance to\tthe  act  of\nabsconding. of the accused, treating it as a very small item\nin the evidence for sustaining conviction. [928 B-D]\n(4)  The  evidence 'regarding the recovery of  the  articles\nfrom  the appellant's possession at the time of\t his  arrest\nwas not acceptable without proper corroboration from a\tmore\ndisinterested and dependable source.  Also, the ring said to\nhave  been  recovered  was of a\t common\t design\t and  easily\navailable. [926 A-C]\n(5)  The identification of the ring was also unsatisfactory.\nIdentification tests do not constitute substantive evidence.\nThey  are  primarily meant for the purpose  of\thelping\t the\ninvestigating  agency with an assurance that their  progress\nwith  the  investigation into the offence  is-proceeding  on\nright lines. [192O F-G, 926 G-H]\nIn  the present case, although the articles  were  recovered\nthree days after the occurrence the test identification\t was\nheld by the Magistrate nearly four months later.  The reason\nfor the delay was suggested that similar articles had to  be\nprocured for mixing up with the articles recovered; ,but  in\nfact  the delayed identification had been held in  a  highly\nunsatisfactory\tmanner, in that the articles mixed  up\twere\ndissimilar. [926 C-D]\n(6)  The  weapon with which the crime was committed was\t not\nrecovered, and, no stains of blood were noticed by anyone on\nthe, appellants clothes even though he was with the  husband\nof  the deceased right up to the lodging of the\t F.I.R.\t and\neven accompanied him for that purpose. [928 E-F]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 165  of
\n1968.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nFebruary  8  1968 of the Allahabad High\t Court\tin  Criminal
\nAppeal No. 2305 of 1965.\n<\/p>\n
916<\/span><\/p>\n
A.   S.\t R. Chari J. P. Goyal and G. S. Chatterjee, for\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
O. P. Rana, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nDua, J. In this appeal by special leave the appellant  Matru
\nalias Girish Chandra challenges his conviction under S.\t 302
\nread  with  s. 34, I.P.C. and under S. 382, I.P.C.  For\t the
\nformer offence he was sentenced to imprisonment for life and
\nfor  the  latter to rigorous imprisonment  for\tfour  years.
\nBoth the sentences were directed to ran ‘concurrently.
\nThe  appellant, along with Mohar Singh and Saheb Singh\twere
\ncommitted  to the court of Sessions for trial  for  offences
\nunder  ss.  302\/34, I.P.C. for the murder of  Smt.   Omwati,
\nwife  of Ram Chander (P.W. 1) and of their three  years\t old
\nson Sua Lal and under s. 382, I.P.C. for committing theft of
\ncash,  armaments  and  other things from the  house  of\t the
\ndeceased.  The offences were alleged to have been  committed
\non  May 29, 1964 between 10 and II a.m. in the\ttownship  of
\nShamsabad.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellant\tand the deceased were admittedly  next\tdoor
\nneighbors in Mohalla Chaukhanda at the relevant-time.\tRain
\nChandra\t had two sons, the elder one Ramji being  six  years
\nold.   On the day of occurrence at about 9 a.m. Ram  Chandra
\nleft  his  house for his shop about  three,  furlongs  away,
\nleaving behind in the house his wife and two sons.  About an
\nhour  later Omwati sent the elder son to the shop with\tsome
\nfood  for his father.  A few minutes later Ram Chandra\tsent
\nto  his\t house some vegetables through his  servant.   After
\nsometime  his servant returned to the shop and informed\t Ram
\nChandra\t that  his wife was lying in the house\tin  pool  of
\nblood.\tAfter calling his nephew to look after the shop\t Ram
\nChandra\t immediately  went to his house and found  his\twife
\nlying dead in the courtyard near the well whereas his 3 year
\nold  son  Sua  Lal was lying dead in a\troom  close  to\t the
\ncourtyard.   The box inside the room also appeared  to\thave
\nbeen opened and its contents pilfered.\tSome gold and silver
\nomaments  which his deceased wife was wearing  that  morning
\nwere  found  missing.\tInformation of\tthe  occurrence\t was
\nlodged at the police station Shamsabad at about 12.40 in the
\nafternoon.   But  as  he did not suspect  anyone  he  merely
\nstated\tthe  circumstances in which he came to know  of\t the
\noccurrence  and found his wife and child dead in the  house.
\nIt was stated in the report that Rs. 200\/- in cash and three
\nornaments  including  a\t ring had been\ttaken  away  by\t the
\nmiscreants.   Matru,  appellant,  who  was  the\t next\tdoor
\nneighbour  came\t to  Ram Chandra’s house  before  the  first
\ninformation report was lodged and remained with him till the
\n\t\t\t    917<\/span>
\nreport\twas made to the police.\t The  investigating  officer
\nfound  blood  at both the places where the two\tdead  bodies
\nwere  lying.   The  blood-stained and  unstained  earth\t was
\ncollected  and sealed.\tNext morning it appears Chhotey\t Lal
\n(P.W.  2)  and Nathu Lal (P.W. 10) went to see\tRam  Chandra
\nbetween\t 6,  and  7 a.m. Chhotey Lal informed  him  that  he
\n(Chhotey  Lal)\thad  seen  Matra  and  two  unknown  persons
\nentering  Ram Chandra’s house at about 10 or 10.30  a.m.  on
\nthe previous day and Nathu Lal gave him the information that
\nat  about 11 a.m. on the day of the occurrence he  had\tseen
\nMatru and. two other persons coming out of his house.  These
\nwitnesses at that time did not attach any importance to\t the
\nthree persons entering and after some time coming out of Ram
\nChandra’s  house.  However, later when they leamt about\t the
\ndouble murder in Ram Chandra’s house between 1 0 and II a.m.
