Ranjodh Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Rajiv Sharma, J—This appeal is instituted against judgment dated 7-7-2011 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh in Sessions Trial No. 28 of 2010, whereby appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to as ''accused''), who was charged with and tried for offence under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for offence under Section 302, IPC, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for six months, and under Section 201, IPC, he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for six months. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 21-7-2010, at about 10.00 p.m., accused called Pawna Devi alias Pano Devi on telephone whether Raj Kumari (deceased) had come to their house or not and Pano Devi replied in negative. Thereafter, Pano Devi asked her brother-in-law, Roshan Lal on telephone as to whether Raj Kumari had come to his house or not and Roshan Lal also replied in negative. Pano Devi further told Roshan Lal that accused Ranjodh Singh was asking about Raj Kumari as she had not returned home from Sujanpur. On 22-7-2010 at about 8.30 a.m., Roshan Lal, Desh Raj, Praveen Kumar, Pawna Devi alias Pano Devi, Maya Devi, Nirmala Devi and Naseeb Devi went to the house of the accused in order to know whereabouts of Raj Kumari. After reaching at his house, Roshan Lal inquired from accused about Raj Kumari and he told them that Raj Kumari did not return home since the previous day from Sujanpur. Roshan Lal was not satisfied with the reply of the accused. They got suspicious and started searching the house. They recovered blood stained bed-sheet, Chadar, Dupatta and a blanket from an almirah in the house. After recovery of blood stained clothes, they became more suspicious. Desh Raj went to the police station, Sujanpur, where he gave application, Ext. P.W. 2/A. SI/SHO, Ramesh Chand, along with other police officials went to the house of accused. The police and Roshan Lal again asked the accused about the whereabouts of Raj Kumari and accused confessed that after killing Raj Kumari, with a Danda on the previous night, he wrapped the dead body in a gunny bag and threw the same in Beas river. Thereafter, SHO Ramesh Chand recorded statement of Roshan Lal under Section 154, Cr.P.C. Ext. P.W. 1/A. Consequently, FIR was registered under Sections 302 and 201, IPC. The accused while in police custody made disclosure statement that he had concealed his shirt and Pyjama in a heap of bricks in the verandah. He got recovered blood stained shirt and Pyjama from the heap of bricks. He also made disclosure statement that he had concealed the dead body of Raj Kumari in septic tank. Accused led police party to the septic tank. Raj Kumari was recovered from the septic tank. She was alive at that time. She was sent by the IO to Community Health Centre Sujanpur for medical treatment. Medical Officer referred Raj Kumari to Dr. R.P. Medical College, Tanda and she was further referred to PGI. On 24-7-2010, accused made disclosure statement about Danda (handle of axe). Thereafter he got recovered the Danda. Raj Kumari died on 25-7-2010. Investigation was completed. Challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. Accused was convicted and sentence as noticed herein above. Hence this appeal.

Prosecution has examined as many as 24 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused was also examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C.. He pleaded innocence and examined two witnesses in his defence.

Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused.

Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General has supported the judgment of trial court dated 7-7-2011.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and record very, carefully.

PW-1 Roshan Lal testified that on 21-7-2010 at about 10.15 p.m., Pano Devi, his sister in law, informed on telephone that whether her sister Raj Kumari had come to his house or not. He told her that she did not come to his house. Pano Devi told that accused was enquiring about her. On 22-7-2010, he contacted accused on telephone. He inquired if Raj Kumari had returned to the matrimonial house or not. He told that she has not returned. He along with his wife Nirmala Kumari, Kashmiri Devi, Pano Devi, Maya Devi, Parveen Kumar and Desh Raj as well as his mother left for the house of the accused. They inquired about Raj Kumari. However, accused was not giving satisfactory reply. They got suspicious. They started searching the house. They noticed mobile and Chappal of Raj Kumari in the house. They became more suspicious. When they opened the almirah, blood stained clothes fell down on the floor. Accused told that during previous night he gave beatings to Raj Kumari for coming late and killed her by giving Danda blows. Thereafter he wrapped the body of deceased in a gunny bag and threw in the Beas river. He deputed Desh Raj to report the matter to the Pradhan. He sent Desh Raj to the police station. Police recorded his statement vide Ext. P.W. 1/A. Blood stained bedsheet, Dupatta, one blanket in the shape of Galaf, were taken into possession vide memo Ext. P.W. 1/B. He identified the Galaf Ext. P2, Chadar Ext. P3, Duptta Ext. P4 and blanket Ext. P5. Accused was interrogated by the police. Accused told that he has concealed his clothes underneath the heap of bricks. These were recovered vide Ext. PW1/E. He identified Shirt Ext. P7 and Trousers Ext. P8. Inquest reports Ext. P.W. 1/F and P.W. 1/G were prepared by the police. He denied the suggestion in his cross-examination that Raj Kumari was suffering from mental ailment.

