RAM NIWAS versus STATE OF HARYANA
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 138, Supreme Court of India, 2022
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
138
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
RAM NIWAS
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2012)
AUGUST 11, 2022
[B. R. GAVAI AND PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Completion of chain of
evidence – Held: There has to be a chain of evidence so complete
so as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent
with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the accused –
Circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency –
The circumstances should exclude every possible hypothesis except
the one to be proved – The accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may
be’ guilty before a Court can convict – It is settled law that the
suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof
beyond reasonable doubt – An accused cannot be convicted on the
ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is – An accused is
presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt.
S. Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 8 SCC 233 :
[2010] 9 SCR 356; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State
of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88
– relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2010] 9 SCR 356
relied on
Para 15
[1985] 1 SCR 88
relied on
Para 18
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
25 of 2012.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.03.2009 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.47-DB of
2005.
Rishi
Malhotra, Jaydip Patil, Advs. for the Appellant.
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 138
138
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
139
Birendra Kumar Choudhary, AAG, Ms. Padma Choudhary,
Dr. Monika Gusain, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B. R. GAVAI, J.
1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by the
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh dated 16th March 2009,
thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the accused/appellant-Ram Niwas,
which was filed challenging the judgment and order dated 11th/12th
January 2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat, thereby
convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302
and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short) and sentencing
him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in
default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for
two years under Section 302 IPC and to suffer imprisonment for three
years and to a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of fine to further
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences are
directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is thus:
2.1
Deceased Dalip Singh, Bhim Singh (P.W.10), and the
complainant-Deep Chand (P.W.9) are brothers. Pale, son
of Bhim Singh (P.W.10), was married to Sunita, daughter
of Chander Singh and the sister of the accused/appellant-
Ram Niwas. After the death of Pale, his wife Sunita along
with her minor son went to her parental house in village
Rewli. Deceased Dalip Singh, Bhim Singh (P.W.10), and
complainant-Deep Chand (P.W.9) wanted Sunita to be
married to Rampal son of deceased Dalip Singh. As such,
on 7th March 2003, all three of them had gone to the house
of Chander Singh, father of the accused/appellant-Ram
Niwas with the proposal of remarriage of Sunita with
Rampal son of deceased Dalip Singh.
2.2
It is the prosecution case that all three of them reached
village Rewli and went to the house of Chander Singh, father
of the accused/appellant-Ram Niwas at around 5.00 p.m.
on 7th March 2003. At around 7.30 p.m., deceased Dalip
Singh and accused/appellant-Ram Niwas started taking
RAM NIWAS v. STATE OF HARYANA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
140
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
liquor and at that time the proposal of marrying Sunita with
Rampal was mentioned. On such mention being made,
accused/appellant-Ram Niwas got angry and started
abusing deceased Dalip Singh. However, complainant-Deep
Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10) intervened and
pacified the accused/appellant-Ram Niwas. Thereafter, both
of them after having their meals went to the first floor to
sleep.
2.3
On the morning of 8th March 2003, at around 6.30 a.m.,
when the complainant-Deep Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh
(P.W.10) went to the drawing room of Chander Singh,
deceased Dalip Singh was not seen there. They asked about
the whereabouts of deceased Dalip Singh from the accused/
appellant-Ram Niwas, who told them that he had gone for
answering the call of nature. Both of them waited for
deceased Dalip Singh for about half an hour, but he did not
return. Therefore, they again asked the accused/appellant-
Ram Niwas about the whereabouts of deceased Dalip Singh,
but they did not receive any satisfactory reply.
2.4
It is further the prosecution case that after the complainant-
Deep Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10) came to
the courtyard, they felt the smell of the burnt human body.
The complainant-Deep Chand (P.W.9) again enquired from
the accused/appellant-Ram Niwas about deceased Dalip
Singh. Then the accused/appellant-Ram Niwas became
nervous and replied that when deceased Dalip Singh had
proposed to marry Sunita with his
son Rampal then he had
pressed the throat of deceased Dalip Singh and strangulated
him to death. In order to destroy the evidence, the dead-
body of the deceased Dalip Singh was burnt, but the same
could not be burnt completely. The dead body of deceased
Dalip Singh was concealed in Paraal (Paddy Fodder).
Thereafter, the complainant-Deep Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim
Singh (P.W.10) after removing the Paddy straw found the
partially burnt dead body of deceased Dalip Singh wrapped
in a piece of Plastic palli. Thereafter, the complainant-Deep
Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10) expressed their
resentment towards the accused/appellant-Ram Niwas, and
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
141
on hearing their resentment, the accused/appellant-Ram
Niwas fled away from the spot. The complainant-Deep
Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10) went to their
village Bhawar and returned back with other family
members to village Rewli in the evening.
