BIMLA DEVI versus RAJESH SINGH &ANR.
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 1087, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Facts
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 1087 
BIMLADEVI 
v. 
RAJESH SINGH &ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1033 of2010) 
December 16, 2015 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860- ss. 302134, 201, 148, 452, 323 -
Double murder - Previous enmity between the parties - c 
Statement of informant that assailants shot dead her father-
in-/aw and her husband, dumped father-in-law's body into the 
well and snatched the jewellery of the ladies - Conviction of 
accused persons under various provisions of the Code and 
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life - In appeal, the D 
High Court gave benefit of doubt to accused RS and acquitted · 
him of all the charges, however, upheld conviction and 
sentence of four accused holding that the case was proved 
beyond reasonable doubt - On appeal, held: There is no 
infirmity in the order of High Court regarding accused RS -
E 
Regarding the other accused, procedural lapse in not sending 
. the FIR promptly, would not effect the prosecution case- No 
motive in manipulating with the FIR proved -
Mere 
overwriting in the name of the informant would not affect the 
proceedings since the fact of homicidal death as also the F 
manner in which the death occurred not disputed and the 
contents of the inquest report supported by the eye witnesses 
and also th.e medical evidences - Further, testimonies of 
each of the six witnesses proved and corroborated by the G 
other and remain unshaken during cross-examination -
Their presence was natural
and each explained the 
occurrence -As regards enhancement of sentence, accused 
neither have any criminal antecedents nor posing any 
danger to society at large - Instant case not within the H 
1087
1088 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A category of rarest of the rare cases and thus, no need of 
scaling each and every aggravating and mitigating 
circumstances - Sentence awarded by the courts below 
adequate - Thus, order passed by the High Court does not 
call for interference - Sentence/sentencing. 
B 
CRIMINALAPPEt LATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1033 of2010 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.2007 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal Nos. 371 
C of2002 
WITH 
C~iminal Appeal Nos. 1034-1036, 1037 of 2010 
Criminal Appeal No. 543-545 of 2013 
o 
R. Basanth, Amit Pawan, Gopal Singh, Anuj Prakash, 
. Sandeepan Pathak (A.C.) for the Appellant. 
E 
Nagendra Rai, Gopal Singh, Anuj Prakash, Smarhar Singh, · 
S. K. Saurav and T. Mahipal for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1.These appeals have 
been filed against a common judgment and order dated 
20.12.2007, passed by the learned Single Judge of the High 
F Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal Nos.371, 386, 
441 and 447 of 2002. By the impugned judgment the learned 
Single Judge of the High Court, while allowing the appeal of 
one of the accused Rajesh Singh and acquitting him, dismissed 
the appeals of the other four accused, namely, La loo Tiwary, 
G Lala Tiwary, Uma Shankar Tiwary and Pramod Tiwary and 
upheld their conviction and sentence as awarded by the Trial 
Court. Criminal Appeal Nos.543-545 of 2013 are
filed by the 
aforesaid four accused against their conviction arid sentence 
H by the two Courts below and Criminal Appeal Nos.1034-1036
SIMLA DEVI v. RAJESH SINGH &ANR. 
1089 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 
of 2010 are filed by the informant Simla Devi W/o late Lalan A 
Tiwary, for enhancement of the sentence of these accused. 
Criminal Appeal No.1033 of 2010 filed by the informant and 
Criminal Appeal No.1037 of 2010 filed by the State, are against 
the acquittal of the accused Rajesh Singh. 
2. The brief facts necessary to dispose of these appeals 
are that on 20.12.1998 at 4:30 PM, the informant Simla Devi, 
resident of Village Mangara, P.S. Karakat, District Rohtas, 
recorded her statement (fardbeyan) at P.S. Karakat, alleging 
B 
that at 2:00 PM, her father-in-law Kashi Nath Tiwary and her C 
husband Lallan Tiwary were shot dead at their house by the 
assailants, namely, Uma ShankarTiwary, Laloo Tiwary, Pramod 
Tiwary, Lala Tiwary amd Dipendra Tiwary@ Turhi and 2 other 
unnamed assailants. The dead body of Kashi Nath Tiwary was 
dumped into the well located in front of their house. The D · 
informant further alleged that the accused also snatched away 
the jewellery of the informant, her daughter and her sister-in-
law. Out of the two unnamed assailants, one was named as 
Rajesh Sharma and the name of the other assailant was never 
known. 
E 
3. After investigation was concluded, the Investigation 
Officer submitted charge-sheet against accused Uma Shankar 
Tiwary, Laloo Tiwary, Kamal Narain Singh, Dipendra Tiwary 
@ Torhi, Pramod Tiwary and Lala Tiwary, for offences F · 
punishable under Sections 147,
148, 149, 341, 342, 323,. 452, 
379, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" for 
short) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Thereafter a 
supplementary charge sheet was submitted against accused 
Rajesh Kumar Singh under the aforesaid sections.and also G 
under Section 354 of IPC. The case was committed to the 
Court of Sessions. During the pendency of the trial, accused 
Dipender Tiwary was held juvenile, his case was separated 
and serit to the Juvenile Justice Court. The charges were read 
H
1090 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
over and explained to the accused persons, they pleaded not 
guilty and claimed for trial. 
