Page 1

1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1986  OF 2009

KHIM SINGH        … APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND       … RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T  

Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24th  

August,  2005  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Uttaranchal(now  

Uttarakhand) at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.1388 of 2001  

(Old No.-Criminal Appeal No.1165 of 1988). By the impugned  

judgment the High Court upheld the judgment and order of  

conviction  dated  30th March,  1988,  passed  by  the  Sessions  

Judge, Almora in Sessions Trial No.54 of 1987, State vs. Khim  

Singh, whereby the accused-appellant was convicted for the  

offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to  

undergo imprisonment for life.  

2. Brief  facts,  giving  rise  to  the  present  appeal  as  

emerging from the material on record, are that the accused  

Khim Singh was residing with his wife Himuli Devi in his  

residential house at village Simgari. He has a son, named  

Mohan Singh, who was also residing with them, but sometimes,  

he resided with his grandmother, who resides in the adjacent

Page 2

2

house  of  Laccham  Singh,  brother  of  accused-Khim  singh.  

Earlier  accused-Khim  Singh  was  in  service  outside  his  

village, but for the last 4-5 years he had come back and was  

working as labourer. His wife, Himuli Devi, was a short-  

tempered woman and she often quarrelled with Khim Singh. It  

was suspected in the village that she was a woman of loose  

character and on account of this, accused-Khim Singh was also  

not in good terms with her. Often they used to be quarrelled  

with each other. On 17th July, 1987, also in the evening, they  

had a quarrel. Early in the morning of 18th July, 1987, one  

Bahadur Singh (since deceased), a resident of the village,  

while passing in front of the house of the accused-Khim Singh  

found that the door was closed and there was none outside. He  

opened the door and went inside the house and found Himuli  

Devi lying dead. He raised an alarm, on which, the mother of  

the accused also came there. He called the Sabhapati of the  

village, Bachi Singh also. They all saw that Himuli Devi was  

lying inside the room, having injuries on her body and she  

was dead.

3. The Sabhapati of the village, Bachi Singh, prepared a  

written report, Ext.Ka-1. It was sent to the Patwari of the  

Kshetra  through  one  Kishan  Singh.  In  the  said  report,  

Sabhapati mentioned that it was accused-Khim Singh who killed  

his wife Himuli Devi and requested the Patwari to come and  

investigate the matter. The written report was received by  

the Patwari, Narain Singh, at 11.30 a.m. on 18th July, 1987

Page 3

3

and on that basis he prepared the FIR, Ext.Ka-3. He came to  

the  house  of  Bachi  Singh  and  recorded  his  statement.  

Accompanied  by  Bachi  Singh,  he  went  to  the  house  of  the  

accused, where Himuli Devi was found lying dead inside the  

house. The dead body was taken into custody and the inquest  

report, Ext.Ka-4, was prepared and the dead body was sealed.  

The letter with a request for postmortem, Ext.Ka-5, was also  

prepared. The blood stained clothes were taken into custody  

from the dead body and Fard, Ext.Ka-6 was prepared. From the  

place where the dead body was lying, blood stained and plain  

earth were also taken and sealed and a Fard, Ext.Ka-7, was  

prepared. The scene of occurrence was also reflected in site  

plan Ext.Ka-8. The accused-Khim Singh, who was present there,  

was  arrested  and  a  Fard,  Ext.Ka-9,  was  prepared.  At  the  

instance of the accused, a blood-stained Kulhari (axe) was  

found inside the house and a Fard, Ext.Ka-2, was prepared.  

The sealed articles were handed over to the peon and Fard,  

Ext.Ka-10 was prepared. The statements of Manuli Devi (PW-1)  

and Khimuli Devi (PW-2) were recorded. In between 19th and  

22th July, 1987 the statements of other witnesses, including  

Joga Singh (PW-5) were recorded. The sealed articles were  

sent  for  chemical  examination.  The  investigation  was  

completed and the chargesheet dated 22nd August, 1988, Ext.Ka-

14, was submitted against the accused.

