Criminal Appeal No. 686-DB of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 686-DB of 2006 DATE OF DECISION: 07.09.2011 *** Ram Pal @ Bunda ..APPELLANT VS. State of Haryana ..RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. H.S. Gill, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.S. Randhawa, Addl. A.G. Haryana. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 and 376 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and ten years' rigorous imprisonment respectively, for committing the rape and then murder of Devi(the name of victim is not being disclosed). Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.2.2005 a telephonic intimation was received in the police station regarding the dead body of Devi, resident of Manglore, P.S. Shahzadpur(Ambala) lying in the fields of one Prithi Pal. On this, PW14 SI Raj Kumar, SHO Police Station Shahzadpur reached the spot and record the statement of PW10 Sumitra Devi, the mother of the deceased, wherein she stated that she is having two daughters and two sons; her elder daughter is married. On 18.2.2005 at about 6:30 p.m. her younger daughter Devi had went towards the fields to ease herself, but did not return and despite thorough search by her and other villagers, her whereabouts could not be traced. She also disclosed that in the Criminal Appeal No. 686-DB of 2006 2 night they met Ram Pal, who, on being asked, also showed his ignorance about Devi. However, in the morning when they again reached the place where Ram Pal had met them, they noticed the damaged crop of wheat and on further searched they found the dead body of Devi and the blue shawl which she was wearing was wrapped around her neck. Complainant raised suspicion about involvement of Ram Pal in the commission of offence. On these broad allegations, the case was registered under Section 302 IPC. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared and inquest proceedings were also carried out. The dead body was sent for the post-mortem examination. It is the case of the prosecution that on 21.2.2005 Ram Pal suffered extra judicial confession before Jagmal Singh(PW-13), confessing that on 18.2.2005 he firstly committed rape upon Devi and realizing that she will disclose the occurrence to the villagers, he committed her murder. Consequently, Jagmal Singh produced the accused before the police, who arrested him. During interrogation the place of occurrence was pointed by the accused. Accordingly, Section 376 IPC was also added. Thereafter, on completion of usual formalities of investigation, final report was prepared and forwarded for the trial of the accused. Charges under Sections 302 and 376 IPC was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, during the course of which the prosecution examined as many as fourteen witnesses in all. PW1 Dr. Ramesh Kumar conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. He found ligature mark on the neck of the deceased and in his opinion the death had occurred on account of asphyxia due to strangulation which was ante mortem in nature. He also do not rule out the possibility of sexual intercourse in this case. He also found multiple abrasions and contusions of different size on the right side of face and chin and few superficial abrasions and contusions on the back. PW2 Dr. Vikash Paul medically examined the accused and found him capable of doing sexual intercourse. PW3 MHC Virender Kumar, PW4 Const. Nasib Singh, PW5 Const. Raghbir Singh tendered their affidavits Ex.PG, Ex.PH and Ex.PJ Criminal Appeal No. 686-DB of 2006 3 respectively in their evidence. PW6 Ram Kishan, Patwari prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PK of the place of occurrence, on police request Ex.PK/1. PW7 EHC Karnail Singh delivered the special reports of the case to the higher officers. PW8 Prince Attri clicked the photographs of the dead body and proved its positives as Ex.P2 to Ex.P4. PW9 ASI Karamvir Singh recorded the formal FIR Ex.PM of the case. PW10 Sumitra Devi, PW11 Natho Devi and PW12 Balwant Raj are the mother, sister and father respectively of the deceased. All of them deposed on the lines of the case of the prosecution. PW13 Jagmal Singh before whom the accused suffered extra judicial confession turned hostile and even denied having acquainted with the accused or making of any extra judicial confession by him. PW14 SI Raj Kumar, the investigating officer deposed about the investigations being carried out by him. On closure of prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused were put to him by means of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., which were denied by him. According to him he was falsely implicated in the case on account of having strained relations with the family of the complainant. However, no evidence in defence was led by him. On conclusion of trial and appraisal of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner indicated above. Hence, the instant appeal has been filed. