Page 1

Non-reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1098 OF 2012

RAJVINDER SINGH     …. Appellant

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA     …. Respondent

J U D G M E N T  

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. This appeal by special leave challenges the judgment and order

dated 12.12.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana

dismissing  Criminal  Appeal  No.800-DB  of  2007  and  thereby

confirming  the  conviction  and  sentence  of  the  appellant  for  the

offences under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the I.P.C.  

2.  One Ms. Pushpa Verma, an unmarried lady, after retiring from

her job as Head Mistress in the year 1993, was residing at Karnal.

She had set up a marriage bureau and also used to work as a property

Page 2

dealer.  Her two married sisters were also residing at Karnal.  Two

sons  of  one  of  the  sisters  were  practicing  advocates.   Brother  of

Pushpa  Verma  named  Chander  Prakash  had  retired  as  Executive

Engineer and was residing at Hissar.  Pushpa Verma owned properties

at Panipat and Gurgaon allotted through Haryana Urban Development

Authority (HUDA for short).  

3. The appellant stands convicted for the offences of kidnapping

Pushpa Verma and thereafter  murdering her and for  destroying the

evidence by throwing her body in a canal.  He is sentenced to life

imprisonment  and  payment  of  fine  of  Rs.10,000/-  for  the  offence

under Section 302 I.P.C. and to rigorous imprisonment for five years

and  payment  of  fine  of  Rs.5,000/-  in  default  whereof  to  undergo

further rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 364 I.P.C.

and to rigorous imprisonment for five years and payment of fine of

Rs.5,000/-,  in  default  whereof  to  undergo  further  rigorous

imprisonment  for  six  months  under  Section  201  I.P.C.   All  the

sentences are to run concurrently.   The conviction and sentence as

recorded by the trial court has been affirmed by the High Court in the

judgment under appeal.  

2

Page 3

4. The instant matter has genesis in Daily Diary Report (Ext. PA)

lodged with Police Post, Sector 13, Karnal, by Chander Prakash on

16.03.2003 giving “missing report”  about  his  sister  Pushpa Verma.

According to the report, she was missing since 20/22 January, 2003

and had not been receiving any calls since then.  The follow-up action

on this report indicates that information was sent to all the districts

and  all  the  police  stations  were  intimated  through  wireless.   On

18.05.2003  Chander  Prakash  moved  an  application  (Ext.  PC)  for

registration  of  an  offence  against  the  appellant  stating  that  he

suspected that the appellant wanted to grab her plots at Panipat and

Gurgaon by preparing forged documents and that he had kidnapped

her or murdered her.  This reporting led to registration of FIR No.144

dated  18.05.2003  with  Police  Station  Civil  Lines,  Karnal  under

Section 364 I.P.C. against the appellant.  

5. After  due  investigation,  charge-sheet  was  filed  against  the

appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 201

I.P.C.  in  the  Court  of  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Karnal  and  the

appellant was tried for aforesaid offences in Sessions Case No.53 of

2005.  During investigation the body of Pushpa Verma could not be

recovered  nor  was  there  any  eye-witness  to  the  actual  act  of

3

Page 4

kidnapping or murder.  The prosecution mainly relied upon following

circumstances to bring home the charges against the accused:  

A. The  documents  pertaining  to  properties  of  Pushpa  Verma  at

Panipat  and Gurgaon  showed that  general  powers  of  attorney

were allegedly executed in favour of the appellant, on the basis

of which he had entered into transactions in respect of properties

at  Panipat  and  Gurgaon  and  had  pocketed  the  consideration.

The transactions as placed on record were as under:-

a.   On 26.09.2002 a general power of attorney Ext. PF-1 was allegedly executed by Pushpa Verma in favour of  the  appellant  in  respect  of  her  property  at  Panipat. Though she was resident of Karnal and the property was at Panipat, this general power of attorney was executed and  registered  with  the  office  of  the  Sub-Registrar  at Delhi.  This document empowered the appellant with all rights  including  power  to  dispose  of  the  property  at Panipat.

b. On  08.11.2002  the  appellant  sold  away  the property at Panipat for Rs.12.5 Lakhs.  The property was an industrial plot of 1050 square meters at Panipat and the entire consideration was received by the appellant in cash.  It appears that there were dues in respect of penalty for  not  having  constructed  upon  within  the  prescribed period, which were got cleared by the appellant.

c. On 12.11.2002 a Will  (Ext.  PG-1) was allegedly executed by said Pushpa Verma in favour of the appellant in respect of her Gurgaon property.  On the next day i.e. 13.11.2002  a  general  power  of  attorney  was  allegedly executed with respect to Gurgaon property in favour of