4. The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 
13.05.2002, convicted the accused and sentenced them to 
B rigorous imprisonment for life. The Trial Court convicted Uma 
Shankar Tiwary, Laloo Tiwary, Pramod Tiwary, Lala Tiwary, 
Rajesh Singh and Kamal Narain Singh for offences under 
Sections 302/34, 201, 148 and 452 of IPC and sentenced 
them to rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under 
C Section 302/34 IPC, further rigorous imprisonment forfour year 
for offence under Section 201, imprisonment of four years for 
offence under Section 452 and rigorous imprisonment for six 
months for offence under Section 323 IPC. Uma Shankar 
liwary, Laloo liwary and Pramod liwary were further sentenced 
D to pay a fine of Rs.10000/- each. 
5. Four different appeals were filed before the High Court 
by five accused persons against the aforesaid conviction order. 
The sixth accused Kamal Narain Singh is absconding against 
E which permanent Warrant of Arrest in red ink has been issued. 
The High Court all~wed the appeal of accused Rajesh Singh 
and acquitted him of all the charges. However, the conviction 
of other four accused, namely, Uma Shankar Tiwary, Laloo 
liwary, Pramod liwary and Lala liwary was upheld by the High 
F Court and their appeals were dismissed. 
6. The Trial Court convicted the accused/respondents on 
the basis of
the evidence of nine prosecution witnesses and 
also the documentary evidence which supported the 
G prosecution story. However, in appeal the High Court pointed 
out that the informant neither named accused Rajesh Singh in 
the fardbeyan nor in the police statement. It was only after about 
two years that the accused Rajesh Singh was named before 
the Court. The High Court further stated that the other 
H independent witnesses did not identify Rajesh Singh in the ·
BIMLADEVI v. RAJESl:i SINGH &ANR. 
1091 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 
Court, even when they identified the other four accused. The A 
High Court, thus, deemed it proper to give benefit of doubt to 
the accused Rajesh Singh. Hence, his conviction was set aside 
and he was acquitted of all the charges. As against the other 
accused, the High Court was convinced that the prosecution 
had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 
B 
7. The Trial Court finding enough evidence against 
accused Rajesh Singh, convicted him for the double murder. 
However, the High Court pointed outthat accused Rajesh Singh 
was nowhere named in the FIR or the Police statement and C 
his alleged role was testified only at the trial stage, after about 
more than 2 years of the incident. The High Court thus extended 
the benefit of doubt to this accused. Upon perusal of the 
records, especially the testimony of the eye witnesses, we find 
no infirmity in the reasoning of the High Court. Out of the six "D 
material eye witnesses, three were related to the accused. 
PW3 was the daughter of the deceased Kashi Nath Tiwary, 
PW4 was the daughter of deceased Rajendra Prasad Tiwary 
@ Lallan Tiwary, and PW6 - informant was the wife of deceased 
Lallan Tiwary. The other three eye witnesses, i.e. PW1, PW2 E 
and PW7, were from the village where the occurrence took 
place and they happened to be chance witnesses. However, 
in each of the witnesses' statements, the name of the 
respondent Rajesh Singh does not
appear until testimony F 
before the Court. The four related witnesses in their cross-
examination stated that they had named Rajesh Singh as one 
of the accused in the FIR and the police statement. However, 
no explanation can be gathered as to how one name could be 
missed when all the other five accused were named G 
categorically. Moreover, if the testimony of the other three 
unrelated witnesses is perused, none of the witnesses named 
the respondent Rajesh Singh directly and they did not even 
identify accused Rajesh Singh in the Court at the time of trial 
while they specifically recognized the other accused present H
1092 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
in the Court. Thus, there is no infirmity in the High Court's order 
that the respondent/ accused Rajesh Singh is entitled to benefit 
of doubt as the prosecution has not been able to bring home 
the charge against him. 
B 
8. Accused persons (appellants in Criminal Appeal 
Nos.543-545 of 2013) argued on the same grounds which 
were categorically dealt with in details by the High Court which 
are mainly two: Firstly, that the FIR was not sent to the Court 
within time and so the correct version had not come out; 
C 
Secondly, that there exists cutting/overwriting in the inquest 
report as, initially, the name of the informant was noted as Bunni 
Kumari daughter of Bishwa Nath Kum_ar, but subsequently it 
was erased and in its place, name of Simla Devi wife of Lallan 
Tiwary was written. 
D 
9. The above two arguments were also pleaded before 
the Trial Court as well as the High Court, and both the Courts 
below denied the averments and reasoned that the two errors 
did not prejudice the investigation. Moreover, the prosecution 
E case was supported by six strong and cogent eye witnesses, 
which was further corroborated by the medical evidence and 
the recovery memos. The High Court perused the testimony 
of PW9, who is the Investigating Officer, wherein it was 
deposed that he recorded tne statement (fardbeyan) at 4:30 
F 
PM, thereafter he went to the place of incident and the body of 
deceased Kashi Nath Tiwary was
recovered from the well after 
one hour of his arrival, and the inquest and other proceedings 
were conducted. Hence, he stated that FIR was lodged at 
about 9:00 PM. The witness further stated that the FIR was 
G sent to the Magistrate through Special Messenger on 
22.12.1998.Although itis true that delay in sending the FIR to 
the magistrate can vitiate the investigation, but it is settled 
position that a cogent reasoning can override this procedural 
H lacunae. It is an accepted fact that there was a delay of one
BIMLA DE: .'I ·:. QAJt.SH SINGH &ANR. 