\nthey thought that they should tell Ram Chandra what they had
\nseen  on  the  morning of May 29 at about the  time  of\t the
\noccurrence.\n<\/p>\n
It  is\tsaid that about six months prior to  the  occurrence
\nrelations  between Omwati and the wife-of Matru,  appellant,
\nhad  become strained.  One of Matru’s daughter\twas  married
\nand  the other was of marriageable age but both were  living
\nwith their parents.  Omwati suspected that some ‘people used
\nfrequently to visit Matru’s house without any cogent  reason
\nand also gave currency to this fact.  Matru’s wife naturally
\nresented this.\tAbout six months prior to, the occurrence an
\nincident is stated to have taken place which gave rise to  a
\nquarrel\t between the two women.\t Matru’s wife threw a  stone
\nwhich struck Omwati on her head.  Ram Chandra did not attach
\nmuch importance to this incident considering it to a  matter
\nof  common  occurrence amongst womenfolk.   Later,  however,
\nOmwati\tseems  to have told her husband that  she  had\tbeen
\nthreatened  by\tMatru’s wife with  dire\t consequences.\t Ram
\nChandra\t advised  his wife not to have anything to  do\twith
\nMatru’s\t wife.\t After\tthe occurrence,\t the  appellant,  it
\nappears, remained in his house till the inquest was over but
\nthereafter  he seems to have disappeared.  On receiving\t in-
\nformation about Matru and his two companions going into\t his
\nhouse  and  coming out a short while later round  about\t the
\ntime   of   the\t occurrence,  Ram   Chandra   informed\t the
\ninvestigating  officer what he had been told by Chhotey\t Lal
\nand  Nathu Lal.\t The Sub-Inspector searched the\t appellant’s
\nhouse at about 9 a.m. on May 30, but he was not found there,
\nnor  was  any  incriminating thing found in  the  house.   A
\nsearch for the appellant was made but he could not be traced
\ntill  three days later.\t On June 1, when  the  investigating
\nofficer learnt that Matru was likely to go to his village to
\nsee  his  children he was apprehended and on search  of\t his
\nperson a spectacle case containing a pair of spectacles\t and
\na  gold\t ring  was recovered from the folds  of\t his  dhoti.
\nComplicity
\n918<\/span>
\nof  Mohar  Singh  because known to  the\t police\t on  Matru’s
\ninterrogation.\t But Mohar Singh could not be arrested\ttill
\nSeptember 13, 1964.  When arrested, he offered to recover  a
\nshawl,\tone of ,the stolen properties, which he had sold  to
\nDarbarilal   (P.W.  17)\t for  Rs.  70\/-.   The\t shawl\t was
\naccordingly   recovered\t at  Mohar  Singh’s  instance\tfrom
\nDarbarilal.  Saheb Singh was also arrested on suspicion.
\nThe Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of murder\t and
\nalso  of an offence under S. 382, I.P.C. Since there was  no
\nevidence  of  specific\tpart played  by\t the  appellant\t the
\nextreme penalty was not imposed on him.\t As observed earlier
\nunder S. 382, I.P.C. he was sentenced to four years rigorous
\nimprisonment.\tMohar  Singh was, acquitted of\tthe  offence
\nunder  S.  302\/ 34, I.P.C. as also of the offence  under  S.
\n382, I.P.C. He was, however, convinced for an offence  under
\nS.  411, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous  imprisonment\t for
\ntwo  years.   Saheb  Singh was given benefit  of  doubt\t and
\nacquitted.   The only evidence against Saheb Singh was\tthat
\nof his by Nathu Lal (P.W. 10) which was not corroborated  by
\nany   other  evidence  and  identification  alone   in\t the
\ncircumstances was considered unsafe for convicting him.
\nBoth  the convicts appealed to the High Court.\t That  Court
\ncame to the conclusion that Matru had a motive to commit the
\ncrime and that Chhotey Lal (P.W. 2) and Nathu Lal (P.W.\t 10)
\nwere  reliable\twitnesses  and that  the  investigation\t was
\nneither tainted nor unfair to the accused.  The statement of
\nRam  Chandra  (P.W.  1), husband of the\t deceased,  and\t his
\nconduct\t throughout  also  appeared  to\t be  quite   strains
\nforward.   The ring, which had been recovered  from  Matru’s
\npossession at the time of his arrest was held to be the\t one
\nwhich  the  deceased was wearing when her husband  left\t the
\nhouse  in the morning of the occurrence.This was  considered
\nto   be\t a  very  incriminating\t circumstance.\t All   these
\ncircumstances  taken  along  with the fact  that  Matru\t had
\nabsconded were held to connect the appellant with the  crime
\nbeyond reasonable doubt.  Mohar Singh, from whose possession
\nnothing\t had been recovered was given benefit of  doubt\t and
\nacquitted.  The recovery of the shawl from Darbarilal in the
\nabsence\t  of   any  writing  was  not\tconsidered   to\t  be
\nincriminating  enough  to justify Mohar\t Singh’s  conviction
\nbecause\t it  did  not exclude  reasonable  doubt  about\t his
\ninnocence.\n<\/p>\n
In this Court it was strongly argued on behalf of the appel-
\nlant  Matru  that  the\tcircumstantial\tevidence  does\t not
\nestablish his complicity in the offence charged.  The Police
\ninvestigation  was also assailed and it was  submitted\tthat
\nidentification of the articles
\n919<\/span>
\nalleged\t to have been stolen and later recovered was not  of
\nmuch  value  because  the  articles  alleged  to  have\tbeen
\nrecovered were commonly available and had no  distinguishing
\nmarks  of  identification Objection was also raised  to\t the
\nadmissibility of Ex.  Ka-4, a letter Written by the deceased
\nto her father in which reference was made to injury received
\nby her as a result of a brick thrown by Matru’s wife.\tThis
\nground was not included in the original memorandum of appeal
\ndated May 1, 1968 presented in this Court but permission  to
\nraise  this  ground was sought by means\t of  an\t application
\ndated  July 25, 1968 which was allowed by this\tCourt  while
\ngranting  special leave.  It was contended that this  letter
\nwas  inadmissible  in  evidence as it did  not\tcontain\t any
\nstatement relating to the cause of Omwati’s death or to\t the
\ncircumstances  of  the\ttransaction which  resulted  in\t her
\ndeath.\t According to the argument this letter did not\tfall
\nwithin\tthe purview of any of the clauses of s.\t 32,  Indian
\nEvidence  Act under which-alone it could be hold  admissible
\nin  evidence.  Shri Chari also submitted that the other\t two
\nco-accused  having  been  acquitted, s.\t 34,  I.P.C.  became
\ninapplicable to the case of the appellant and his conviction
\nunder s. 302 read with s. 34, I.P.C. must be held to be con-
\ntrary  to  law.\t  For this submission-he  relied  on  Prabhu
\nBabaji\tNavle v. State of Bombay.<\/a>(1) Finally counsel  argued
\non  the\t authority of Hanumant v. State of M.P.(2)  that  in
\ncase of circumstantial evidence the circumstances from which
\nthe  conclusion\t of guilt is to be drawn  should  be  fully.