4. The  dead  body  was  sent  for  postmortem  which  was  

conducted by Dr. N.D. Punetha, on 19th July, 1987, at 11.30

Page 4

4

a.m.  at  Bagesnwar.  He  found  the  following  ante  mortem  

injuries on the dead body:

“1. Incised  wound 5  cm x  2 cm  bone deep  present on the left side of mastoid region  of the head. Margins were lacerated and well  defined.

2. Contusion 5 cm x 3 cm present on the  occipital region of the head. Semi digested  food  material  was  coming  out  from  the  mouth.”

5. On internal examination, the bone under the two injuries  

was  found  to  be  fractured.  Clotted  blood  was  also  found  

beneath these injuries. In the stomach, a small quantity of  

semi-digested food material was found. There were gases in  

the small and large intestines. This death, in the opinion of  

the  Medical  Officer  resulted  from  shock  and  haemorrhage,  

caused by the two injuries, found on the dead body, which  

were sufficient for death in ordinary course of nature. The  

postmortem report, Ext.Ka-15, was prepared. The time since  

death was about one day and in the opinion of the doctor,  

this death could have occurred in the night of 17th/18th July,  

1987. He has also given an opinion that the injuries were  

caused with some heavy sharp edged weapon like Kulhari.

6. The  Patwari-Simgari,  after  completing  necessary  

formalities, submitted a charge sheet dated 22nd August, 1987,  

against the accused, Ext.Ka-14, to the Court of CJM, Almora.  

Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of  

Sessions,  the  case  was  committed  to  the  Sessions  Judge,  

Almora for trial of the accused. The Sessions Judge charged

Page 5

5

the accused under Section 302 IPC, who pleaded not guilty to  

the charge and claimed to be tried.

7. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the  

prosecution,  in  oral  evidence,  examined  as  many  as  seven  

witnesses, namely, Manuli Devi (PW-1)-mother-in-law of the  

deceased;  Khimuli  Devi  (PW-2)-sister-in-law  of  the  

deceased(gotani), Mohan Singh(PW-3)-minor son of the deceased  

with  the  accused,  Bachi  Singh(PW-4),  Joga  Singh(PW-5)-  a  

neighbour;  Narain  Singh-Patwari  (PW-6)  and  Dr.  N.D.  

Punetha(PW.7)  who conducted the postmortem on the dead body  

of  the  deceased.  Prosecution  also  tendered  in  evidence  

affidavit  of  Bhagwat  Singh,  peon  of  Patwari,  dated  5th  

January, 1988. All the documents referred to above were filed  

by  the  prosecution.  The  Trial  Court  on  appreciation  of  

evidence, both oral and documentary, based on circumstantial  

evidence held the accused-Khim Singh guilty of the offence  

punishable under Section 302 IPC.

8. Mr. Feroz Ahmed, amicus curiae appearing on behalf of  

the accused assailed the judgment mainly on the ground that  

there  is  no  complete  chain  of  circumstantial  evidence  to  

bring home the guilt of the accused. It was contended that  

the  appellant  cannot  be  convicted  merely  on  suspicion  in  

absence of any eye-witness. It was also contended that the  

relatives like mother-in-law (PW-1), sister-in-law (PW-2) and  

even the neighbours Bachi Singh (PW-4) and Joga Singh (PW-5)

Page 6

6

were  declared  hostile  and  hence  there  was  no  sufficient  

evidence to prove the accused guilty.

9. In  this  case,  there  was  no  eye-witness  of  the  

occurrence.  The  case  was  based  on  the  circumstantial  

evidence. Manuli Devi (PW-1), the mother of the accused in  

her  testimony,  stated  that  there  was  quarrel  between  the  

accused and his wife, Himuli Devi,in the evening of 17th July,  

1987, on the festival of Harela. On the next morning, i.e.  

18th July, 1987, one Bahadur Singh found the door of the house  

of the accused closed and when he pushed the door, he found  

Himuli Devi lying dead inside the house. Bahadur Singh called  

Bachi Singh (PW-4), the Sabhapati. Thereafter, the Patwari  

also came on the spot. However, she stated that after the  

dispute between accused-Khim Singh and Himuli Devi she had  

not seen accused-Khim Singh and she was declared hostile.  