1093 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 
day in sending the FIR. However, no motive in manipulating A 
with the FIR was proved. The prosecution case is strongly 
ba~ked by testimonies of the six eye witnesses who have 
t€1stified the incident in almost similar terms. A procedural lapse 
in not sending the FIR promptly, did not prejudice the present 
case. 
B 
10. The next factual lacunae raised was overwriting in the 
inquest report. The inquest report by the police officer is 
prepared under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973. The scope of the section is investigation by C 
the police in cases of unnatural or suspicious death. However, 
the scope is very limited and aimed at ascertaining the first 
apparent signs of the death. Apart from this the police officer" 
has to investigate the place wherefrom the dead body is 
recovered, describe wounds, fractures, bruises and other D 
marks of injury as may be found on the body, stating·in what 
manner or by what weapon or instrument, such injuries appear 
to have been inflicted. From the above, it thus becomes clear, 
that the section aims at preserving the first look at the recovered 
body and it need not contain every detail. Mere overwriting in 
E 
the name of the informant would not affect the proceedings. 
The fact of homicidal death was not in dispute and the manner 
in which the death was occurred is also not disputed. Then 
merely name being overwritten will not help the
defence, when 
F 
the contents of the inquest report was supported by the eye 
witnesses and also the medical evidences: 
11. The accused have not raised any other argument in 
their favour. The testimonies of each of the six witnesses have 
been proved and corroborated by the other. The more or less G 
similar testimonies stood the test of cross-examination by the 
defence and they were unshaken throughout the present case. 
No doubt the three witnesses were related to the deceased 
but their presence was very natural and each explained good H
1094 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
details of the occurrence. The other three villagers who saw 
the incident seemed natural and also explained their presence 
at or about the place of the incident. The conduct of each of 
the witnesses preceding the incident, was also natural and 
their occurred no time gap in reporting the crime to the police 
B so as to exclude any possibility of tutoring or manipulation. 
12. The informant has vehemently argued that in the facts 
and circumstances of the case, imposition of death penalty 
was imperative. The informant supported her argument by 
C stating that the accused had preplanned their attack and 
executed the same in a most gruesome manner. The fact that 
_41 pelletes were recovered from each of the body of the 
deceased, demonstrates the gruesomeness of the crime. The 
accused continued their assault on the corpse of the deceased 
D Kashi Nath Tiwary by throwing it into the well and then throwing 
bricks, stones and flower pots in the well. 
13. The Trial Court was also faced with similar argument 
at the time of awarding the sentence. However, the learned 
E Additional Sessions Judge reasoned that although it is a case 
is of double murder, but all the convicts have not participated 
in the murder of both the deceased. The incident is not a stray 
incident but a common occurrence we see in the society in the 
prevalent era, where the motive was proved to be family feud. 
F The learned Additional Sessions Judge
deemed it fit and 
proper to uphold the right of life and liberty of the accused over 
awarding death sentence to the convict, since it not only affects 
the accused's rights but also would have made their 
dependents orphan. Hence a lenient view was taken. The High 
G Court was posed with any such argument of enhancement of 
sentence of the accused, thus the High Court did not give any 
such reason. Although the sentence awarded to the four 
accused was upheld in toto. The above fact that the 
H enhancement of sentence was not challenged before the High
BIMLADEVI v. RAJESH SINGH &ANR. 
1095 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 
Court is a cogent reason not to entertain such a plea at this A 
stage, however, we are of a considered view to scale this 
argument in light of the laws on this subject. 
14. This Court has time and again reiterated that in criminal 
jurisprudence in our country, life imprisonment is the rule and B 
death penalty is an exception. It is equally settled law that death 
penalty can only be awarded in rarest of the rare cases. No 
doubt each case of murder is gruesome and barbaric, however, 
the right of life of even an accused has to be respected. In the 
present case, it an admitted fact that their existed previous C 
enmity between the families of the deceased and the accused. 
The accused were also proved to be from the same village 
who are neither having any criminal antecedents nor they are 
history-sheeters. The case is an apparent example of family 
feud gone horribly wrong. The accused are not posing any D 
danger to society at large. This Court is, thus, inclined that the 
present case is not within the category of rarest of the rare 
cases and hence we need not burden ourselves with scaling 
each and every aggravating and mitigating circumstances. 
The sentence awarded by the Courts below is adequate for E 
the accused to introspect and also sufficient for the society to 
heal its wounds. 
15. Thus, in the light of the above discussion, we find no 
grounds to interfere with the judgment passed by the
High F 
Court. These eight appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 
Nidhi Jain 
Appeals dismissed.