\nestablished   and  all\tthe  established  facts\t should\t  be
\nconsistent  only  with the hypothesis of the  guilt  of\t the
\naccused.  In the present case the circumstantial evidence is
\nnot of conclusive nature and tendency, said Shri Chari.
\nNormally  this\tCourt  doe& not go  into  the  evidence\t and
\nappraise it for itself in criminal appeals under Art. 136 of
\nthe  Constitution  because this Article does  not  confer  a
\nright  of appeal on a party.  It merely clothes\t this  Court
\nwith  discretionary  power  to scrutinise and  go  into\t the
\nevidence in special circumstances in order to satisfy itself
\nthat substantial and grave injustice has not been done.\t  In
\nthe case before us we are persuaded to go into the  evidence
\nbecause\t of several exceptional features.  It was a case  of
\ncircumstantial\tevidence  and the two accused who  had\tbeen
\ncharged\t along with the appellant under s. 302 read with  s.
\n34, I.P.C. were acquitted.  The appellant a neighbdur of the
\ndeceased,  remained  With  her\thusband\t at  the  place\t  of
\noccurrence till the report was made to the police on the day
\nof the-\t murder.  Indeed, he accompanied Ram  Chandra  for
\nlodging the report.  The question of admissibility and value
\nof  Ex.\t Ka-4 and the probative value of the  identification
\nproceedings of the articles alleged to have been stolen\t and
\nrecovered  were\t also seriously canvassed at  the  Bar.\t And
\napart from the argument that the circumstantial evidence on
\n(1) A.1 R,1956 S.C.51.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1952] S.C.R. 1091.\n<\/p>\n
920<\/span><\/p>\n
the  record does not exclude reasonable possibility  of\t the
\nappellants  innocence, the further question was raised\tthat
\nif  these two pieces of evidence, namely Ex.  Ka-4  and\t the
\nidentification\tof  the, articles were to  be  ignored\tthen
\nthere was absolutely no evidence on which a serious argument
\nabout the appellant’s guilt-could be founded.
\nNow, the deceased Omwati and her infant son were undoubtedly
\nboth  murdered at about IO or 1 1 on the morning of May\t 29,
\n1964.\tRam  Chandra  Gupta, the husband of  Omwati  had  no
\nreason to suspect Matru, appellant, (his neighbour) of\tthis
\ncrime.\tIn the F.I.R. Ex.  Ka.-IO no one was named as a sus-
\npect and only the following articles of property were stated
\nto be missing :,\n<\/p>\n
\t      1.    Gold chain weighing about 3 tolas, plain
\n\t      twisted design worth Rs. 375\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t      2.    One\t pair of gold jhumki  together\twith
\n\t      kundal weighing 1 1\/2 tolas worth, Rs. 1501-;\n<\/p>\n
\t      3.    One\t  gold\tring   longitudinal   design
\n\t      weighing\t1\/2  tola worth Rs. 75\/-.  this\t was
\n\t      stated to have been worn by the deceased; and\n<\/p>\n
\t      4.    Currency notes worth Rs. 200\/- stated to
\n\t      have, been in the box.\n<\/p>\n
It may here be pointed out that when P.W. I Ram Chandra came
\ninto  the  witness box he attempted to prove  Ex.   Ka-3,  a
\nsupplementary list of missing articles which list, he  said,
\nhad been handed over to the investigating officer soon after
\nthe  preparation of the inquest report.\t The  production  of
\nthis list was objected to and though the trial court  relied
\non  it,\t the High Court ruled it out as hit by s.  162,\t Cr.
\nP.C.  The position, therefore, remains that the\t description
\nof the ring in the F.I.R. is the only description we have on
\nthe  record  and  also\tthat there  is\tno  mention  of\t the
\nspectacle  case and the spectacles in the  F.I.R.  Suspicion
\nfell on the appellant only when Chhotey Lal, barber (P.W. 2)
\nand  Nathu  Lal (P.W. 10) saw Ram Chandra on  the  following
\nmorning\t (May 30, 1964) and informed him of what  they\thad
\nseparately seen on the morning of the 29th at about the time
\nof  the alleged murder.\t What they conveyed to\tRam  Chandra
\nhas already been noticed by us.\t It was on the basis of this
\ninformation  that Ram Chandra is said to have  informed\t the
\ninvestigating  officer\tabout  his  suspicion  against\t the
\nappellant.   The  recovery  of the  articles,  even  if\t the
\nevidence  of these two witnesses is believed, would  have  a
\nmaterial  bearing  on  the  case  because  if  the  recovery
\nproceedings of the articles said to have been recovered
\n92 1
\nfrom the appellant’s possession does not inspire  confidence
\nand it is not possible to hold beyond reasonable doubt\tthat
\nthese were the very articles found missing from the house of
\nthe deceased, then it may be extremely difficult to  sustain
\nthe appellant’s conviction on the prosecution evidence.\t  In
\nthis  connection particular importance attaches to the\tring
\nstated\tto  have been worn by the deceased because  if\tthat
\nring  is not proved to be the same which is alleged to\thave
\nbeen  worn by the deceased Omwati at the time of her  murder
\nthen no inference would seem to arise against the appellant.