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the case file very carefully. The case in hand rests on the circumstantial evidence. The offence can be proved by circumstantial evidence also. Circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in issue but consists of evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated with the fact in issue that taken together they form a chain of circumstances from which the existence of the principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed. When a case rests Criminal Appeal No. 686-DB of 2006 4 squarely on circumstantial evidence, the proved circumstances must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. In Gagan Kanojia Vs. State of Punjab, 2006(13) SCC 516, it has been held that, the Courts have added two riders to aforesaid principle; namely, (i) there should be no missing links but it is not that every one of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence, since some of these links can only be inferred from the proved facts and (ii) it cannot be said that the prosecution must meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused however farfetched and fanciful it may might be. Let us see whether the prosecution has been able to complete the chain of evidence, so as to prove the involvement of the appellant in the rape and murder of Devi? This case has a basis of motive. Motive assumes a great importance in a case which rests on circumstantial evidence. The variation in human nature being so vast, murders are known to have been actuated by lesser motive. Sometimes motive is clear and can be proved and sometimes the motive is shrouded in mystery and it is very difficult to locate the same. Absence of evidence of motive does not weaken the prosecution case though existence of the motive may strengthen the same. To prove the motive, statement of PW11 Natho Devi, elder sister of the deceased is very relevant. Her statement is suggestive of the fact that about two and a half years back, she along with her cousin had gone to fields to fetch fodder and when they were returned at about 12:00/12:30 noon accused Ram Pal and his cousin Sham Lal met them. They teased them and bundles of grass were also made to fall on the ground. However, they saved themselves and narrated this fact to their parents and a Panchayat was convened in the village in which Ram Pal and his cousin begged pardon. Thereafter, she got married. However, when she used to come to her parental house, the accused to say to her that he would take revenge. Her statement is also corroborated from the statement of her mother PW10 Sumitra Devi and father Balwant Raj (PW12). This fact was also mentioned in the FIR. PW11 Natho Devi since got married after the occurrence, her sister i.e. Devi fell prey to the evil designs of the accused. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has simply pleaded his false implication in this case on account of strained relations but had not submitted any explanation with Criminal Appeal No. 686-DB of 2006 5 regard to the said aspect of the motive, which was put to him in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He has also not examined any witness from the village to dispute the version of PW11 Natho Devi, supported by her parents to the effect that after the said occurrence Panchayat was convened in the village in which he begged pardon for teasing Natho Devi. The factum of the said motive is not in isolation. It has a reflection in the first information report promptly lodged by PW10 Sumitra. Prompt lodging of the FIR wherein the appellant was named as a suspect and as said above, reflection of the motive since mentioned therein, rules out the false implication of the appellant in this case. The other circumstance which the prosecution relies is the presence of the accused at the scene of crime immediately after the occurrence. PW10 Sumitra Devi in her statement has stated that her daughter in the evening at 6:30 p.m. had left for the fields to ease herself, but did not return. She left for the fields to enquire her and shouted loudly by naming her daughter; on hearing the shouts her son Natha Ram also reached there. When they both were searching for Devi, Ram Pal @ Bunda appellant met them. She called him but he did not respond and ran away from the spot. Thereafter, they returned to the village as her daughter was not found and on return narrated the facts to the other villagers and again started searching for her daughter, but she could not be found. She further stated that next morning they reached the same place where a night earlier accused Ram Pal had met them and they found some plants of the wheat were lying broken at that place and on further search they found their daughter lying dead in between eucalyptus trees and a shawl of blue colour was also found around neck of her daughter. This version stands corroborated by PW12 Balwant Raj, who also accompanied her in the fields of Prithi Pal for the search of their daughter in the morning and stated that they followed the damaged wheat plants upto the distance of 5-6 killas and reached the fields of Prithi Pal and found that dead body of his daughter was lying in between the eucalyptus trees. It is obvious that on the previous night due to darkness PW10 Sumitra Devi could not notice the damaged wheat plants and could only be noticed in the morning when she again visited there accompanied with others including her husband. The present accused was also spotted near the place of occurrence i.e. fields of Prithi Criminal Appeal No. 686-DB of 2006 6 Pal. He, despite having been asked by Sumitra Devi, did not respond rather ran away from the spot. The accused-appellant has also not submitted any explanation as to what prompted him to come to that place during odd hours in the night. The place where the accused-appellant was spotted by Sumitra Devi is the same place i.e. the fields of Prithi Pal from where the dead body of her daughter was duly recovered. It has thus, rightly been observed by the learned trial Court that the presence of the accused-appellant at that point of time is very material circumstance to connect him with the crime. The conduct of the accused in running away from the spot and remained absconded till 21.2.2005 is also of utmost importance and is raising accusing finger upon him. The testimonies of aforesaid witnesses have been assailed on the ground of close relation of the