2.5
The complainant-Deep Chand (P.W.9) lodged a report with
the Police station at 4.45 p.m. On the basis of the statement
of the complainant-Deep Chand (P.W.9), a First Information
Report (“FIR” for short) came to be registered at 5.00 p.m.
2.6
Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came
to be filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Sonepat. Since the case was exclusively triable by
the Sessions Court, it came to be committed to the learned
Sessions Judge, Sonepat.
2.7
Charges came to be framed for the offences punishable
under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. The accused/
appellant-Ram Niwas pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions
Judge, Sonepat passed orders of conviction and sentence,
as aforesaid. Being aggrieved, the accused/appellant-Ram
Niwas preferred an appeal before the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana at Chandigarh. The same came to be
dismissed. Hence the present appeal.
3. We have heard Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned Advocate-on-
Record appearing on behalf of the accused/appellant-Ram Niwas and
Mr. Birendra Kumar Choudhary, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana.
4.
Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned counsel, submitted that from the
perusal of the postmortem report, it is clear that it is not proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the dead-body on which the postmortem was
conducted was of deceased Dalip Singh. He submitted that Dr. Sanjeev
Malhotra (P.W.5) has admitted that the face of the dead-body of which
he had carried the postmortem was not recognizable. He therefore
submitted that in the absence of the prosecution proving that the dead-
body was of deceased Dalip Singh, the conviction was not sustainable.
He further submitted that the evidence of the complainant-Deep Chand
(P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10), which is relied upon by the learned
RAM NIWAS v. STATE OF HARYANA
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
142
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
Sessions Judge, Sonepat as well as the High Court, is totally unreliable.
He submitted that the conduct of the said witnesses is totally unnatural.
He submitted that from their evidence, it is seen that after they had seen
the dead-body, they went all the way to their village Bhawar and returned
back in the evening. He submitted that when the Police Station was at a
distance of about one and a half kilometers from the place of the incident,
their conduct in not going to the Police Station immediately and informing
about the incident creates a serious doubt about the prosecution case.
He therefore submits that the accused/appellant-Ram Niwas is entitled
to be acquitted of all the charges charged with.
5. Mr. Birendra Kumar Choudhary, learned AAG, on the contrary,
submitted that both the courts below, upon correct appreciation of
evidence, have concurrently found the accused/appellant-Ram Niwas
to be guilty of the offences charged with. He submitted that the accused/
appellant-Ram Niwas has made an extra-judicial confession before the
complainant-Deep Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10). He
submitted that the said extra-judicial confession is corroborated by the
recovery of ‘ash’ concealed in a plastic cover on the memorandum of
the accused/appellant-Ram Niwas under Section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 (“Evidence Act” for short). He therefore submitted
that no case is made out for interference with the
findings of fact,
recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat as well as by the High
Court.
6. To examine the correctness of the findings of the High Court, it
will be apposite to scrutinize the evidence on record.
7. Dr. Sanjeev Malhotra (P.W.5) has conducted postmortem
examination of the dead-body of deceased. In his evidence, he stated
that the dead-body was lying naked. It was showing deep burns all over
the body. It was also emitting the smell of kerosene. The hair and scalp
were missing. Eye balls, eye-lashes, and both ears were burnt out. Both
lips and the nose were also burnt. He has categorically stated in his
examination-in-chief that the face of the dead-body could not be
recognized. He has also stated in his examination-in-chief that both feet
were missing. Dr. Sanjeev Malhotra (P.W.5), in his cross-examination,
has given a clear admission to the following effect:
“It is correct that the body was not recognizable. ………..”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
143
8. The complainant-Deep Chand (P.W.9), in his evidence, states
that on 7th March 2003, he along with his two brothers, namely, Bhim
Singh (P.W.10) and deceased Dalip Singh had gone to village Rewli. He
states that all the three brothers had gone to village Rewli to ask for
Sunita’s hand in re-marriage for Rampal, son of his brother deceased
Dalip Singh. After reaching the village Rewli at around 5.00 p.m., they
met Chander Singh and his son accused/appellant-Ram Niwas. He further
states that after some time, accused/appellant-Ram Niwas brought a
bottle of liquor and he along with his father Chander Singh and his brother
deceased Dalip Singh started taking liquor. He further states that upon
the deceased Dalip Singh proposing the re-marriage of Sunita with his
son Rampal, there was a minor altercation between them. He states
that he and Bhim Singh (P.W.10) persuaded both sides to not fight. After
taking their meals, the accused/appellant-Ram Niwas told him and Bhim
Singh (P.W.10) to go to the first floor to sleep, since the accused/appellant-
Ram Niwas and deceased Dalip Singh wanted to have some talk.