\nThe prosecution case against the appellant is mainly  sought
\nto be established by the evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 10\t and
\nby the evidence relating to the recovery from the  appellant
\nof the, articles alleged to belong to the deceased supported
\nby  the evidence of motive on the part of the appellant\t for
\ncommitting  this crime ‘and corroborated by the\t appellant’s
\nalleged\t conduct  in trying to mislead Ram Chandra  and\t the
\ninvestigating officer and’ finally by disappearing after the
\nlodging\t of  the F.I.R. The trial court, as  also  the\tHigh
\nCourt,\tboth relied on these four pieces.. of  evidence\t for
\nconvicting the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
To begin with it is notworthy that Ram Chandra himself does.
\nnot  seem  to have thought that the appellant  was  inimical
\ntowards.  the deceased and he did not suspect the  appellant
\nof complicity in the murder.  According to his own testimony
\nit  was only after Chhotey Lal (P.W. 2) and Nathu Lal  (P.W.\n<\/p>\n
10),  had  informed  him about what they  had  seen  on\t the
\nmorning\t of May 29, that he recollected that about  five  or
\nsix months prior to the occurrence there was an\t altercation
\nbetween Omwati and the appellant’s wife.  This would clearly
\nindicate  that\tthe  alleged altercation had  not  left\t any
\nserious impact on the mind of Ram Chandra and  theapperant’s
\nadmitted  presence  in the house of Ram\t Chandra  till’\t the
\nlodging\t of the F.I.R. indicates that relations between\t Ram
\nChandra\t and  the  appellant  were  not\t openly\t hostile  or
\nunfriendly.  The evidence of P.W. 2 shows that the appellant
\nand two other persons came out of the appellant’s house\t and
\nentered\t the house of Ram Chandra on the morning of May\t 29,
\nand the evidence of P.W. 10 shows that the appellant and two
\notherpersons  came  out of Ram Chandra’s house\tand  entered
\nthat  of the appellant on the same morning a  little  later.
\nThis  evidencehaving been believed by the two  courts  below
\nmay-  be accepted.  But so far as the question of time\twhen
\nthese two witnesses saw the appellant and two other  persons
\ngoing.\tinto  and  coming  out of  Ram\tChandra’s  house  is
\nconcerned  they\t seem  to have given  the  time\t from  their
\nimpression Ram Chandra (P.W. 1) does not say that P.W. 2 and
\nP.W. 10 had told him on the morning of May 30 that when they
\nsaw the appellant and his two com-\n<\/p>\n
922<\/span><\/p>\n
panions\t on  May 29, they had a Potli with  them.   It\talso
\nseems  somewhat\t unbelievable that the\tappellant  with\t his
\ncompanions should have entered the house of Ram Chandra with
\nthe  pur,Pose  of  committing  murder  and  theft  in  broad
\ndaylight particularly when P.W. 2, a barber who knew him and
\nlives  about  one furlong away from his house  had  actually
\nseen  him.  It is un.likely that the appellant\tshould\thave
\nfailed\tto  notice P.W. 2. It is in the evidence of  P.W.  2
\nthat  the,  appellant  and his companions came\tout  of\t the
\nappellant’s  house and entered that of Ram Chandra when\t the
\nwitness\t called\t out the name of  Panditji  meaning  thereby
\nPuttulal  Pandit.   Again,  if the  appellant  and  his\t two
\ncompanions  had committed the gruesome murder of Omwati\t and
\nSualal (Omwati aged 25 years had 4 incised wounds, 3 in\t the
\nneck  and one in the abdominal cavity and :Sualal,  3  years
\nold,  had  three incised wounds on his neck and one  on\t his
\nright  wrist) within half ;In hour and had also\t stolen\t the
\narticles including a ring, a gold kundal, jhumki and  silver
\niori worn by the deceased on her person and also broken open
\na  box and removed therefrom a shawl and Rs. 200\/- within  a
\nshort  span of half an hour as alleged by  the\tprosecution,
\nthen  it  is somewhat surprising that ‘their  movements\t and
\nbehaviour  should  not have reflected any  abnormality.\t  At
\nleast  Nathu Lal does not seem to have noticed any  abnormal
\nbehaviour  which  Would\t excite\t his  suspicion.   Now,\t the
\nappellant  and his companions were seen by P.W. 2  and\tP.W.
\n10,  broadly speaking, between 1 0 and 1 1 in  the  morning.
