Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sukhdev Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 15 July, 2015
Bench: Sanjay Karol, P.S. Rana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.93 of 2013 .
Reserved on : 1.7.2015
Date of Decision: July 15, 2015
Sukhdev Singh ...Appellant.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S. Rana, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes. 1 For the Appellant : Mr. Bhupinder Ahuja, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Additional Advocates General and Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General.
Sanjay Karol, Judge Appellant-convict Sukhdev Singh, hereinafter referred to as the accused, has assailed the judgment dated 8.10.2012, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Case No.28-VII/2011 (Sessions Trial No.28/2011), titled as State of Himachal Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:34:35 :::HCHP...2...
Pradesh v. Sukhdev Singh, whereby he stands convicted of the offence punishable under the .
provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of `25,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
2. It is the case of prosecution that on 11.4.2011, accused Sukhdev Singh went to Police Station, Amb and got recorded Rapt (Ex.PW-10/A), to the effect that he had murdered his wife. Inspector Gurdeep Singh (PW-13) alongwith other police officials visited the house of the deceased, situated in village Baheri and found dead body of a lady, with a Chunni around her neck, lying on the bed. The dead body was identified to be that of Ashi by the Up Pradhan Rakesh Lath (PW-2) and Jagat Ram (PW-1) (father of the deceased). On the spot, statement of Jagat Ram (Ex.
PW-1/A) was recorded, on the basis of which FIR No.48, dated 11.4.2011 (Ex. PW-11/A), under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station, Amb, District Una. Inquest report ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:34:35 :::HCHP ...3...
(Ex.PW-3/A) was prepared on the spot. Dead body was taken into possession. Also Chunni (Ex. P-1) was taken .
into possession vide Memo (Ex.PW-2/A). Dr. Ravi Sharma (PW-15) and Dr. S.K. Bansal, conducted the postmortem of the dead body and report (Ex.PW-15/A) taken on record. Blood stained clothes were sent for chemical analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory and report (Ex. PW-13/D and 13/E) obtained.
Investigation revealed that the accused suspected his wife of having illicit relationship and out of humiliation, murdered her. With the completion of investigation, which, prima facie, revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, challan was presented in the Court for trial.
3. Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and statement of the accused, under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was also recorded, in ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:34:35 :::HCHP ...4...
which he took defence of innocence and false implication.
.
5. Based on the testimonies of witnesses and the material on record, trial Court convicted the accused of the charged offence and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal by the accused.
6. We have heard Mr. Bhupinder Ahuja, Advocate, on behalf the accused, as also M/s Ashok Chaudhary, V.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, and Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General, on behalf of the State. We have also minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. Having done so, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out at all. We find that the judgment rendered by the trial Court is based on complete, correct and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) so placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity with the same, resulting into miscarriage of justice.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:34:35 :::HCHP...5...
7. Undisputedly, it is not a case of direct evidence but that of circumstantial evidence. We shall .
first deal with the law on the point.
8. Law with regard to circumstantial evidence is now well settled. It is a settled proposition of law that when there is no direct evidence of crime, the guilt of the accused can be proved by circumstantial evidence, but then the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature, to fully connect the accused with the crime. All the links in the chain of circumstances must be established beyond reasonable doubt, and the proved circumstances should be consistent, only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused, being totally inconsistent with his innocence. While appreciating the circumstantial evidence, the Court must adopt a very cautious approach and great caution must be taken to evaluate the circumstantial evidence. [Also: Pudhu Raja and another Versus State Represented by Inspector of Police, (2012) 11 SCC 196; Madhu Versus State of Kerala, (2012) 2 SCC 399; Dilip Singh Moti Singh versus ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:34:35 :::HCHP ...6...
State of Gujarat, (2010) 15 SCC 622, Mulakh Raj and others Versus Satish Kumar and others, (1992) 3 SCC .
43; and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Versus State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116.].
9. Also, apex Court in Padala Veera Reddy v.
State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706, Court held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, following tests must be satisfied:r "(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."
(Also: Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P., (2006) 10 SCC 172; Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 259; and Harishchandra Ladaku Thange v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 11 SCC 436).
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:34:35 :::HCHP...7...
10. Each case has to be considered on its own merit. Court cannot presume suspicion to be a legal .
proof. In the absence of an important link in the chain, or the chain of circumstances getting snapped, guilt of the accused cannot be assumed, based on mere conjectures.
11. The apex Court in State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992) 2 SCC 286, while cautioning the Courts in evaluating circumstantial evidence, held that if the evidence adduced by the prosecution is reasonable, capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. This of course must precede the factum of prosecution having proved its case, leading to the guilty of the accused.
12. In the instant case, prosecution refers to and relies upon the following circumstances against the accused:
1. Recovery of the dead body from the house of the accused.
2. Deceased having died on account of asphyxia due to strangulation.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:34:35 :::HCHP
...8...
