Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1474 of 2010

Karan Singh                                 …Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana & Anr.      …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment  

and order  dated 6.2.2009 in Criminal  Appeal  No.226-DB of  2007,  

passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, by way  

of which the High Court has affirmed the judgment and order dated  

8.2.2007,  passed  by  the  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Bhiwani  in  

Sessions Trial No.110 of 8.9.2005, by way of which and whereunder  

the Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the  

Indian Penal  Code 1860 (hereinafter  referred to  as  the ‘IPC’),  and

Page 2

sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of  

Rs.25,000/-.  In  default  of  payment  of  such  fine,  he  would  further  

suffer RI for a period of 3 years.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal  as per the  

prosecution are that:-

A. In  the  intervening  night  between  6-7.1.2005,  Maya  Devi  

(PW.3), mother of Raj, deceased was irrigating her agricultural fields  

alongwith her daughter Birma (PW.4).  On hearing the cries of her  

daughter Raj, Maya Devi and Birma reached the spot and saw that one  

Kalia had caught hold of Raj and Karan Singh, the appellant had put a  

rope around her neck and was dragging her deeper into the fields.  

Maya Devi (PW.3) raised considerable hue and cry but attracted no  

help,  and Raj  died on the spot  as  a  result  of  the throttling.  In  the  

morning,  Maya  Devi  (PW.3)  went  to  the  place  of  occurrence  

alongwith  her  son  Hariom  (a  simpleton).  There  were  marks  of  

dragging in the wheat field. A contusion mark on the neck of deceased  

was also clearly visible.  

B. Maya Devi (PW.3) went to the police station to file a report.  

On her way there, she met some police officials and she informed  

2

Page 3

them about the incident, based on which, an FIR was registered on  

7.1.2005,  under  Sections  302/34  IPC  at  the  Police  Station,  Sadar  

Charkhi Dadri.   

C. The  dead  body  of  Raj  was  sent  for  post-mortem.   Dr.  U.S.  

Dasodia  (PW.7),  conducted  the  post-mortem  on  the  body  of  the  

deceased and found a ligature mark on her neck. He has opined that  

she  died  due  to  asphyxia,  caused  by  strangulation  which  was  

sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.  The time  

gap  between  her  injuries  and  death  was  only  a  few minutes,  and  

between her death and post-mortem, less than 24 hours.   

D. The police recorded the statements of various persons including  

Maya Devi (PW.3),  Birma (PW.4) anlongwith other  people.   After  

completing  the  investigation,  a  chargesheet  was  filed  against  the  

appellant. The co-accused Kalia, could not be apprehended and was  

declared as a proclaimed offender.   

E. The case of the prosecution is that Karan Singh, the appellant,  

had a certain dispute with deceased Raj regarding the non-payment of  

dues to her to the extent of Rs.47,000/-, as consideration for the sale  

of a buffalo by the deceased Raj.  Since the appellant had not paid the  

3

Page 4

said  money,  there  was  a  quarrel  between  them  on  3-4.1.2005  as  

regards the same,  wherein appellant  had threatened to kill  her.   In  

furtherance thereof, Raj was murdered by the appellant.

F. The  prosecution  examined  several  witnesses  including  Maya  

Devi (PW.3), Birma (PW.4) and Omkar Singh (PW.8).  The statement  

of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Code of  

Criminal  Procedure,  1973 (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  ‘Cr.P.C.’)  

After the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani,  

convicted  and  sentenced  the  appellant,  as  has  been  referred  to  

hereinabove.

Hence, this appeal.

3. Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for  

the appellant has submitted, that the investigation in the instant case,  

was  tainted.   The  statement  under  Section  161  Cr.P.C.  had  been  

recorded after several months of the incident.  Raj, deceased was a  

woman who had gotten separated from her husband for the reason that  

she  had  been  a  woman  of  easy  virtue,  and  had  also  been  living  

separately from her mother  and sister.   The specific  case  of  Maya  

Devi (PW.3), mother of deceased was, that she had gone alongwith  

4

Page 5

her daughter to irrigate the fields, though in her cross-examination she  

has admitted that the agricultural land had been given to one Khazan,  

upon sharing of the agricultural produce (Batai).  Birma (PW.4), the  

sister of the deceased has deposed that they did not cultivate the land  

themselves.