\nWe  would  give\t these\ttwo witnesses  a  margin  for  their
\ninaccuracy  in regard to the time as deposed by them in\t the
\nwitness box.  P.W. 2, it may be reCalled, gives the time  as
\nbetween 10 and 10.30 a.m. when he saw the appellant and\t his
\ncompanions and.\t P.W. 10 gives the time between 10.30 and 11
\na.m. when he saw them coming out of the house of P.W. 1. The
\nF.I.R.\twas  lodged  at 12.40 p.in.  which  means  that\t Ram
\nChandra\t (P.W. 1) must have arrived at his house  a  little
\nearlier.  The appellant, according to P.W. 1, had been\twith
\nhim when the F.I. Report was got written at his house and he
\nwent  along  with P.W. 1 for lodging the said  report.\t The
\nbehaviour  and\tconduct of the appellant, judged  by  normal
\nstandards,  is\tnot suggestive of his  involvement  in\tsuch
\nheinous\t crime,\t unless he was an experienced  criminal\t (of
\nwhich there is no suggestion) with extraordinary balance  of
\nmind   and  a  disciplined  control  over  his\tsenses\t and
\nfaculties.   In\t the  absence of any  direct  evidence\tthis
\nconsideration  cannot be completely ruled out as  irrelevant
\nwhen weighing the circumstantial evidence in a case like the
\npresent.\n<\/p>\n
This takes us to the recovery of the alleged stolen articles
\nfrom  the  appellant  and their\t identification.   The\tmain
\nevidence
\n923<\/span>
\nof  recovery consists of the statements of  Head  Constable-
\nAhibaran  Singh\t (P.W.\t5) and of Nathu (P.W.  10)  and\t the
\nrecovery  memo\tEx.  Ka-1 dated June 1, 1964.  P.W.  5\thas.
\ndeposed in his examination-in-chief that he did not know the
\nappellant.   According to him, an approver had informed\t him
\nat  about  7  p.m. on June 1, that the\tappellant  would  be
\ncoming\tto his house that evening to meet his children.\t  At
\nabout  7.30 p.m.,: P.W. 5 along with Bankey,  Nathu,  Dilasa
\nand  two constables sat near Bankey’s house waiting for\t the
\nappellant.   It\t was  the  approver  who  pointed  out\t the
\nappellant, whereupon, on being. interrogated by the witness,
\nthe   appellant\t tried\tto  run\t away.\t He  was,   however,
\napprehended.   In the course of this process  the  appellant
\nreceived  some injuries.  Now, the person described  as\t the
\napprover has not been produced as a witness and indeed\teven
\nhis identity has not been disclosed.  It is noteworthy\tthat
\nthere  is  no mention of any approver anywhere else  on\t the
\nrecord.\t  What is still more intriguing is that even  though
\nNathu  was not previously known to the witness, within\thalf
\nan  hour of the information about the  appellant’s  expected
\nvisit  to his house P.W. 5 managed to collect Nathu and\t two
\nother persons for arresting him.  The statement made by P.W.
\n5 in this connection makes interesting reading.\t He said:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “I received information through an approver at
\n\t      about  7 P.M. that he shall come home to\tmeet
\n\t      his  children  from the jungle of\t Imadpur  by
\n\t      night.  At this I sat near the house of Bankey
\n\t      by the side of the passage, alongwith  Bankey,
\n\t      Nathu,  Dilasa  and  two\tconstables.   Matru,
\n\t      accused present in court came from the side of
\n\t      Imadpur  at about 7.30 O’clock.  The  approver
\n\t      pointed him out.\tOn being interrogated by me,
\n\t      he  took\tto his heels.  I  caught  him  after
\n\t      surrounding  and\tcausing slight\tinjuries  to
\n\t      him,  When  I  duly  searched  his  person  in
\n\t      presence of the witnesses, the case Ex. 3, was
\n\t      recovered\t from the right plant of  the  dhoti
\n\t      which  he\t was Wearing.  On  opening  it,\t the
\n\t      spectacles,  Ex. 2 and ring Ex.  I were  found
\n\t      in  it.\tI  prepared their  memo,  Ex.\tKa-1
\n\t      correctly\t  at  that  spot   immediately\t and
\n\t      obtained the signatures and thumb\t impressions
\n\t      of  the  witnesses  over it.   I\tsealed\tthe,
\n\t      articles\t there\t after\t sewing\t  them\t  in
\n\t      cloth…… Before the arrest of Matru, I\t and
\n\t      the   witnesses  had  searched  each   other’s
\n\t      persons.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      In cross-examination it was elicited from him:
\n\t      “The  approver  had not told me  that  he\t was
\n\t      carrying\tarticles also with him.\t I took\t the
\n\t      witnesses for
\n\t      924<\/span>
\n\t      help.  I did not recognise him also.  Imadpur
\n\t      might  be\t about half a mile  from  the  place
\n\t      where I arrested him.  I did not make  people,
\n\t      sit on any other way.  I sat on that very way.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      I\t took Nathu with me while he was coming\t out
\n\t      of  a temple in Mauza Jatpura.  I took  Bankey
\n\t      from   Bazar  Kalan  and\tDilasa\tfrom   Mauza
\n\t      Jatpura.\t I had not told the  witnesses\tthat
\n\t\t\t    there   was\t possibility  of   article
\ns   being
\n\t      recovered from him.  I did not know Nathu from
\n\t      before.\tI  might have seen him.\t I  did\t not
\n\t      know that his name was Nathu.  Matru was at  a
\n\t      distance of about ten paces towards the  South
\n\t      of  me when I saw him for the first time.\t  He
\n\t      was coming from the western side.”\n<\/p>\n
Now,  considering the fact that it was only at about 7\tp.m.
\nthat the approver had informed P.W. 5 that the appellant was
\ncoming\tto  ‘his  house\t and at 7.30  p.m.  the\t arrest\t was
\nactually  made, it seems to be somewhat surprising  that  he
\nshould have within that short time collected Nathu, whom  he
\ndid  not know before, Bankey and Dilasa from various  places
\nand come to the spot in time for ,effecting the\t appellant’s
\narrest\tand  search.  Bankey and Dilasa have also  not\tbeen
\nproduced as witnesses.\tNathu, who has appeared as P.W. 10,
\nhas stated in his examination-in-chief about the arrest\t and
\nsearch of the appellant in the following words:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “On  the fourth day of murder, i.e.,  after  a
\n\t      gap  of  two  days at about 7  p.m.  the\tHead
\n\t      constable took me, Bankey and others with him.
\n\t      One  person was keeping his face covered.\t  He
\n\t      asked  me to accompany him saying that he\t had
\n\t      to arrest a man.\tHe had taken Dilasa as well.