PW-2 Desh Raj is brother of the deceased. According to him, Pano Devi telephoned Roshan Lal, PW-1 informing that Raj Kumari was not at home. He, Roshan Lal and Naseeb Devi, his mother, Nirmala Devi, Parveen Kumar and Kashmiri Devi went to the house of accused on 22-7-2010. They asked the accused about Raj Kumari. When police came to the house of accused, accused made confession about the murder of Raj Kumari. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned trial Court noticed his demeanour. He was laughing while answering the questions. Court observed that he appeared to have consumed liquor.

PW-3 Parveen Kumar deposed that he had also accompanied his family members. They asked the accused about Raj Kumari. He replied that she has not returned home from Sujanpur. His Bhabhi Maya Devi opened the almirah in the room and blood stained clothes fell down from the almirah on the floor. Accused admitted that he had killed Raj Kumari and thrown body of Raj Kumari in a jute bag in Beas river. Desh Raj went to the police station.

PW-4 Seema Devi deposed that she accompanied Desh Raj to the police Station. Desh Raj made report Ext. PW-2/A. They returned to the spot followed by police. She went inside the room along with police officials and almirah was opened. Blood stained clothes were found in the same. She was also declared hostile but in her cross-examination by the learned public prosecutor, she has admitted that when accused was questioned, he told that on previous night, he had thrown body of Raj Kumari after killing her, in the river. Thereafter, she along with Desh Raj, had gone to the police station. Body of Raj Kumari was taken out of the septic tank by calling sweepers. She identified Danda, Ext. P9.

PW-5 Pawna Devi deposed that accused telephoned at their house in the evening. Call was attended by her. Accused inquired about Raj Kumari. She telephoned her brother-in-law Roshan Lal about the telephone call made by accused. She telephoned the accused and told that Raj Kumari was not at home and whether she has returned to the house by that time or not. In the morning, all the family members went to the house of accused. She denied the suggestion that Raj Kumari was suffering from giddiness or palsy.

PW-6 Maya Devi also deposed that she accompanied her relations to the house of the accused. When she opened almirah in the room, some clothes i.e. bed sheet, blanket, Dupatta etc. fell down from upper most shelf of the Almirah. She noticed blood on the same. She told her Jeth Roshan Lal and Nirmala Devi about it. They advised to keep the clothes as such. Then they came out in the courtyard. Roshan Lal, PW-1, asked accused about the blood on the clothes. Accused admitted that he had killed Raj Kumari and thrown the body in a gunny bag in the Beas river.

PW-7 Nirmala Devi deposed that on 21-7-2010, during night, Pawna alias Pano made a telephone call to her inquiring about the whereabouts of Raj Kumari. She also told her that accused was inquiring about her. She informed Roshan lal about it. In the next morning, they telephoned the accused and he told that Raj Kumari was not traceable. They all went to the house of accused. Accused was asked by them but he replied that Raj Kumari had not come home. They started searching the house. They found her mobile phone and chappal in the house. Maya Devi opened the almirah in the room in her presence. Some clothes i.e. blanket, Chuni and bed sheet fell down from almirah. They were stained with blood. Accused was asked about it. He told that he had killed his wife for not returning home on time. Desh Raj went to the police station.