3. Accused and the deceased seen together in the matrimonial house, immediately prior to the occurrence of the incident.
.
4. Confessional statement of the accused.
13. There is nothing on record to establish that the deceased was having illicit relationship with any person. It has come in the testimony of parents of the deceased, Jagat Ram (PW-1) and Rachna Devi (PW-4), that the deceased was a divorcee and was married to accused Sukhdev Singh on 10.10.2010. Noticeably, in the unrebutted testimony of parents of the deceased, it has also come on record that accused used to maltreat the deceased, which fact she had brought to their notice. Though, no written complaint was filed with any authority, but the matter was brought to the notice of the mediator.
Circumstance No.1
14. That dead body of the deceased was recovered from the house of the accused, stands conclusively established by the prosecution, through the testimonies of Jagat Ram (PW-1), Rakesh Lath (PW-
2), Tarsem Lal (PW-3), Inspector Gurdeep Singh (PW-
13) and ASI Ram Sawroop (PW-14).
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:34:35 :::HCHP...9...
15. Inspector Gurdeep Singh states that in the morning of 11.4.2011, accused came to the Police .
Station and got recorded Rapt (Ex.PW-10/A), to the effect that he had murdered his wife. The same was read over and explained to him. Accused admitted the contents thereof to be true and correct. The witness further states that he reached the house of the accused and saw dead body of a lady, lying on the bed, which was identified by Up Prahdan Rakesh Lath (PW-2) and Jagat Ram (PW-1) (father of the deceased), who also have corroborated such version. Dead body was taken into possession and sent for postmortem, as is evident from the testimony of Inspector Gurdeep Singh and LC Sunita (PW-16).
Circumstance No.2
16. Dr. Ravi Sharma (PW-15), who conducted the postmortem, issued report (Ex.PW-15/A). In Court, the doctor has described the physical condition of the body and the injuries as under:
"Legature mark completely encircling the neck, horizontally 12" in length and 5 cm wide, 3-4 layer underlying skin is bruised and ecchymosed, subcutaneous tissue, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:34:35 :::HCHP ...10...
ecchymosed, neck not stretched.
Fracture of the super horn of the laryngeal cartilage. Tracheal rigns broken. Injury to underlying neck .
muscles present. No other external sign of injury over the body. Intima of the carotid arteries teared. Tongue swollen.
Scalp and verterbra Normal.
Thoracic wall and ribs normal.
Pleure and both lungs showing petechie. Left side of heart empty and right side full of blood. Abdominal wall and oropharynx normal. Stomach showing semi solid material with foul smell. Small and large intestine having foul smelling gases. Liver, spleen congested. Kidney and bladder normal. Non gravid uterus normal. No injury to other musculo skeleton system. Sealed viscera, vaginal swabs and blood sample were sent to the RFSL Dharamshala. Clothes and belonging of the deceased were handed over to the police. After going through the reports Exts. PW-13/D and PW-13/E we opined that the deceased had died as a result of asphyxia due to strangulation. The probable duration between injury and death was within minutes and between death and post mortem was between 12-24 hours.
We have issued post mortem report Ext. P15/A which bears my signatures and the signatures of Dr. S.K. Bansal the other member of the Board. The strangulation is possible with Duppatta Ext. P-1 shown to me today in the Court." ( Emphasis supplied) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:34:35 :::HCHP ...11...
Thus, prosecution has been able to establish circumstance of the deceased having died as a result .
of asphyxia due to strangulation.
Circumstance No.3
17. Significantly, Ram Dei (PW-9), mother of the accused, in her uncontroverted testimony, has deposed that after having meals on 10.4.2011, all the family members retired to their respective rooms. Both, the accused and the deceased, slept in their room and the other members of the family slept together in another room. The following morning (11.4.2011) at about 7-8 a.m., when she went to serve tea to her son and the deceased, she noticed the room to be bolted from outside. On opening the door, she saw the deceased lying on the bed. She shook her body, but the deceased did not respond. As such she cried, became unconscious and fell on the ground. She also informed her neighbour Gurmeet Chand (PW-5) about the same.
18. Gurmeet Chand is the immediate neighbour of the accused. He saw the accused going towards village Churru at about 5-5.15 a.m. on 11.4.2011.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:34:35 :::HCHP...12...
19. The prosecution, thus, through the testimony of these witnesses, has been able to .
establish the circumstance of the accused and the deceased being together in the matrimonial house, immediately prior to the occurrence of the incident.
Accused has not come forward to explain his absence from the house, nor has he set up any plea of alibi.