\n\t      We  sat in moballa Tikuriya near the house  of
\n\t      Bankey.  We searched the persons of the  cons-
\n\t      tables  and Head Constable.  We  searched\t the
\n\t      persons  of  us all.  A  little  later,  Matru
\n\t      accused,\tpresent\t in  court  came  from\t the
\n\t      western  side.   The person who  was  with  us
\n\t      pointed out that he was Matru.  Matru  started
\n\t      running away.  At this the Head Constable\t and
\n\t      the constables caught hold of him.  They\tgave
\n\t      him  one\tor two danda blows while  trying  to
\n\t      catch  him.  When his person was\tsearched,  a
\n\t      case for keeping spectacles, containing a pair
\n\t      of  spectacles and a gold ring, was  recovered
\n\t      from  the right phant of Matru  accused.\t All
\n\t      these things were sewn in cloth and sealed  on
\n\t      the  spot.   Memo was prepared  there  on\t the
\n\t      spot.  It was read ,out.\tMy thumb  impression
\n\t      was also obtained. (Ex.  Ka-1 read over)\tYes.
\n\t      These very contents were read. ,out (Shown Ex.
\n\t      1-3 says) Now, I shall not be able to
\n\t      925<\/span>
\n\t      identify\tthe articles as to whether they\t are
\n\t      the same or
\n\t      some other.  It happened long ago.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
P.W. 16, Jamuna Prasad, retired police constable is  another
\nwitness\t who  claims to have been present at the  time\twhen
\nMatru  was  arrested.\tHe  was at that\t time  posted  as  a
\nconstable  at P. S. Shamsabad.\tIn  examination-in-chief  he
\nsaid nothing about the appellant’s arrest or the recovery of
\nthe  articles) from him.  It was only  in  cross-examination
\nthat  he &-posed that he was with P.W. 5 at the time of\t the
\nappellant’s  arrest  and  after\t arresting  him\t the   party
\nreturned  to the police station at about 8 or 8.30 p.m.\t His
\nversion is:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Diwanji (presumably referring to P.W. 5)\t had
\n\t      a talk with one person in my presence.   After
\n\t      that  he asked me to go along with him.  So  I
\n\t      accompanied  him.\t We met- Bankey\t witness  in
\n\t      Kalan Bazar.  I cannot tell whether Bankey has
\n\t      got  some\t shop or not or if he  has  got\t it,
\n\t      where  is\t it ? We met Nathu near\t the  Maria.
\n\t      After  arresting\tMatroo, we returned  to\t the
\n\t      Police  Station at about 8 or 8.30 O’clock  in
\n\t      the evening.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
He has, however, given no details of the articles  recovered
\nnor  about the appellant’s search.  The testimony  of  these
\nwitnesses  is far from impressive and the story of  recovery
\nis  difficult  to  accept on its face value.   The  memo  of
\nrecovery is Ex.\t Ka-1.\tIt purports to have been prepared at
\n7.30  p.m.  on\tJune 1, 1964.  According to  it\t on  Matru’s
\nsearch, a spectacle case containing “a spectacle and a\tgold
\nring  as  per description given below corresponding  to\t the
\ncase  as offence no. 67 under sections 302\/380,\t I.P.C.\t was
\nrecovered  from the right side of the phent of\this  dhoti.”
\nThe description of the articles recovered, according to this
\nmemo, is\n<\/p>\n
\t      1.    One\t spectacle  case  of  black  colour,
\n\t      having dark blue colour inside;\n<\/p>\n
\t      2.    One\t spectacle,  having  brown   frame.,
\n\t      white glasses, not circular, half frame;\n<\/p>\n
\t      3.    One\t gold  ring,  longitudinal   deSign,
\n\t      having green enamel with lengthwise, with\t red
\n\t      and  blue flowery design on the  enamel.\t The
\n\t      ring is somewhat bent.\n<\/p>\n
It is signed by Head Constable, Ahibaran Singh and  attested
\nby Bankey, Dilasa and Nathu.  It does not mention the  place
\nwhere  the search was effected though the memo is stated  to
\nhave been prepared in a shop without giving- any particulars
\nof the shop.  This memo does not materially add to the\toral
\ntestimony of recovery.\tThis is all the evidence of recovery
\nof the articles.  We
\n926<\/span>
\ndo  not\t find  it safe on this evidence\t to  hold  that\t the
\narticles  mentioned  in Ex.  Ka-1 were\trecovered  from\t the
\nappellant  Possession at the time of his arrest on  June  1,
\n1964  at 7.30 p.m. Neither P.W. 5, the investigating  H.  C.
\nnor  Nathu, (P.W. 10) can be considered to be  witnesses  on
\nwhom   implicit\t reliance  can\tbe  placed  without   proper
\ncorroboration  from  a\tmore  disinterested  and  dependable
\nsource.\t  Having  not  been impressed  by  the\tevidence  of
\nrecovery, the identification test of the articles can be  of
\nlittle\thelp to the prosecution, though even on\t that  point
\nthe    prosecution   evidence\tis   equally\tuninspiring.