PW-8 Onkar Chand deposed that on 21-7-2010, his father telephoned him at about 10.00 p.m. and informed that his mother had gone to Sujanpur in the morning on that day but had not returned. In the morning on 22-7-2010, he again telephoned the house of his maternal uncle. He suspected that there might have been some quarrel between his parents and that some untoward incident might have taken place. Accused used to quarrel with his wife. He called his father and noticed that he was under some fear and told him by that time that he had no information about mother. Then he came back from Chandigarh to his house and reached about 1.00 p.m. He went to the septic tank site. Body of his mother was already lying outside the septic tank. Mother was moved to the hospital. She was shifted to Tanda and thereafter to PGI, where she died. After post-mortem, dead body was brought back for cremation.

PW-9 Surinder Kumar deposed that accused made disclosure statement Ext. PW-9/A that he has kept one Danda/stick concealed near his kitchen.

PW-10 Manoj Kumar deposed that on 22-7-2010, he received a telephonic call from the police station Sujanpur that a dead body was to be retrieved. He arranged for three sweepers. Body was recovered vide Ext. PW-1/A. He signed the same.

PW-11 Ranjit Singh deposed that on 22-7-2010, accused was in police custody. At about 8/8.30 p.m., accused made statement and told the IO Ramesh Chand that he had concealed the body of his wife in his septic tank after killing her and he could get the same recovered. Statement was recorded vide Ext. P.W. 11/A.

PW-12 Mani Ram deposed that accused led them to his septic tank and lifted the lid of the septic tank and showed body of his wife. Body was noticed in the torch light. Stair case was arranged. He went inside the septic tank. Body was lying in the septic tank. There was knee deep water in the septic tank.

PW-13 Dr. Kunal Kaushal has examined the deceased Raj Kumari on 22.7.2010. According to him, injuries could be inflicted with Danda, Ext. P9.

PW-14, PW-15, PW-16 and PW-17 are formal in nature.

PW-18 Raghujeet Singh submitted that the case property was deposited with him.

PW-19 Ravinder Nath deposed that he took parcel to the CHC Sujanpur and produced the same before the Medical Officer. He opened one Beul Danda without axe and gave his opinion Ext. P.W. 13/C.

PW-20 Asha Kumari deposed that accused has called her and asked her to milk the buffalo. She went to the house of accused. Sandla Devi tried to milk the buffalo but milk could not be collected. Raj Kumari was not present in the house.

PW-21 Sunita is daughter of deceased. She was residing with her maternal uncle for the last two months. She had gone to the house of her Bua at village Plahi 12/13 days prior to the incident. On 21-7-2010, accused telephoned the son of her Bua that her mother was not at home. She has gone somewhere. She was told about it next morning by her cousin Sanjeev Kumar. She along with her cousin sister Amita came to her house. They reached at 2.00 p.m. Police had already come. She asked her father about her mother. He told her that he had killed her and thrown body in the river Beas.

PW-22 Dr. S.P. Mandal has conducted post-mortem examination on 26.7.2010. According to him, cause of death was Oedema of brain due to head injuries. These injuries were ante mortem and caused by blunt weapon. Post-mortem report is Ext. PW-22/B.

PW-23 ASI Shamsher Singh deposed that at the instance of accused, body of Raj Kumari was recovered from septic tank with the help of sweepers. She was alive. She was taken to Sujanpur Hospital. She was referred to Dr. R.P. Medical College Tanda. On 24-7-2010, accused made disclosure statement in the presence of Manoj Kumar and Surinder Kumar, vide Ext. PW-9/A. One handle of axe, Ext. P9 was recovered. Site map was prepared. Raj Kumari was referred to PGI Chandigarh. He went to PGI and got postmortem conducted.

PW-24 SI Ramesh Chand deposed that he along with ASI Shamsher Singh and HC Pawan Kumar went to village Tihra and inspected the house. He found blood stained clothes in one room. He recorded statement Ext. PW-1/A of Roshan Lal under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also took photographs. He prepared spot map, Ext. PW24/A. Shirt Ext. P7, Trousers Ext. P8 were recovered. Accused made disclosure statement Ext. P.W. 11/A that after killing his wife he had put dead body in septic tank and body was recovered vide Ext. PW-10/A. Body of Raj Kumari was taken out of septic tank. Sweepers told that Raj Kumari was alive when she was brought outside the septic tank. He directed ASI Shamsher Singh to shift Raj Kumari to the hospital at Sujanpur.