Thereafter, they went to sleep on the first floor.
9. Complainant-Deep Chand (P.W.9) further states that in the
morning when they had gone to the drawing room of the accused/
appellant-Ram Niwas at around 6.30 a.m. and asked about their brother
the deceased Dalip Singh, the accused/appellant-Ram Niwas told them
that deceased Dalip Singh had gone to ease
himself. After waiting for
about half an hour, when deceased Dalip Singh did not return, they again
enquired from the accused/appellant-Ram Niwas about the deceased
Dalip Singh. Thereafter, accused/appellant-Ram Niwas told them that
he had murdered deceased Dalip Singh. On being enquired about the
dead-body of deceased Dalip Singh, accused/appellant-Ram Niwas told
them that he had kept the dead-body concealed in the paraal (paddy
fodder). They also felt the foul smell of burning. They went there and
saw the dead-body of deceased Dalip Singh, wrapped in a plastic palli
and lying in a heap of paraal and also in a burnt condition. Thereafter, he
and Bhim Singh (P.W.10) ran away from there since they had an
apprehension that accused/appellant-Ram Niwas might kill them also.
He states that they, thereafter, straightway went to their village Bhawar
and on the same day after taking 4-5 persons from the village, he came
to Murthal Adda and at the turning of Engineering College, they met the
Police and informed about the incident.
RAM NIWAS v. STATE OF HARYANA
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
144
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
10. In his cross-examination, complainant-Deep Chand (P.W.9)
admitted that parents of Sunita had come to his village Bhawar at the
time of Chhamahi and Barsi ceremonies of Pale. He has further admitted
that they did not talk with the parents of Sunita regarding the re-marriage
of Sunita with Rampal on those occasions. He has further admitted that
according to customs in their society, the remarriage of a widow or
Karewa is to be solemnized on the occasion of Chhamahi and Barsi. It
will be relevant to refer to the following admissions in the evidence of
the complainant-Deep Chand (P.W.9):
“After seeing the dead body we not raise any alarm and none
came at the spot in our presence. Sunita was also ‘present in
village Revli on that day. We did not tell even to Sunita or any
body else in the village. We went to our village Bhawar through a
jeep and bus. Police station Murthal is situated at a distance of
one and ·half ·kilometer from village Revli. We did not inform the
police of P.S. Murthal. We reached in our village at about 9:00
A.M. We came back in a jeep. Subhash, Ganga, Prem, Raju, Sher
Singh, Pappu etc. had accompanied us to village Revli. We did
not inform any police station which falls on the way back to village
Revli. However, police station Baroda, Gohana, Mohana, sonepat
and Murthal falls on the way.”
11. It could thus clearly be seen from the evidence of the
complainant-Deep Chand (P.W.9) that after seeing
the dead-body of
deceased Dalip Singh, they did not raise any alarm. He has clearly
admitted in his deposition that there are residential houses on one side of
the house of accused/appellant-Ram Niwas. He further admitted that
they reached their village Bhawar at around 9.00 a.m. They waited till
2.30/3.00 p.m. to inform the Police. He has further admitted that between
village Rewli and his village Bhawar, Police Station Baroda, Gohana,
Mohana, Sonepat, and Murthal are on the way. They did not give
intimation to any of these Police Stations either on their way to village
Bhawar or while returning to Murthal.
12. The evidence of Bhim Singh (P.W.10) is to the similar effect.
13. Apart from the ocular testimony of the complainant-Deep
Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10), the only incriminating
circumstance, on which the prosecution relies is the recovery of ‘ash’
and ‘plastic can’ on the memorandum of the accused/appellant-Ram
Niwas under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
145
14. It could clearly be seen that even according to the complainant-
Deep Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10), after they saw the dead-
body of the deceased Dalip Singh in paraal (paddy fodder), they did not
inform anyone in the village. No doubt that how a person responds to a
situation is differ from a person to person. However, the conduct of the
said witnesses in not informing anybody in the village Rewli and thereafter
going to their village Bhawar in the morning, returning back in the
afternoon and not informing five Police Stations, which were in between
village Bhawar and village Rewli cast a serious doubt with regard to the
truthfulness of their version. It is further difficult to believe the testimony
of these witnesses that in the night, the deceased Dalip Singh was done
to death, set on fire in a paraal (paddy fodder) and they did not come to
know about the same till the accused/appellant-Ram Niwas told them
about the same next morning. In the evidence of these witnesses, it has
clearly come out that there are houses surrounding the house of the
accused/appellant-Ram Niwas. The prosecution version appears
improbable that such an incident took place in an area surrounded by
houses. The prosecution has also not examined any independent witness
residing nearby so as to lend credence to the prosecution’s version.
