Life Imprisonment Upheld in Gruesome Property Dispute Murder Case
The case of Kallu vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh revolves around a brutal murder arising from a long-standing property dispute. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant, Kallu, confirming his life imprisonment. The Court ruled that the evidence, including direct eyewitness testimony and a gruesome post-mortem report, established the accused’s guilt beyond doubt.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to an incident on March 27, 1982, at approximately 3:10 PM. The dispute over ancestral land had caused tension between the deceased, Durga, and the accused party, consisting of Malkhan (father of Kallu), Kallu (grandson of the deceased), and one Mata Din.
Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-grants-probation-in-gambling-conviction-case/
On the day of the incident, Durga, along with Mullu (PW-1) and Phoola (PW-2), was harvesting crops in the disputed field in Kawar Haar. Around noon, the accused arrived armed with an axe and a sickle and began cutting the crops. When Durga protested, Malkhan struck him on the neck with an axe, causing him to fall. All three accused then repeatedly attacked the victim with their weapons, ultimately beheading him and throwing his severed head away from the body. They then fled towards Chatela jungle.
A First Information Report (FIR) was filed against the three accused, and they were convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They were sentenced to life imprisonment, a ruling later upheld by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on August 31, 2007.
Dissatisfied with the rulings, Kallu filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Kallu’s defense counsel presented the following arguments:
- The case was a false implication orchestrated by Mullu (PW-1) to usurp the entire ancestral property.
- As Durga’s grandson, Kallu had a legitimate share in the property, negating any motive for murder.
- PW-2, Phoola, was an interested witness and had testified against the accused due to a previous dispute involving her brother, Jogeshwar.
- The accused, Malkhan and Kallu, had been living separately for 12 years and were already ousted from the family, making the property dispute a weak motive.
- There were inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State of Uttar Pradesh, represented by its counsel, argued:
- The murder was an act of revenge because Durga had refused to give a share of his property to Kallu and Malkhan.
- The crime was gruesome, with multiple axe and sickle blows followed by the beheading of the deceased.
- The eyewitness testimony of PW-1 (Mullu) and PW-2 (Phoola) was consistent and corroborated by the post-mortem report.
- The accused fled the scene, reinforcing their guilt.
- Kallu and Malkhan’s separation from the family did not diminish their motive, as their grudge against Durga remained.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court examined the evidence in detail and made the following observations:
- The testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 was reliable, and both witnesses withstood cross-examination without contradictions.
- The post-mortem report confirmed multiple injuries and beheading, consistent with the attack described by the witnesses.
- The accused had a clear motive due to their grievance over property inheritance.
- The claim that Mullu had committed the murder to usurp the property was deemed a desperate and baseless argument.
- PW-2’s testimony was not weakened by her alleged prior dispute, as she was an eyewitness.
- The trial court and high court had correctly assessed the evidence, leaving no room for reasonable doubt.
Key Judgment Excerpt
The Supreme Court stated:
“The statement made by PW-1, son of the deceased, who is an eyewitness to the offence, had withstood the test of cross-examination. It has come in evidence that the deceased had fallen on the ground after one blow of the 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 the murder of the deceased was committed was gruesome. This shows their intention and criminal bent of mind. It was a daylight murder with a direct eyewitness account.”
On the issue of credibility of PW-2, the Court held:
“The relationship of Mullu and Phoola with the deceased does not affect their credibility. There was no variation in the statements made by them.”
Final Verdict
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of Kallu, ruling that there was no merit in the challenge. The Court further ordered that:
- Kallu, who had been released on bail by the Supreme Court’s interim order on July 11, 2014, must surrender before the trial court within two weeks to serve the remainder of his life sentence.
- The conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court and Trial Court remained unaltered.
The ruling reaffirms the judiciary’s firm stance against violent crimes driven by property disputes and highlights the importance of credible eyewitness testimony in upholding justice.
Petitioner Name: Kallu.Respondent Name: The State of Uttar Pradesh.Judgment By: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Rajesh Bindal.Place Of Incident: Uttar Pradesh, India.Judgment Date: 15-05-2023.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: kallu-vs-the-state-of-uttar-p-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-15-05-2023.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay S. Oka
See all petitions in Judgment by Rajesh Bindal
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2023
See all petitions in 2023 judgments
See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