deceased. However, it is not the absolute law that the evidence of relation witness is not entitled to any weight but this very circumstance would add to the value of their evidence because they would be interested in ensuring that the real culprit responsible for the murder be punished and not the innocent person. The prompt lodging of the FIR wherein the appellant was named as the suspect over-rules the false implication of the appellant in this case. Another circumstance which supports the case of the prosecution is the disclosure statement (Ex.PS) of the accused-appellant. He, after his arrest, made disclosure statement that he committed sexual intercourse with Devi daughter of Balwant Raj, caste Megh, resident of Mangalore in the fields and after strangulation with shawl he committed her murder and that the said field was of Prithi Pal Pandit of their village; the place where he committed sexual intercourse with Devi and the spot where her dead body was thrown is known to him and get the said places demarcated by accompanying the police. It has come in the evidence of PW14 Raj Kumar, the investigating officer that on the pointing out by the accused he demarcated the place from where the dead body was recovered. The argument that has been addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant that since dead body had already been recovered prior to the disclosure statement, as such Section 27 of the Evidence Act will not apply because this is not the case where on the basis of information the dead body was recovered rather it was vice-versa. The contention is meritless. A close Criminal Appeal No. 686-DB of 2006 7 look to the disclosure statement indicates that the place of commission of rape, murder and throwing of dead body are not a single place, rather disclosure statement, if read in conjunction with Ex.PO i.e. the statement made by PW3 Jagmal Singh (hostile) regarding the extra judicial confession made by the accused before him, it is clear that after the strangulation he dragged the dead body and threw the same towards eucalyptus trees. No doubt PW3 Jagmal Singh did not support the case since he succumbed to the pressure being exerted by the accused, who is co-villager, however, this gets corroboration from the medical evidence as PW1 Dr. Ramesh Kumar, who conducted the post-mortem examination had found multiple abrasions and contusions of different size on the right side of face and chin and few superficial abrasion and contusions on the back, which gives an indication that there was some kind of dragging. That apart after the demarcation by the accused the police got prepared the scaled site plan(Ex.PK) from PW6 Ram Kishan Patwari, wherein instead of one point three different points “A”, “B” and “C” have been shown. This also endorses that the occurrence had not taken place at one place from where the dead body was recovered, but at some distance as well which place was exclusively in the knowledge of the accused and he got the demarcation done which has reflection in the site plan (Ex.PK) got prepared by the police from PW6 Ram Kishan Patwari. The matter does not rest here. The damaged plants also indicates that the entire occurrence had taken place not at a single place because as per the version of PW10 Sumitra Devi where the accused had met they found some plants of wheat lying broken and after following the said plants they found the dead body of her daughter lying in between the eucalyptus trees. In this backdrop of the fact, the learned trial Court rightly made the following observations:- “28... Wheat plants were lying damaged there and the same continued to lie damaged till the place from where dead body was recovered. Some abrasions and contusions were also found on the back, face and chin of the deceased. Hence, all these circumstances go to prove that act of forcible sexual intercourse was done by the accused upon the deceased Puro Devi when he found her Criminal Appeal No. 686-DB of 2006 8 alone in the fields, where she had gone to ease herself and thereafter he strangulated her as he was having fear in his mind that she may not disclose the occurrence to her parents and other villagers as earlier as well her sister had taken the matter of her teasing by him to the village panchayat and thereafter in order to conceal dead body, he dragged the same at a distance of few killas and left there on the boundary of another village.” The medical evidence also supports the case of the prosecution. PW1 Dr. Ramesh Kumar had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased on 19.5.2005. He has given the opinion that cause of death in this case was on account of asphyxia due to strangulation which was ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death. He has opined that the possibility of sexual intercourse in this case cannot be ruled out. The duration between injuries and death was few minutes while, in his opinion, the time that elapsed between death was post-mortem was within 24 hours and thus, coincides the case of the prosecution. The cumulative effect of the above discussion is that the learned trial Court came to the right conclusion that the chain of circumstances taken individually and cumulatively leads to the one and only conclusion that it was the appellant, who firstly committed the rape and then murder of deceased-Devi. In our considered opinion the trial Court rightly held the appellant guilty and sentenced him for the charges framed against him. Therefore, the findings of guilt and their sentence require no interference by this Court. As a sequel to the above discussion, we find no merits in the instant appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE September 07,2011 Jiten