However, she admitted that in the house only Khim Singh and  

his wife were living. His son Mohan Singh was living with  

her.  Khimuli  Devi  (PW-2),  is  the  wife  of  Lachham  Singh,  

brother of the accused, sister-in-law of the deceased Himuli  

Devi (gotani). According to her, she did not know whether any  

quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased. She  

had gone to her field on the day of Harela festival. The next  

morning also, she had gone to the field, but when she came  

back, she saw Himuli Devi lying dead. Mohan Singh (PW-3), is  

the minor son of the accused. He stated that he was inside

Page 7

7

the house of his grandmother and he did not know as to what  

happened in the house of his father.  

10. Bachi Singh (PW-4), is the Pradhan of the village. He  

stated  that  Khim  Singh  and  his  wife  Himuli  Devi  often  

quarrelled. It was also talked amongst the villagers that the  

wife of the accused was of loose character and on that count  

accused  Khim  Singh  was  annoyed  with  his  wife  and  they  

frequently quarrelled. He further stated that on 17th July,  

1987, in the evening, there was a quarrel between Khim Singh  

and his wife, deceased Himuli Devi. Early in the morning, at  

about 6.30 a.m., the mother of the accused came to him and  

informed that Himuli Devi had not got up and Khim Singh was  

also not there. When he went to the house of Khim Singh, he  

found that the door was open and found that Himuli Devi was  

lying  injured  and  dead.  Khim  Singh  was  not  found  there.  

Bahadur Singh, Joga Singh(PW-5), Lachham singh, Ram Singh and  

others also came and by that time, Khim Singh was also found  

coming  towards  his  house.  He  also  testified  that  he  got  

prepared  the  written  report,Ext.Ka-1,  scribed  by  Bahadur  

Singh, and the same was sent to the Patwari concerned. He  

further  stated  that  when  Patwari  came,  a  blood  stained  

Kulhari was recovered from the house at the instance of the  

accused and the Fard, Ext.Ka-2, was prepared. Joga Singh(PW-

5), another resident of the village, in his testimony, very  

hesitatingly stated that the wife of accused was not of loose  

character. He stated that he went to the house of Khim Singh

Page 8

8

when the Sabhapati called him there. There he found Himuli  

Devi dead. Accused-Khim Singh was not present there at that  

time,  but  after  a  short-while  he  was  seen  coming  to  his  

house.  Narain  Singh  (PW-6),  Patwari,is  the  Investigating  

Officer and Dr. N.D.Punetha(PW-7), conducted postmortem on  

the dead body. Both of them are formal witnesses and had  

proved their report. The evidence of Mohan Singh (PW-3), aged  

about 8 years, minor son of the accused-Khim Singh, is not at  

all material.

11. The accused-appellant in his statement under Section 313  

Cr.P.C.  denied  the  accusations  levelled  against  him.  He,  

denied that his wife did not obey him and he used to quarrel  

with her. He also denied that she was of loose character and  

that he was annoyed with her on that count. He asserted that  

he was not present there at the alleged time of  death,  

therefore, there was no question of quarrel and altercation  

between him and his wife. The accused did not disclose as to  

where he was on the relevant date. However, he denied the  

recovery of blood stained Kulhari at his instance. He claimed  

that  the  witnesses  were  inimical  to  him  hence  they  have  

falsely  given  evidence  against  him.  In  reply  to  question  

No.11, the accused stated that he cannot claim if his wife  

was murdered by Kulhari on the relevant date and time. He  

admitted that Patwari arrested him on 18th July, 1987. He also  

claimed that he had no reason to kill his wife, who had been  

living with him for the last about 17 years.

