Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Harbans Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 October, 2015
Bench: Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, Adarsh Kumar Goel
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1964 OF 2008
HARBANS SINGH APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Sole accused is the appellant herein. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jodhpur dated 23.01.2008 in and by which the appellant was convicted for killing of his wife under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default clause to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
2. The brief case of the prosecution was that, the appellant, deceased and their three children were living in their house that on 25.8.2004 late in the night at around 2.00 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad Date: 2015.10.31 A.M., the appellant heard the hue and cry of 13:34:13 IST Reason: his wife from inner room and that he rushed in 1 and found that his wife burning. According to the appellant on seeing his wife in burning condition he became unconscious and thereafter when he got up regaining his conscious, she was found lying dead. He stated to have informed his parents about the death of his wife by fire and also lodged Report Exhibit P.21 to the SHO, Hindumal Police Station. In the said Report he also reiterated his version as stated above.
3. Subsequently, a complaint was lodged at the instance of PW.1 with the very same Police Station on 27.8.2004 alleging the killing of the deceased by the appellant by setting her on fire and the deceased was none other than the daughter of PW.1. The body of the deceased was examined by PW.5/Dr. H.R. Panwar and the Post Mortem Report disclosed 90% burn injuries all over her body and the cause of death was shock due to extensive burning. Based on the above facts, the appellant was proceeded against for the offence of killing of his wife under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution was able to place before the Trial Court that the appellant and the deceased were together on the fateful 2 night right from 9.30 P.M. when both of them took their dinner along with their children. Thereafter, at between 11-11:30 they fetched water from the water pipelines and even thereafter at 2.00 A.M. the appellant himself admitted that on hearing his wife's cries, he rushed into the room and found her wife burning extensively. In the said circumstances, when the above facts were established by the prosecution based on the appellant's own version under Exhibit P.21, thereafter, as it was within the special knowledge of the appellants as to under what circumstances the deceased was found suffering from extensive fire burns, the burden shifted on the appellant to have shown as to what was the cause which was responsible for such fire burns on the body of the deceased and her ultimate death which the appellant failed to discharge. The Trial Court as well as the High Court having, thus, reached the said conclusion applying Section 106 of the Evidence Act also noted the clinching circumstances which were existing as against the appellant, namely, that the 3 appellant and the deceased were last seen together, that it was the appellant who first saw his wife burning extensively at 2 A.M., that after he noticed his wife burning he had no explanation to offer as to why he did not take any step either to immediately save her from the burning nor for taking her to any hospital to save her life. There was also no explantion fothcoming from the appellant as to why he did not take any steps as between 2 A.M. when he first noticed his wife burning all over her body till 8.05 A.M. when he lodged Exhibit P21 with the police. The above circumstances, as noted by both the Courts below, were sufficient enough to find the appellant guilty of the offence alleged against him.
4. The reliance placed upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant on the decisions in P. Mani v. State of T.N., [(2006) 3 SCC 161] and in Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky v. State of Punjab [(2006) 12 SCC 306] were under different fact situations and we do not find any scope to apply those decisions to the facts of this case.
4
5. We do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
................................J. [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA] ................................J. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL] NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 28, 2015.
5
ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.7 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1964/2008
HARBANS SINGH Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondent(s)
(with office report)
Date : 28/10/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL For Appellant(s) Mr. Renjith B. Marar,Adv.
Mr. K. Rajeev,Adv.
Mr. Lakshmi N. Kaimal,Adv.
Mr. Anas Muhammed Shamnad R.,Adv. Ms. Anu Dixit Kaushik,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Ruchi Kohli,Adv.
Ms. Nidhi Jaswal,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
(NARENDRA PRASAD) (SUMAN JAIN)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file) 6