\nIdentification\ttests,\tit  may\t be  pointed  out,  do\t not
\nconstitute  substantive evidence.  Such tests are  primarily
\nmeant  for the purpose of helping the  investigating  agency
\nwith an assurance that their progress with the investigation
\ninto  the  offence  is\tproceeding  on\tright  lines.\tNow,
\nalthough  the articles are stated to have been recovered  on
\nJune  1,  the  test identification was held  by\t Shri  Jwala
\nPrasad\tSrivastava,  Magistrate, on October 23,\t 1964.\t The
\nreason for this delay as suggested is that similar  articles
\nhad  to\t be  procured  for  mixing  up\twith  the   articles
\nrecovered.    But   the\t manner\t in   which   this   delayed
\nidentification\thas  been held in this case  is\t highly\t un-
\nsatisfactory.\tJwala Prasad Srivastava,  Magistrate,  First
\nClass,,\t who had conducted the test identification  appeared
\nas P.W. 21, in his examination-in-chief he said:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Even  before  the  dates\t for  identification
\n\t      proceedings were fixed but the  identification
\n\t      could   not  be  conducted   because   similar
\n\t      articles had not been received.  The  articles
\n\t      were  opened and shown to the contractor\tonce
\n\t      so that correct articles could be brought.  On
\n\t      13-7-64 he  made\tan  application\t that  the
\n\t      articles should be shown to him.\tThe articles
\n\t      must  have been shown to him within some\tdays
\n\t      after that.  The date must have been mentioned
\n\t      there  but that order sheet is missing.\tEven
\n\t      then I took a precaution that none except\t the
\n\t      Contractor and the court mohair should see the
\n\t      articles.\t Just after showing the articles  to
\n\t      the  contractor, I got the same sealed in\t the
\n\t      court room in my presence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      In cross-examination he said :<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “The  khol (case) Ex. 3 was old.\tOut  of\t the
\n\t      khols  which  were  mixed,  one  or  two\twere
\n\t      perhaps\tnew.\tThat   too   was    ‘Similar
\n\t      (dissimilar  ?) but the dissimilarity was\t not
\n\t      so much, that I ought to have noted it  (shown
\n\t      paper No. 49\/147 of S.C. File) Yes, this\tnote
\n\t      is mine.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      ‘The case of the spectacle is old one  whereas
\n\t      the  mixed  cases were new’ (marked  Ex.\t Kha\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      19).   The  counsel for  the  accused  persons
\n\t      moved an application
\n\t      627<\/span>
\n\t      on  the  same  day  after\t the  identification
\n\t      proceedings.  I had, read it.  The allegations
\n\t      regarding\t the ring, were not correct.   So  I
\n\t      did  not\tnote them in my\t order.\t  The  order
\n\t      sheet  of some particular dates regarding\t the
\n\t      identification  proceedings, were preserved  ?
\n\t      The  same has been found.\t The order sheet  of
\n\t      two  dates has been found.  Out of  them,\t one
\n\t      bears  the  signature of\tmy  predecessor.   I
\n\t      recognise the same. (marked Ex.  Kha 21).\t The
\n\t      other  one does not bear the signature of\t any
\n\t      one.  I do not remember exactly who  presented
\n\t      the  application Ex.  Kha 11.  Perhaps it\t was
\n\t      moved but the contractor’s man.  That man used
\n\t      to come frequently.  Marginal note on Ex.\t Ka-
\n\t      11  shown.  That encircled in red\t pencil\t and
\n\t      (marked  X)  I do not recognise the  same.   I
\n\t      cannot tell who made this entry and when.\t  At
\n\t      present  I  cannot  tell\ton  which  date\t the
\n\t      articles were shown.  I did not find any\tsuch
\n\t      entry in the record which could tell on  which
\n\t      date   the   articles  were   shown   to\t the
\n\t      contractor.    Only  the\tword  “allowed”\t  is
\n\t      written with the date 13-7-64………
\n\t      articles\tbefore\tme.  I do not  remember\t his
\n\t      name.   I can only recognise him by face.\t  It
\n\t      is  quite wrong that on 1-9-64 these  articles
\n\t      were  brought to the court and were  shown  to
\n\t      the  witnesses.  I do not remember  orally  on
\n\t      which date these articles were taken out\tfrom
\n\t      the malkhana.  It is wrong to say that all the
\n\t      articles which were to be mixed, were
\n\t      dissimilar.  Only the cases of the  spectacles
\n\t      were somewhat new.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  statement\tof this witness reveals\t the  unsatisfactory
\nmanner’\t of  dealing with the test identification.   We\t are
\nunable to place any reliance on these proceedings.
\n This  takes us to the question of motive.  We have  already
\nnoticed that the altercation between the deceased Omwati and
\nthe  appellant’s  wife\tdoes not seem  to  have\t been  taken
\nseriously  by either party.  The proceedings under  s.\t107,
\nCr.   P. C. to which a reference has been made were  started
\nby Ram Chandra against the appellant after the occurrence in
\nquestion  and,\ttherefore,  they are  not  relevant  on\t the
\nquestion  of motive for the present offence of murder.\t The
\nappellant’s counsel questioned the admissibility of Ex.\t Ka-
\n4,  the letter said to have been written by the deceased  to
\nher  father, on the ground that it did not fall\t within\t the purvi
\new  of\ts.  32, Indian Evidence\t Act.\tThe  objection
\nappears\t prima\tfacie  on plain reading of  the\t section  to
\npossess
\nL1100 SUP CI\/71
\n929<\/span>
\nmerit.\t But even if this letter were to be held  admissible
\nwe  are\t not  satisfied that the motive\t which\tthis  letter
\nsuggests  is of strong and impelling nature so as to  induce
\nthe  murder  of\t Omwati and her infant\tchild.\t The  motive
\nsuggested by this letter, coupled with the testimony of P.W.
\n2  and\tP.W. 10, may at best give rise only to\ta  suspicion
\nagainst\t the appellant; but suspicion however strong  cannot
\ntake the place of roof.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant’s conduct in absconding was also relied  upon.
\nNow, mere absconding by itself does not necessarily lead  to
\na firm conclusion of guilty mind.  Even an innocent man\t may
\nfeel panicky and try to evade arrest when wrongly  suspected
\nof a grave crime; such is the instinct of self-Preservation.
\nThe act of absconding is no doubt relevant piece of evidence
\nto  be\tconsidered along with other evidence but  its  value
\nwould  always  depend  on the circumstances  of\t each  case.