The  Trial  Court  did  not  believe  the  version  of  events  as  

provided by Maya Devi (PW.3) and Birma (PW.4), but treated the  

case  as  one  of  circumstantial  evidence.  The  entire  case  of  the  

prosecution is improbable.  Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

4. On the contrary,  Shri  Manjit  Singh, AAG, appearing for  the  

State of Haryana, has opposed the appeal contending that the courts  

below have recorded concurrent findings of fact.  The defence had not  

put any question in the cross-examination either to Maya Devi (PW.3)  

or  Birma  (PW.4),  regarding  the  non-payment  of  the  sum  of  

Rs.47,000/- as consideration for the sale of a buffalo by the deceased  

Raj to Karan Singh, appellant, despite the fact that there was ample  

evidence  on  record  to  show  that  there  had  been  an  altercation  

regarding the non-payment of the said amount on 3.1.2005, between  

the deceased and the appellant.  The appellant had threatened to kill  

her.  Moreover, this statement stood corroborated by the deposition of  

5

Page 6

Omkar  Singh  (PW.8).   In  the  event  that  there  had  been  some  

impropriety in the course of the investigation, the same had been only  

at the behest of the appellant and that too, entirely in his favour and  

certainly  not  in  the  favour  of  the  prosecution.   The  appellant  has  

made a disclosure statement about concealing the rope that had been  

used in  the crime,  but  the  Investigating  Officer  has  not  made any  

effort to recover the same. Thus, the appeal is liable to be rejected.

5. We  have  considered  the  rival  submissions  made  by  learned  

counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Consistent  versions  have  been  provided  by  the  material  

witnesses regarding the non-payment of the sum of Rs.47,000/- as sale  

consideration for the sale of a buffalo, by the appellant.  This version  

of events also fully stands established by the evidence provided by  

Maya Devi (PW.3) and Birma (PW.4).  In his statement under Section  

313 Cr.P.C., the defence did not ask any question to test the veracity  

of the said statement, either to Maya Devi (PW.3) or to Birma (PW.4).  

Mere denial stating that the same is incorrect by the appellant, is not  

sufficient and there is no reason to disbelieve the said portion of the  

case of the prosecution.  It also stands established from the material  

6

Page 7

on record, that there had been an altercation between the appellant and  

the  deceased  2-3  days  before  the  incident,  and  the  appellant  had  

threatened  the  deceased  with  dire  consequences.   Such  version  of  

events  stands  further  fortified,  by  the  evidence  of  Omkar  Singh  

(PW.8).   

7. Omkar  Singh  (PW.8)  is  an  independent  witness  who  has  

deposed that on the fateful day, he had gone to bring some vegetables  

from a shop. The accused-appellant had then come there from the side  

of the Harijan Basti, asking where Raj (prostitute) had gone, and had  

stated that he would kill her within 2-3 days.    The accused-appellant  

had been having illicit  relations with the deceased,  and at  the said  

time, the accused had been under the influence of alcohol.    

8. None of these witnesses have been properly cross-examined by the  

defence.   Both  the  courts  though  have  expressed  their  anguish  

regarding the manner in which the investigation was conducted, they  

have convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section  

302 IPC, and have awarded appropriate sentences.  A large number of  

other theories were introduced by the defence stating that the deceased  

had been a woman of easy virtue, and that it was for this reason  that  

7

Page 8

her husband had divorced her, she had  settled in the village and had  

been living in a separate house, away from her mother’s house, and  

that even here, she had been having illicit relationships with a large  

number of persons, etc.  In relation to the same, a Panchayat was also  

conducted, and Maya Devi (PW.3) etc. had been humiliated.  Be that  

as it may, this kind of theory could not adversely affect the case of the  

prosecution.           

9. So far as the issue of cultivating the said land is concerned, the  

defence  had not  asked  PWs.3  and  4  to  furnish  any further  details  

regarding  the  cultivation  of  the  land,  in  relation  to  the  terms  and  

conditions  of  the  Batai,  and  also  regarding  who’s  duty  it  was  to  

irrigate the land, and what the source and means of irrigation were, as  

they  have  claimed to  be  in  the  agriculture  fields  at  mid  night  for  

purpose of irrigating the same.  Their presence cannot be doubted, as  

it  is usual for every agriculturist  to carry out the task of irrigation,  

whenever his/her turn for irrigation arises.

10. As the defence has not put any further question in the course of  

the cross-examination of Maya Devi (PW.3) and Birma (PW.4) in this  

regard, we are not in a position to grant the benefit of  any of these  

8

Page 9

issues to the appellant.  The theory of political rivalry  between certain  

persons and the appellant,  at  whose behest  Maya Devi (PW.3) and  

Birma (PW.4) had levelled the allegation of such a heinous crime, do  

not inspire confidence.  The same are thus liable to be rejected.   

11. There  is  adequate  evidence  on  record  to  show  that  Rajesh  

Kumar, SI (PW.9), who had conducted the investigation at its initial  

stage,  had not  acted in  accordance  with law and had favoured the  

appellant.   It  was for this reason that the police authorities  upon a  

complaint  made,  changed  the  Investigating  Officer,  who  then  

conducted the investigation properly.