15. The prosecution relies on the extra-judicial confession made
by the accused/appellant-Ram Niwas to these witnesses. This Court in
the case of S. Arul Raja vs. State of Tamil Nadu1, after considering
the earlier judgments of this Court, has observed thus:
“48. The concept of an extra-judicial confession is primarily a
judicial creation, and must be used with restraint. Such a confession
must be used only in limited circumstances, and should also be
corroborated by way of abundant caution. This Court in Ram
Singh v. Sonia [(2007) 3 SCC 1 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] has held
that an extra-judicial confession while in police custody cannot be
allowed. Moreover, when there is a case hanging on an extra-
judicial confession, corroborated only by circumstantial evidence,
then the courts must treat the same with utmost caution. This
principle has been affirmed by this Court in Ediga Anamma v.
State of A.P. [(1974) 4 SCC 443 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 479] and State
of Maharashtra v. Kondiba Tukaram Shirke [(1976) 3 SCC
775 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 514]. It is significant to observe that A-1
1 (2010) 8 SCC 233
RAM NIWAS v. STATE OF HARYANA
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
146
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
has subsequently sought to retract this statement upon his arrival
in Tamil Nadu.”
16. We therefore find that it will not be safe to base conviction
solely on the basis of the alleged extra-judicial confession made by the
appellant to these witnesses.
17. The only other circumstance on which the prosecution relies
is the seizure of ‘ash’ kept in the plastic bag on the memorandum of the
accused/appellant-Ram Niwas under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Satish Kumar (P.W.11), the Investigating Officer (I.O.), in his deposition
has clearly admitted that the disclosure statement made by the accused/
appellant-Ram Niwas was made in the lock-up of the police station. He
has further admitted that though independent witnesses were available,
inasmuch as the Police Station is in the heart of the city, he had not
called any independent witness as ‘Panch’ of the said memorandum. As
such, the reliance on the said seizure also is of no help to the prosecution
case. It is further to be noted that Dr. Sanjeev Malhotra (P.W.5), in his
evidence, has admitted that it was difficult to recognize the face of the
dead-body. From the postmortem, it is also not established that the death
was homicidal.
18. The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. The
law with regard to conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence
has very well been crystalized in the judgment of this Court in the case
of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State
of Maharashtra2, wherein
this Court held thus:
“152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High Court
we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature, character and
essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on
circumstantial evidence alone. The most fundamental and basic
decision of this Court is Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh
[AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129]. This case
has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in a large
number of later decisions up-to-date, for instance, the cases
of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1969) 3 SCC
198: 1970 SCC (Cri) 55] and Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra
[(1972) 4 SCC 625: AIR 1972 SC 656]. It may be useful to extract
2 (1984) 4 SCC 116
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
147
what Mahajan, J. has laid down in Hanumant case [AIR 1952
SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129] :
“It is well to remember that in in cases where the
evidence is of a circumstantial  nature, the circumstances from
which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first
instance be fully established, and all the facts so established
should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude
every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other
words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent
with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to
show that within all human probability the act must have been
done by the accused.”
153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following
conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can
be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be”
established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction
between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as
was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri)
1033 : 1973
Crl LJ 1783] where the observations were made :  [SCC para 19,
p. 807 : SCC (Cri) p. 1047]
“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must
be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict
and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is
long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say,
they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except
that the accused is guilty,
RAM NIWAS v. STATE OF HARYANA
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
148
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
(3) the circumstances should be of a  conclusive nature
and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as
not to leave any reasonable  ground for the conclusion consistent
with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all
human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute
the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial
evidence.”
19. This Court has held that there has to be a chain of evidence so
complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all
human probability the act must have been done by the accused. It has
been held that the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency. This Court has held that the circumstances should exclude
every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. It has been held
that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ guilty before a
Court can convict.
20. It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be,
cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused
cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it
is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt.
21. In the present case, we find that the
prosecution has utterly
failed to establish the chain of events which can be said to exclusively
lead to the one and only conclusion, i.e., the guilt of the accused. In that
view of the matter, we find that the judgment and order of the learned
Sessions Judge and that of the High Court are not sustainable.
22. The appeal is therefore allowed. The judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 11th/12th January 2005 of the learned
Sessions Judge, Sonepat and the judgment and order of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 16th March 2009, dismissing
the appeal of the accused/appellant-Ram Niwas are quashed and set

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
149
aside. The accused/appellant-Ram Niwas is acquitted of all the charges
charged with. The bail bonds shall stand discharged.
23. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Ankit Gyan
Appeal allowed.
RAM NIWAS v. STATE OF HARYANA
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]