\nNormally   the\tcourts\tare  disinclined  to   attach\tmuch
\nimportance  to the act of absconding, treating it as a\tvery
\nsmall  item in the evidence for sustaining  conviction.\t  It
\ncan scarcely be held as a determining link in completing the
\nchain  of  circumstantial evidence which must  admit  of  no
\nother  reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt  of\t the
\n‘accused.   In the present case the appellant was  with\t Ram
\nChandra\t till the F.I.R. was lodged.  If thereafter he\tfelt
\nthat he was being wrongly suspected and he tried to keep out
\nof  the\t way  we  do not  think\t this  circumstance  can  be
\nconsidered  to\tbe  necessarily evidence of  a\tguilty\tmind
\nattempting  to evade justice.  It is not  inconsistent\twith
\nhis innocence.\n<\/p>\n
One other circumstance which on the facts of this case\talso
\ndeserves notice is the non-recovery of the weapon of offence
\nand the fact that no stains of blood were noticed by any one
\non  the\t appellant’s  clothes even though he  was  with\t Ram
\nChandra\t right\tupto  the  loding of  the  F.I.R.  and\teven
\naccompanied him for that purpose.  The courts below seem  to
\nus  to\thave  failed  to take  into  consideration  all\t the
\nrelevant  facts and circumstances of the case.\tAs proof  of
\nthe  appellant’s  guilt depended  solely  on  circumstantial
\nevidence  it was incumbent on the courts below\tto  properly
\nconsider  and  scrutinise  all\tthe  material  factors\t and
\ncircumstances\tfor   determining  whether  the\t  chain\t  of
\ncircumstantial\tevidence  is so complete as to lead  to\t the
\nonly conclusion of the appellant’s guilt.  In our view,\t the
\ncumulative  effect  of the circumstantial evidence  in\tthis
\ncase  falls  far short of the test required  for  sustaining
\nconviction.   We are, therefore, constrained to\t allow\tthis
\nappeal, set aside the appellant’s conviction and acquit him.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\t\t    Appeal allowed.\n929<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Matru Alias Girish Chandra vs State Of Utttar Pradesh on 3 March, 1971 Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 1050, 1971 SCR (3) 914 Author: I Dua Bench: Dua, I.D. PETITIONER: MATRU alias GIRISH CHANDRA Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF UTTTAR PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT03\/03\/1971 BENCH: DUA, I.D. BENCH: DUA, I.D. REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-93733","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMatru Alias Girish Chandra vs State Of Utttar Pradesh on 3 March, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/matru-alias-girish-chandra-vs-state-of-utttar-pradesh-on-3-march-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Matru Alias Girish Chandra vs State Of Utttar Pradesh on 3 March, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/matru-alias-girish-chandra-vs-state-of-utttar-pradesh-on-3-march-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1971-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-21T17:07:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"35 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/matru-alias-girish-chandra-vs-state-of-utttar-pradesh-on-3-march-1971#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/matru-alias-girish-chandra-vs-state-of-utttar-pradesh-on-3-march-1971\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Matru Alias Girish Chandra vs State Of Utttar Pradesh on 3 March, 1971\",\"datePublished\":\"1971-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-21T17:07:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/matru-alias-girish-chandra-vs-state-of-utttar-pradesh-on-3-march-1971\"},\"wordCount\":6040,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/matru-alias-girish-chandra-vs-state-of-utttar-pradesh-on-3-march-1971#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/matru-alias-girish-chandra-vs-state-of-utttar-pradesh-on-3-march-1971\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/matru-alias-girish-chandra-vs-state-of-utttar-pradesh-on-3-march-1971\",\"name\":\"Matru Alias Girish Chandra vs State Of Utttar Pradesh on 3 March, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1971-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-21T17:07:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/matru-alias-girish-chandra-vs-state-of-utttar-pradesh-on-3-march-1971#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/matru-alias-girish-chandra-vs-state-of-utttar-pradesh-on-3-march-1971\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/matru-alias-girish-chandra-vs-state-of-utttar-pradesh-on-3-march-1971#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Matru Alias Girish Chandra vs State Of Utttar Pradesh on 3 March, 1971\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Matru Alias Girish Chandra vs State Of Utttar Pradesh on 3 March, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/matru-alias-girish-chandra-vs-state-of-utttar-pradesh-on-3-march-1971","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Matru Alias Girish Chandra vs State Of Utttar Pradesh on 3 March, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/matru-alias-girish-chandra-vs-state-of-utttar-pradesh-on-3-march-1971","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1971-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-21T17:07:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"35 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/matru-alias-girish-chandra-vs-state-of-utttar-pradesh-on-3-march-1971#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/matru-alias-girish-chandra-vs-state-of-utttar-pradesh-on-3-march-1971"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Matru Alias Girish Chandra vs State Of Utttar Pradesh on 3 March, 1971","datePublished":"1971-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-21T17:07:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/matru-alias-girish-chandra-vs-state-of-utttar-pradesh-on-3-march-1971"},"wordCount":6040,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/matru-alias-girish-chandra-vs-state-of-utttar-pradesh-on-3-march-1971#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/matru-alias-girish-chandra-vs-state-of-utttar-pradesh-on-3-march-1971","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/matru-alias-girish-chandra-vs-state-of-utttar-pradesh-on-3-march-1971","name":"Matru Alias Girish Chandra vs State Of Utttar Pradesh on 3 March, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1971-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-21T17:07:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/matru-alias-girish-chandra-vs-state-of-utttar-pradesh-on-3-march-1971#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/matru-alias-girish-chandra-vs-state-of-utttar-pradesh-on-3-march-1971"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/matru-alias-girish-chandra-vs-state-of-utttar-pradesh-on-3-march-1971#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Matru Alias Girish Chandra vs State Of Utttar Pradesh on 3 March, 1971"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93733","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=93733"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93733\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=93733"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=93733"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=93733"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}