12. The investigation into a criminal offence must be free from any  

objectionable  features  or  infirmities  which  may  give  rise  to  an  

apprehension  in  the  mind  of  the  complainant  or  the  accused,  that  

investigation was not fair and may have been carried out with some  

ulterior  motive.  The Investigating  Officer  must  not  indulge  in  any  

kind of mischief, or cause harassment either to the complainant or to  

the accused. His conduct must be entirely impartial and must dispel  

any  suspicion  regarding  the  genuineness  of  the  investigation.  The  

Investigating Officer, “is not  merely present to strengthen the case of  

9

Page 10

the prosecution with evidence that will enable the court to record a  

conviction, but to bring out the real unvarnished version of the truth.”  

Ethical conduct on the part of the investigating agency is absolutely  

essential, and there must be no scope for any allegation of mala fides  

or bias. Words like ‘personal liberty’ contained in Article 21 of the  

Constitution of India provide for the  widest amplitude, covering all  

kinds of rights particularly, the right to personal liberty of the  citizens  

of  India,  and  a  person  cannot  be  deprived  of  the  same  without  

following  the  procedure  prescribed  by  law.  In  this  way,  the  

investigating  agencies  are  the  guardians  of  the  liberty  of  innocent  

citizens.  Therefore, a duty is cast  upon the Investigating Officer to  

ensure that an innocent person should not suffer from unnecessarily  

harassment  of  false  implication,  however,  at  the  same  time,  an  

accused person must not be given undue leverage. An investigation  

cannot be interfered with or influenced even by the courts. Therefore,  

the investigating agency must avoid entirely any kind of extraneous  

influence, and investigation must be carried out with equal alacrity  

and  fairness  irrespective  of  the  status  of  the  accused  or  the  

complainant,  as  a  tainted  investigation  definitely  leads  to  the  

miscarriage  of  criminal  justice,  and  thus  deprives  a  man  of  his  

10

Page 11

fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.  

Thus,  every  investigation  must  be  judicious,  fair,  transparent  and  

expeditious to ensure compliance with the rules of law, as is required  

under Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution.  (Vide: Babubhai v.  

State of Gujarat & Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 254).  

13. In Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1998 SC  

1850,  this Court observed, that if primacy is given to a designed or  

negligent  investigation,  or  to  the  omissions  or  lapses  created  as  a  

result of a faulty investigation, the faith and confidence of the people  

would be shaken not only in the law enforcing agency, but also in the  

administration of justice.  

A  similar  view has  been  re-iterated  by  this  Court  in  Amar  

Singh v. Balwinder Singh & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 1164.  

Furthermore,  in  Ram Bali  v.  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh,  AIR  

2004 SC 2329, it was held by this Court  that the court must ensure  

that  the  defective  investigation  purposely  carried  out  by  the  

Investigating Officer, does not affect the credibility of the version of  

events given by the prosecution.  

11

Page 12

14. Omissions made on the part of the Investigating Officer, where  

the prosecution succeeds in proving its case beyond any reasonable  

doubt by way of adducing evidence, particularly that of eye-witnesses  

and other witnesses, would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution,  

for the reason that every discrepancy present in the investigation does  

not weigh upon the court to the extent that it necessarily results in the  

acquittal of accused, unless it is proved that the investigation was held  

in  such  manner  that  it  is  dubbed  as  “a  dishonest  or  guided  

investigation”,  which  will  exonerate  the  accused.  (See:  Sonali  

Mukherjee v.  Union of India,  (2010) 15 SCC 25;  Mohd. Imran  

Khan v. State Government (NCT of Delhi),  (2011) 10 SCC 192;  

Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., AIR 2011 SC  

1403; Gajoo v. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 9 SCC 532; Shyamal  

Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2012 SC 3539; and  Hiralal  

Pandey & Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 2012 SC 2541).  

Thus, unless lapses made on the part of Investigating authorities  

are  such,  so  as  to  cast  a  reasonable  doubt  on  the  case  of  the  

prosecution,  or  seriously  prejudice  the  defence  of  the  accused,  the  

court would not set aside the conviction of the accused merely on the  

ground of tainted investigation.  

12

Page 13

15. This Court in  Dayal Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal,  

(2012) 8 SCC 263, has laid down certain norms for taking stern action  

against  an  Investigating  Officer,  guilty  of  dereliction  of  duty  or  

misconduct  in  conducting  investigation,  and  held  that  the  State  is  

bound to initiate disciplinary  proceedings against such officers even  

ignoring the law of limitation, and even if such officer has retired.  