Accused has made extra-judicial confession before PW-1 Roshan Lal that he has killed his wife by giving Danda blows and after wrapping body of Raj Kumari in a gunny bag had thrown in Beas river. According to PW-2 Desh Raj, when police came to the house of accused, accused made confession about murder of Raj Kumari. Though he was declared hostile, but his demeanour was noticed by the trial Judge. PW-8 Parveen Kumar is the brother of deceased. According to him also, accused had admitted that he has killed Raj Kumari and thrown body in Beas river. PW-4 Seema Devi though declared hostile, but in her cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, has admitted that when accused was questioned, he told that on previous night he had thrown body of Raj Kumari after killing her, in the river. PW-6 Maya Devi deposed that PW-1 Roshan Lal asked accused about blood on clothes, then accused admitted that he has killed Raj Kumari and thrown body in a gunny bag in Beas river. PW-7 deposed that when accused was asked about blood on the clothes, he told that he has killed his wife and thrown body in a gunny bag in the river. PW-8 Onkar Chand, son of accused asked his father about the whereabouts of his mother, but he could not reply. When police was interrogating the accused, he told the police that he had killed his mother and thrown body in the river. PW-20 Asha Kumari has not seen Raj Kumari when she was asked to milk buffalo of the accused. PW-21 Sunita asked about the whereabouts of mother, then accused told her that he has killed her and thrown body in Beas river.

Accused has earlier told the witnesses, as noticed hereinabove, that he has killed his wife and thrown body in the river but he made disclosure statement vide Ext. PW-11/A to the effect that he has killed his wife and concealed the body in septic tank. Body was retrieved from the septic tank by PW-12 Mani Ram. Raj Kumari was breathing. She was sent to CHC Sujanpur. Medical Officer at Sujanpur referred her to Dr. R.P. Medical College Tanda and Medical Officer at Tanda further referred her to PGI Chandigarh. Danda was recovered on the basis of disclosure statement made by accused vide Ext. PW-9/A. PW-13 Dr. Kunal Kaushal has opined that injuries could be inflicted by Danda, Ext. P9. Raj Kumari has died due to ante mortem injuries inflicted with a blunt weapon as per statement of Dr. S.P. Mandal, PW-22.

Mr. T.S. Chauhan has argued that all the witnesses are close relations of the deceased and their statements could not be believed. However, it is settled law that statements of witnesses, who are related to the victim, can be relied upon if they inspire confidence. Statements made by the close relations of deceased are natural and believable. PW-8, son of accused and PW-21, daughter of accused, have also deposed against their father. It has come in the statement of PW-8 Onkar Chand, that his father used to give beatings to his mother. It has also come on record that the deceased had gone to Sujanpur and had come late in the evening. Accused has given beatings to the deceased with Danda and presuming her to be dead had dumped her in the septic tank. It was only a coincidence that she did not die immediately but died later on at PGI. Prosecution has recovered blood stained clothes from the house of accused (Ext. P2 to Ext P5). Shirt (Ext. P7) and Pyjama (Ext. P8) were also recovered. Blood of group ''B'' was detected on quilt cover, bed sheet, blanket, Dupatta and shirt of accused. Blood was also detected as per Ext. PW24/F on Pyjama and stick/Danda. Blood was also detected on the shirt and Salwar of the deceased. Mr. Chauhan has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to attribute any motive against the accused and in case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays a very important role. It is settled law that when chain of events is complete, as is in the present case, motive is not that important. Prosecution has fully proved the case against the accused.