Page 9

9

12. Himuli Devi died in the night intervening 17th and 18th  

July, 1987 and her death was fully proved by the postmortem  

report prepared by Dr.N.D.Punetha(PW-7). It is not disputed  

that  the  deceased  suffered  from  ante  mortem  injuries,  as  

detailed above. It is also not disputed that two injuries  

found on the person of the deceased were sufficient in the  

ordinary course of nature to cause death. It has not been  

challenged  that  the  ante  mortem  injuries  could  be  self-

inflicted.  The  prosecution  thereby  established  that  the  

deceased Himuli Devi died as a result of ante mortem injuries  

sustained by her in the night intervening 17th and 18th July,  

1987.

13. From the perusal of the entire evidence on record, we  

find that the prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of  

the accused has relied upon the testimony of Manuli Devi(PW-

1), Khimuli Devi (PW-2), Bachi Singh(PW-4) and Joga Singh  

(PW-5). In order to see whether frequent quarrels were there  

between the accused and his wife, the statements of these  

witnesses are relevant to be discussed.

14. Manuli  Devi(PW-1),  is  the  mother  of  the  accused  and  

mother-in-law of the deceased. That being so, there can be no  

reason for her to falsely implicate her son in the commission  

of murder. In her statement she stated that the wife of Khim  

Singh, Himuli Devi, did not obey Khim Singh, therefore, Khim  

Singh was unhappy with her. She further stated that on the  

festival  of  Harela  in  the  evening,  there  was  a  quarrel

Page 10

10

between Khim Singh and his wife. The next day in the morning,  

when Bahadur Singh opened the door of the house of Himuli  

Devi, she also found Himuli Devi lying dead. In her cross-

examination she further testified that in the evening of the  

alleged mis-happening the accused was present in the house  

and he had a quarrel with his wife. She also stated that  

Himuli Devi was s short-tempered woman and had often the  

accused assaulted her. She also stated that earlier Himuli  

Devi had gone to jungle to hang herself. The entire testimony  

of such a natural witness cannot be thrown out merely if the  

prosecution asked to declare her hostile and on their request  

she  was  cross-examined  by  the  prosecution.  The  first  

circumstance that Himuli Devi was short-tempered was further  

corroborated by the statement of Bachi Singh (PW-4) Pradhan  

of the village. Generally the Pradhan of the village keeps  

general information regarding the family matters and tries to  

settle such matter in the village. Pradhan is instrumental to  

settle family disputes at his level, therefore, as and when  

any  such  incident  happens,  the  Pradhan  is  immediately  

intimated. In the instant case, Pradhan (PW-4) prepared the  

written report, got it scribed by Bahadur Singh,who had first  

seen the deceased lying dead inside her house and called the  

Pradhan  immediately  on  the  spot.  In  his  statement,  Bachi  

Singh, Pradhan, specifically stated that Khim Singh and his  

wife often used to quarrel and there was a rumour in the  

village that Himuli Devi was a woman of loose character and

Page 11

11

on account of the result accused Khim Singh was unhappy with  

her.  

15. Joga  Singh  (PW-5),  is  also  a  resident  of  the  same  

village. Though hesitatingly, this witness stated that so far  

as he knew the character of Himuli Devi was good. The learned  

Sessions Judge observed that such statement of Joga Singh(PW-

5) is indicative of fact that probably Himuli Devi was a  

woman on whom Joga Singh (PW-5) never intended to make any  

specific  remark.  However,  Joga  Singh  (PW-5)  stated  that  

accused and his wife sometimes used to have amicable relation  

and sometimes they used to quarrel.

16. From  the  above  narration  of  the  testimony  of  the  

witnesses, it can be concluded that for the reason aforesaid,  

the accused was unhappy with his wife Himuli Devi and this  

resulted in quarrels between them off and on. The quarrel  

took place even in the evening preceding the date of the  

death.  

17. In the night intervening 17th and 18th July, 1987 Himuli  

Devi was killed by means of a Kulhari. Except accused Khim  

Singh  nobody  was  residing  in  the  said  house.  Therefore,  

Himuli Devi could not be killed as a result of assault by  

anybody  else  other  than  the  accused.  The  conduct  of  the  

accused in the morning of 18th July, 1987 was unnatural. He  

failed to explain as to where he remained on the fateful  

night. In the background of the aforesaid circumstances, it  

has to be examined whether the circumstances relied upon by

Page 12

12

the prosecution formed a series of events and whether the  

chain of circumstantial evidence was complete, which could be  

sufficient  to  show  involvement  of  the  accused  in  the  

commission of murder.