16. In the instant  case,  the Trial  Court  and the High Court have  

elaborately  examined  the  grievances  raised  by  the  complainant  

regarding the tainted investigation carried on by the first Investigating  

Officer, Shri Rajesh Kumar, and the High Court has commented on  

the same as under:

“It is well established on record that SI Rajesh Kumar   had not conducted the investigation properly and he was   favourably  inclined  to  the  appellant  and  therefore,   spoiled the case. Detailed reasons have been recorded by  learned  trial  court  in  paragraph  19  of  its  judgment   manifesting  that  the  appellant  had  influence  over  the   police.  We  agree  with  the  said  reasoning  of  the  trial   court  which  is  also  apparent  from  the  contentions   advanced  by  learned  State  counsel,  as  noticed   hereinabove. There were marks of dragging the deceased   as mentioned in the inquest  report,  but  still  SI  Rajesh   Kumar did not depict the said marks in the rough site   plan Ex.P-25 prepared by him. He also did not avail of   the services of dog squad or crime team of the Forensic   Science Laboratory. Shutter of shop, where the deceased   used  to  reside,  had  also  been  broken,  but  the   

13

Page 14

Investigating  Officer  did  not  care  to  get  the  same   photographed nor mentioned the same anywhere in the   investigation  proceedings.  Therefore,  the  complainant   cannot  be  made  to  suffer  for  the  lapse  of  the   Investigating  Officer…….The  complainant  is  a  widow   having seven daughters and only one son, who is also   simpleton.  The deceased was also a divorcee and was   living  alone  in  the  house  (shop)  in  the  fields  in  her   parental village…….The complainant Maya Devi, who is   mother of the deceased, is a widow and illiterate rustic   villager,  whereas  the  deceased  was  divorcee.  On  the   other  hand,  the appellant  is  an influential  person  and   was  Sarpanch  at  the  time  of  occurrence.  The   complainant  named  the  appellant  and  his  co-accused   Kalia in the FIR itself. However, distorted version was   recorded  in  the  FIR  and  when  the  complainant  party   received copy of FIR on 26.1.2005 (as stated by Birma   Devi  PW.4),  they  learnt  of  the  same  and  then  they   approached the Superintendent of Police (SP), who also   did not take any action because the appellant, along with   Member  Legislative  Assembly,  had  met  the  SP.   Thereafter,  with  change  of  SP,  the  complainant  party   again approached the new SP and it was only thereafter   that on 18.2.2005, correct statements of Maya Devi and   Birma Devi were recorded. The appellant was so much   influential that even thereafter, he was not arrested for   more than four months and in fact, SI Rajesh Kumar did   not  arrest  him  and  the  next  Investigating  Officer  ASI   Raghbir Singh arrested the appellant on 24.6.2005. The   appellant had been named in the FIR on 7.1.2005, but   still  SI  Rajesh  Kumar  did  not  even  join  him  in   investigation and did not interrogate him, what to talk of   arresting him. The statements of Maya Devi and Birma   Devi,  therefore,  cannot  be  discarded  in  view  of  the   manner in which SI Rajesh Kumar was conducting the   investigation from the very beginning.”

14

Page 15

17. After considering the entire evidence on record, the High Court  

has concurred with the findings recorded by the Trial Court as under:

(i) There  is  no  reason  for  the  false  implication  of  the  

appellant,  who  being  the  Sarpanch  of  the  village  was  an  

influential person.

(ii) Omkar  Singh (PW.8)  was  an  independent  witness  and  

there was no ground to disregard his testimony.

(iii) Abadi was at some distance from the place of occurrence.  

Therefore,  the  hue  and  cry  raised  by  Raj-deceased,  and  

subsequently by Maya Devi (PW.3), could not have attracted  

the attention of any person.

(iv) No  attempt  was  made  by  the  defence  to  falsify  the  

allegation of  the non payment  of  the sum of Rs.47,000/-,  as  

consideration for the sale of a buffalo by the deceased to the  

appellant.    

18.In view of the above, we do not find any force in the appeal, which  

lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.

19. Before parting with the case, we feel it necessary to bring the  

matter to the notice of the administration of the State of Haryana that  

15

Page 16

in spite of the fact that certain serious findings have been recorded by  

the Trial  Court,  as  well  as  by the High Court  regarding the unfair  

investigation conducted by Shri Rajesh Kumar, who was the SHO of  

the Police Station, Sadar Dadri on 7.1.2005, but for the reasons best  

known to the administration, no action was taken against  him. We  

have no words to express our anguish, and fail to  understand under  

what  circumstances  the  State  authorities  have  adopted  such  an  

indifferent attitude where a helpless divorcee has been murdered, and  

her widowed mother has been crying and running from pillar to post  

to secure justice, but the administration did not feel it necessary to  

wake  up  from  its  deep  slumber.   We  request  the  learned  Chief  

Secretary of the State of Haryana to examine the case, and proceed in  

accordance with law. A copy of the judgment be sent by the registry  

directly to the Chief Secretary, Haryana.  

………………………………J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

………………………………J. (DIPAK MISRA)

New Delhi, May 28, 2013  

16