Their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Babu Lal and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2003) 8 JT 387 : (2003) 9 SCALE 155 : (2003) 12 SCC 490 : (2003) 5 SCR 54 Supp have held that credible evidence of witnesses could not be discarded on the ground of relationship. Their lordships have held as under:

"[8] The materials on record clearly established that the deceased was in mentally fit condition, though battered in the physical frame. The High Court has rightly held that presence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 did not result in any presumption of tutoring, when the FIR was recorded. Merely because there was a thumb impression on the FIR, and not the signature as stated by P.W. 1, that does not falsify the prosecution version. The same has been clarified by the High Court. It has to be noted that P.W. 16, who had scribed the FTR, stated that the contents were read over to the deceased, who had thereafter put his thumb impression. In fact the defence itself has suggested to P.W. 1 during cross-examination that the thumb impression was taken on the paper first and thereafter the writings were inserted. In other words, there was acceptance of the fact that the thumb impression was there but writings were done later which have been denied by P.W. 1. We do not find any reason to discard the dying declaration only on this ground. The High Court has also found in analysing the evidence that the plea relating to anti-dating or anti-timing of the FIR is a myth. Though some of the accused persons have been acquitted by the trial Court, the High Court has carefully analysed the evidence and have sifted the grain from the chaff and disengaged truth from falsehood. Merely because some persons have not been named in the FIR and have given the benefit of doubt, that cannot be a reason for discarding the dying declaration or the evidence of the witnesses."

Their lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Vinay Kumar Rai and Another Vs. The State of Bihar, AIR 2008 SC 3276 : (2008) CriLJ 4319 : (2008) 11 SCALE 353 : (2008) 12 SCC 202 : (2008) AIRSCW 5541 have held that merely because eye-witnesses are family members, their evidence can not be discarded. Their lordships have held as under:

"11. Merely because the eye-witnesses are family members their evidence cannot per se be discarded. When there is allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established. Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible. We shall also deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses for furthering prosecution version.

"5. ....Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.

[6] In Dalip Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364 : (1954) 1 SCR 145 it has been laid down as under:---

"26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is after a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts."

[7] The above decision has been followed in Guli Chand and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1974 SC 276 : (1974) CriLJ 331 : (1974) 3 SCC 698 : (1974) SCC(Cri) 222 : (1974) 6 UJ 121 in which Vadivelu Thevar Vs. The State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 : (1957) CriLJ 1000 : (1957) 1 SCR 981 was also relied upon.

[8] We may also observe that the ground that the witness being a close, relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. This theory was repelled by this Court as early as in Dalip Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364 : (1954) 1 SCR 145 in which surprise was expressed over the impression which prevailed in the minds of the Members of the Bar that relatives were not independent witnesses. Speaking through Vivian Bose, J. it was observed:

"25. We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the a High Court that the testimony of the two eye-witnesses requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women and that the fate of seven men hangs on their testimony, we know of no such rule. If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the deceased we are unable to concur. This is a fallacy common to many criminal cases and one which another Bench of this Court endeavoured to dispel in - '' Rameshwar Vs. The State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54 : (1952) CriLJ 547 : (1952) 1 SCR 377 . We find, however, that it unfortunately still persists, if not in the judgments of the Courts, at any rate in the arguments of counsel."

[9] Again in Masalti Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202 : (1964) 8 SCR 133 this Court observed:

"14. .......But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses...........The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct."

To the same effect is the decisions in The State of Punjab Vs. Jagir Singh, Baljit Singh and Karam Singh, AIR 1973 SC 2407 : (1973) CriLJ 1589 : (1974) 3 SCC 277 : (1973) SCC(Cri) 886 : (1974) 1 SCR 328 ; Lehna Vs. State of Haryana, (2002) 1 JT 577 Supp : (2002) 1 SCALE 273 : (2002) 3 SCC 76 : (2002) 1 SCR 377 and Gangadhar Behera and Others Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 2002 SC 3633 : (2003) CriLJ 41 : (2003) 1 Crimes 28 : (2002) 8 JT 135 : (2002) 7 SCALE 402 : (2002) 8 SCC 381 : (2002) 3 SCR 183 Supp . The above position was also highlighted in Babulal Bhagwan Khandare and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 10 SCALE 188 : (2005) 10 SCC 404 and in Salim Sahab Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 103 CLT 531 : (2006) 13 SCALE 228 : (2006) 10 SCR 51 Supp ."

Their lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Israr Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2005 SC 249 : (2004) 10 JT 526 : (2004) 10 SCALE 237 : (2005) 9 SCC 616 : (2004) AIRSCW 6916 : (2004) 8 Supreme 718 have held that relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Their lordships have held as under:

"12. We shall first deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses for furthering prosecution version. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible."

Accordingly, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.