18. Manuli Devi (PW-1), clearly stated that in the evening  

of 17th July, 1987, Khim Singh and his wife had a quarrel.  

She, however, added that it was before the sunset. Manuli  

Devi  being  the  mother  of  the  accused  is  a  very  natural  

witness  and  the  credibility  of  her  testimony  cannot  be  

discarded. It is in her statement that she lived with her  

another  son  Lachham  Singh  in  a  separate  house,  which  is  

adjacent  to  the  house  of  the  accused.  She  stated  in  

unequivocal terms that Khim Singh and his wife lived together  

and she(Himuli Devi) did not obey the accused. Bachi Singh  

(PW-4), who is also a close neighbor, also stated that on the  

festival of Harela, i.e., on 17th July, 1987 at about 6.30  

p.m., a quarrel took place between the accused and his wife  

and the shouts were heard by him.  This part of his statement  

has not been challenged in the corss-examination. Bachi Singh  

(PW-4),  being  Pradhan  of  the  village  is  an  independent  

witness  and,  therefore,  there  was  no  reason  for  him  to  

falsely  implicate  the  accused  for  the  offence  of  murder.  

Therefore, the prosecution successfully proved that there was  

a quarrel between the accused and his wife in the preceding  

evening.

Page 13

13

19. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.  

in reply to the question Nos. 3 and 4 stated that on 17th  

July, 1987 he was not at his house. Such statement cannot be  

believed in absence of any explanation given by the accused  

as where he was in the night between 17th and 18th July, 1987.  

The accused could not explain as to where he was in the night  

of 17th July, 1987. The conduct of the accused was unnatural  

in not disclosing the place where he remained in the fateful  

night, making it clear that his statement under Section 313  

Cr.P.C. was not believable. From the testimony of the real  

mother of the accused, Manuli Devi (PW-1) as well as Bachi  

Singh (PW-4), Pradhan of the village, it is fully established  

that the accused was very much present in the house on the  

fateful night and there was a quarrel between the accused and  

his wife. In the absence of any reason for leaving his house,  

it can be held that the accused remained in his house in that  

night.

20. Joga Singh(PW-5), in his testimony stated that when Khim  

Singh  was  found  in  the  morning,  he  was  asked  about  his  

whereabouts, in the night, which he could not explain.

21. Learned  Sessions  Judge  for  the  said  reason  in  the  

judgment observed that “this conduct of the accused in not  

explaining the alleged absence from the house would go to  

show the case taken by him that he was absent from the house  

is not believable. Obviously, the prosecution has been able  

to establish beyond doubt that this accused was present at

Page 14

14

his  house  in  the  night  between  17th and  18th July,  1987.  

Having considered the material on record, the High Court was  

unable to disagree with the finding arrived at by the learned  

Sessions Judge on the point that the accused Khim Singh, was  

very much present in his house on the fateful day and we do  

not find any reason to disagree with such finding. Thus, the  

third circumstance is fully proved by the prosecution.

22. The statement of Bachi Singh (PW-4), who clearly stated  

that none of the residents of the village had any enmity with  

the deceased Himuli Devi is very relevant. It is evident from  

the record that the accused failed to assign any reason for  

the alleged enmity of the villagers and he could not utter a  

single word to that effect in his statement under Section 313  

Cr.P.C. Therefore, there is no reason to infer that anybody  

else from the village could have committed the murder of  

Himuli Devi who was in the house along with the accused-

husband  on  the  fateful  night.  The  Investigation  Officer,  

Narain  Singh  (PW-6),  Patwari,  was  examined  by  the  

prosecution. He clearly stated that at the instance of the  

accused, Kulhari used in the crime was recovered. He was  

cross-examined  by  the  defence.  In  cross-examination,  he  

clearly denied the suggestion that the Kulhari (weapon of  

assault) was not recovered at the instance of the accused.  