Circumstance No.4
20. rFrom the Rapt (Ex.PW-10/A), so proved on record by HHC Sada Shiv (PW-10) and Inspector Gurdeep Singh (PW-13), it is quite apparent that after visiting the Police Station, accused got recorded his statement of having murdered his wife, for the reason that he harboured suspicion of her having illicit relationship with "other persons". This document is not signed by the accused. However, the matter does not end here, on 11.4.2011, at about 6.37 p.m., accused had also telephonically called Jagat Ram (PW-1) and informed him that "he had a quarrel with Ashi and that he had murdered her by strangulating her with her Dupatta and that he is going to Police Station, Amb.
My wife was standing by my side and I informed her ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:34:35 :::HCHP ...13...
that the accused present in the court had caused the murder of our daughter namely Ashi". Version of this .
witness also stands corroborated by Gurmeet Chand (PW-5). Though it has come in the testimony of Jagat Ram that he does not remember the telephone number of the accused, but then such fact would not render his unrebutted testimony to be doubtful. Thus, the circumstance of confessional statement by the accused also stands proved.
21. Learned counsel has invited our attention to the contradiction in the testimonies of Gurmeet Chand and Ram Dei. On one hand, Ram Dei states that seeing the dead body, she fell unconscious and recovered only after a period of one hour, whereas on the other hand, Gurmeet Chand states that Ram Dei came to his house and informed that something had happened to her daughter-in-law. She requested him to come to her house.
22. On first brush, the contradiction seems to be glaring, which on careful reading and appreciation of testimonies of these witnesses is not so. Factum of Ram Dei having informed Gurmeet Chand about the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:34:35 :::HCHP ...14...
death of the deceased is categorically, in fact unrebuttedly, clear, as is so deposed by her. Whether .
she went to his house or not, is a different matter.
Testimonies of these witnesses, solely on this count, cannot be brushed aside, for we find that on material aspect the witness has deposed naturally and truthfully. Benefit of passage of time, perhaps the reason of different version coming on record, with regard to visit of Ram Dei to the house of Gurmeet Chand, ought to be given to the witnesses. Ram Dei categorically states that house of Gurmeet Chand is just adjoining to her house. Hearing her cries, Gurmeet Chand may have arrived on the spot. In any event, contradiction in the testimony of these witnesses, would not render the prosecution case to be doubtful or the testimonies of other witnesses to be unbelievable and their versions unreliable.
23. That deceased was strangulated with Dupatta (Ex. P-1) also stands proved on record through the testimonies of Dr. Ravi Sharma and other spot witnesses, in whose presence recovery was effected as also Inspector Gurdeep Singh.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:34:35 :::HCHP...15...
24. Relying upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Murli alias Denny v.
.
State of Rajasthan, (1995) Supp1 SCC 39, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the conviction be altered from Section 302 to Section 304 (Part I) of the Indian Penal Code. The decision rendered by the apex Court is in the given facts and the circumstances and is clearly distinguishable and not applicable to the instant facts.
25. In the instant case, there was no provocation, of whatsoever nature, warranting such drastic action on the part of the accused. Accused and the deceased were newly married. There is absolutely no evidence of extra marital relationship and also no reference of any suspects. After taking meals, the family retired to their respective bed rooms. There is no evidence of the accused having confronted his wife with regard to her illicit relationship. No outsider had visited the house. Also, there was no call from anyone.
He does not suspect his family members to have committed the murder. What transpired inside the room was entirely within his personal knowledge. He ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:34:35 :::HCHP ...16...
ought to have come forward and explained as to what transpired immediately prior to the incident, between .
the two, which he failed to do so.
26. From the material placed on record, it stands established by the prosecution witnesses that the accused is guilty of having committed the offence charged for. There is sufficient, convincing, cogent and reliable evidence on record to this effect. The circumstances stand conclusively proved by unbroken chain of unimpeachable testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The guilt of the accused stands proved beyond reasonable doubt to the hilt. The chain of events stand conclusively established and lead only to one conclusion, i.e. guilt of the accused. Circumstances when cumulatively considered fully establish completion of chain of events, indicating the guilt of the accused and no other hypothesis other than the same. It cannot be said that accused is innocent or not guilty or that he has been falsely implicated or that his defence is probable or that the evidence led by the prosecution is inconsistent, unreliable, untrustworthy and unbelievable. It cannot be said that the version narrated by the witnesses in Court is in a parrot-like manner and hence is to be disbelieved.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:34:35 :::HCHP...17...
5. In our considered view, prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused, beyond .
reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence, not only ocular but also corroborative in the shape of recovery of weapon of offence.
6. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial Court.
r The Court has fully appreciated the evidence placed on record by the parties. There is no illegality, irregularity, perversity in correct and/or in complete appreciation of the material so placed on record by the parties. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.
( Sanjay Karol ), Judge.
( P.S. Rana ),
July 15, 2015(sd) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:34:35 :::HCHP