NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.580 OF 2010

ASHWANI KUMAR & ANR.     ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF PUNJAB              ..RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

K.M. JOSEPH, J.

1. The  appeal  by  special  leave  is  directed

against the judgment of the High court of Punjab &

Haryana  in  Criminal  Appeal  No.103  of  2000

dismissing  the  appeal  filed  by  the  appellants,

confirming  the  conviction  and  sentence  under

1

Section  302  read  with  Section  34  of  the  Indian

Penal Code.  

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The prosecution case is that on 18.9.1998

the  Assistant  sub-inspector  along  with  Head

Constable of police and other police officials were

on patrol duty and while so at about 1.30 p.m.,

they  heard  shrieks  from  one  room  of  the  house,

which was bolted from the inside.  From the gaps in

the door of that room, the Assistant sub-Inspector

peeped inside the room and found that one man was

sitting on the chest of the lady, who was made to

lie on the ground and he was pressing her neck.

One lady was standing near that place and holding a

pucca brick, in her hand.  She gave two blows with

the said brick on the person of the lady lying on

the ground.  She told the man, the co-accused that

the said lady who was being assaulted was insulting

her  before  others  who  was  his  wife.   She  also

exhorted  the  man  that  he  should  finish  her, 2

thereupon the man lifted a ‘khurpa’ and gave blows

with it.  After killing her, both man and the woman

came  out  and  they  proclaimed  that  they  have

accomplished their job.  It is this man and woman

who are appellants before us.

4. The  murdered  lady  was  the  wife  of  the

first appellant.  The prosecution advanced its case

through the sub-inspector who was examined as P.W.2

and Head Constable who was examined as P.W.3  Under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. the first appellant has given

the following written statement:

“On the day of occurrence, I left my house for  going  to  Amritsar.   On  the  way,  I found  that  I  have  left  my  purse  at  my house.  As such, I returned back to take my purse.  I saw a man holding my wife in his arms and my wife also holding him. On seeing me, he ran away. In a rage, I gave push  to  my  wife  and  her  head  struck against wall. My wife started saying that I  cannot  satisfy  her  sexually  and continued to say that my six months old son is not from my loins but is from the loins of this person. She told that she will have other child from loins of her lover also. I lost control over myself and under this provocation caused injuries to

3

my wife. I had extreme love with my child. I myself had appeared before police and informed about the occurrence. The police made out a false case against me later on and police men became false witnesses.”

5. The second appellant in her 313 statement

claimed that she was innocent and was not present

at the time of the alleged occurrence.

6. The  Trial  Court  on  the  basis  of  the

evidence  accepted  the  prosecution  version  and

convicted  the  appellants.   The  High  Court  also

reposed confidence in the prosecution version.

7. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellants

impugned  the  prosecution  version  and  drew  our

attention  to  the  evidence  of  D.W.1.   D.W.1  has

inter alia stated as follows:

Many persons had collected there at the place.

He asked first appellant as to what he had done,

thereupon  the  first  appellant  disclosed  that  he

suspected that somebody was present in his house

4

along with his wife and the doors were closed and

out of sudden provocation, he had killed his wife.

He informed this incident to C. Karam Singh and SPO

Kultar Singh who came on a scooter at the place of

occurrence.  He would say that before their arrival

no other police official arrived at the spot.  C.

Karam  Singh  and  SPO  Kultar  Singh  then  took  the

first  appellant  to  the  police  station.   In  his

cross examination he has stated that he did not

move any application regarding this incident to the

higher police authorities or executive authorities.

He  denied  that  ASI  who  had  come  as  prosecution

witness  and  other  police  officials  had  arrested

both accused.  As many as 12 stab wounds have been

noted.   This  is  besides  3  lacerated  wounds.

According to the doctor, the death in this case was

due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of stab

injuries which was sufficient to cause death in the

ordinary course of nature.  There is a case for the

appellant that the conduct of P.W.2 in not breaking

5

open the door and only watching the occurrence for

five minutes renders the evidence suspect.

8. We  are  not  persuaded  to  overturn  the

concurrent  findings  of  the  courts  below.   As

observed by the High Court, there is no motive for

the  police  officials  to  falsely  implicate  the

appellants.  The case of the second appellant is

one of alibi.  She has not discharged her burden to

show that she was elsewhere.  On the other hand,

there  is  evidence  of  the  police  officials  that

after committing the crime, the appellants came out

and  proclaimed  that  they  have  accomplished  what

they  wanted.  They  were  apprehended.   In  such

circumstances,  we  see  no  reason  to  allow  the

appellants to rely upon the statement of the first

appellant  under  Section  313  Cr.P.C  or  upon  the

deposition of D.W.1.  No doubt, the High Court has

taken the view that D.W.1 has not given complaint

to the higher police officers.  The High Court no

doubt also finds fault with the first appellant in

6

not disclosing the name of the person with whom his

wife was found to be in a compromising position.

Even proceeding on the basis that he may not have

known the name of the person it still does not

detract  from  us  reposing  confidence  in  the

testimony of the police officer.  The presence of

the second appellant and her being apprehended by

the police officers, has been believed by both the

Courts and this is completely inconsistent with the

case  set  up  by  the  appellants.   In  such

circumstances, we see no reason to interfere.  The

appeal fails and stands dismissed.

…………………………………CJI. (Ranjan Gogoi)

………………………………………J. (K.M. Joseph)

New Delhi; November 28, 2018

7