The  Medical  Officer,  Dr.  N.D.  Punetha  (PW-7)  in  his  

examination in chief stated that ante mortem injury No.1 on  

the person of the deceased could have been caused by heavy

Page 15

15

sharp-edged weapon such as Kulhari and injury No.2 could have  

been caused by the blunt/rear side blow of Kulhari or by fall  

on the stony surface. This part of his statement was not  

questioned  in  his  cross-examination.  It  has  come  in  the  

statement  of  Investigation  Officer  (PW.6)  that  Kulhari  

recovered on the pointing of the accused was blood-stained  

and hair was stuck on it. He was cross-examined regarding the  

blood-stained portion of the Kulhari and the weight of the  

Kulhari, etc. It is established that blood-stained Kulhari-

Ext.Ka-2 was seized by the Investigating Officer at the house  

of the accused.  

23. Homicidal death of Himuli Devi is corroborated by the  

conduct of the accused in the morning of 18th July, 1987. Joga  

Singh (PW-5) stated that when the accused was found in the  

morning, he was asked about his whereabouts in the night and  

he was not able to explain it. Even Khimuli Devi (PW-2) wife  

of the brother of the accused, Lachham Singh, stated that  

accused was outside the house in the morning wandering here  

and there. Although accused was raising hue and cry that his  

wife was killed, he never bothered to contact the Pradhan or  

the  Patwari  concerned  to  lodge  a  report  in  the  matter.  

However, statement of the accused that he was not present at  

the house in the night seems to be unbelievable considering  

the positive and credible testimony of Manuli Devi (PW-1) and  

other witnesses referred to above.

Page 16

16

24. Bachi Singh (PW-4), stated that door of the house of the  

accused  was  not  bolted  from  inside.  This  is  one  of  the  

incriminating  circumstances  which  can  be  taken  into  

consideration to conclude that the accused after committing  

offence opened the door and went out.

25. The statements of Manuli Devi (PW-1)-mother of accused,  

Bachi Singh (Pw-4)- Pradhan and Khimuli Devi (PW-2)- sister-

in-law also suggest that the accused was last seen with the  

deceased.  

26. The above narration of chain of circumstantial evidence  

relied upon by the prosecution in the present case lead to  

the inference that the accused is guilty for the offence of  

murder of Himuli Devi as all the circumstances taken together  

lead  to  only  hypothesis  of  the  guilt  of  the  accused-

appellant. The chain of circumstantial evidence relied upon  

by the prosecution is complete to hold the accused guilty of  

the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. We hold that  

the accused-appellant Khim Singh was rightly convicted and  

sentenced under Section 302 IPC for life imprisonment by the  

learned Sessions Judge as affirmed by the High Court.

27. As  a  result,  the  appeal  preferred  by  the  accused-

appellant  has  no  force  and  the  same  is  liable  to  be  

dismissed.  The  appeal  is,  accordingly,  dismissed.  The  

impugned judgment under appeal is upheld. We appreciate the  

endeavour made by the learned amicus curiae, Mr. Feroze Ahmed

Page 17

17

in assisting the Court in the matter and direct to pay a sum  

of Rs.7,000/- as fee to the amicus curiae.  

………………………………………………J.                   (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

………………………………………………J.                (V. GOPALA GOWDA)

NEW DELHI, JULY 8, 2014.

Page 18

18

ITEM NO.IB (For Judgment) COURT NO.6          SECTION II                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 1986/2009 KHIM SINGH                                       Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS STATE OF UTTRAKHAND                             Respondent(s)

Date :08/07/2014 This appeal was called on for judgment  today. For Appellant(s)                      Mr. Feroz Ahmed (A.C.)                       For Respondent(s)      Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Adv.                 

Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  Sudhansu  Jyoti  Mukhopadhaya  pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship  and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda.

The  appeal  is  dismissed  in  terms  of  the  signed  judgment.

(Sukhbir Paul Kaur)      (Usha Sharma)    Court Master  Court Master     (Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)

Page 19

19