4

Page 5

the appellant.  The Will and the general power of attorney were also executed and registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar at Delhi.

d. On  24.01.2003  an  agreement  (Mark  PH)  was entered into under which the appellant agreed to transfer Gurgaon  property  in  favour  of  prospective  purchasers and  received  part  consideration  of  Rupees  2.5  Lakhs (Rupees 1.5 Lakhs in cash while Rupees One Lakhs by way of a cheque in the name of the appellant himself). On 24.03.2003, further sum of Rupees Three Lakhs was received by the appellant and endorsement to that effect was made on the agreement itself.      

e. On  31.03.2003  a  demand  draft  of  Rupees  Five Thousand  towards  the  fees  for  seeking  permission  to transfer  Gurgaon  property  was  taken out  and enclosed along with the application (Ext. PJ) seeking permission to transfer that property.  This application was preferred by the appellant in his capacity as general power of attorney and was received in the office of HUDA on 03.04.2003.

f. It appears that the signatures of Pushpa Verma on the general power of attorney submitted by the appellant did  not  tally  with  her  original  signatures  available  on record  with  HUDA  and  a  letter  to  that  effect  was dispatched on 07.04.2003.  This was followed by another letter dated 24.04.2003 (Ext. PH) by HUDA addressed to Pushpa Verma with a copy to the appellant asking her to remain present personally in the office in connection with her application seeking permission to transfer.

B. PW 22 Harsh Vardhan, Handwriting expert was examined who

opined that the signatures of Pushpa Verma on aforementioned

5

Page 6

documents do not tally with the specimen signatures taken from

the available record with her bank.  

C. The  consideration  received  in  respect  of  the  aforesaid

transactions was never credited to the account of Pushpa Verma.

D. S.P. Meena, Sub-Registrar, Delhi was examined as PW 10.  The

relevant portion of his testimony is as under:

“After the document is written the receipt for the fee  is  issued  by  the  clerk  concerned  the  document  is presented before another clerk who verifies the document and  the  attestation  of  the  witnesses  and  parties  and initials the photographs and affixes seals and fills in the blanks  in  the  seal,  the  document  after  his  signature  is presented before me.  Thereafter I sign the documents on the faith of the clerk concerned.  Documents Ext. PG and Ext. PG/1 is power of attorney and will respectively were presented  before  me  by  Naresh  Kumar,  Clerk  after initialing at point ‘A’ in Ext. PG and at point ‘B’ in Ext PG/1 signed these documents.  

Thereafter the documents were entered in the register of the registration maintained in our office.  I have seen my signatures at points ‘B’ and Ext. PG and at points ‘C’ in Ext. PG/1.  These signatures are mine.  The person who executes the document and in whose favour it is executed do not appear before me.  I have been working in this manner from 26.07.2000 to 13.11.2002 as Sub-Registrar and attested the documents.”

E. On 21.05.2003 the appellant made an extra judicial confession

to PW16 Sunil Rana advocate who later took the appellant to

6

Page 7

the police and caused his arrest.   The appellant confessed that

Pushpa Verma was known to him for more than a year, that he

started meeting her often, that she started treating him as her

son,  that  having come to know that  she owned properties  at

different places he had become greedy, that he had given her

some  sedative  in  her  tea,  taken  her  to  Delhi  and  got  her

signatures on the General power of attorney, that he sold away

property at Panipat but kept all the money with himself and that

he again took her to Delhi and got another general power of

attorney executed in respect  of Gurgaon plot.   It  was further

confessed that in the month of January the appellant felt that

Pushpa  Verma  suspected  some  foul  play  and  therefore  the

appellant  plotted a scheme to finish her.  On 23.01.2003 she

expressed desire to visit Haridwar, on which pretext he took her

in a car and after having administered a sedative, throttled her

and while she was unconscious near Roorkee, threw her body in

a canal known as Gang Canal in between villages Liverheri and

Mangalore.  

F. After the arrest of the appellant, voter identity card Ext. P-12 of

Pushpa Verma was recovered from the bushes near Gang Canal

7

Page 8

where  her  dead  body  was  thrown.   Such  recovery  was  in

pursuance  of  the  disclosure  statement  of  the  appellant  under

Section 27 of the Evidence Act.  In order to prove this part, the

prosecution relied upon the testimony of PW 12 Mahir Hussain,

Photographer and the testimony of PW 19 Investigating Officer

Vijay Anand.  

G. Pursuant to the disclosure statement of the appellant, a gold ring

bearing inscription “PV” was also recovered from the house of

the  appellant.   The  evidence  in  that  behalf  was  available

through PW5 Muktiyar Singh and PW6 Ashok Sharma.  

6. In  defence,  the  appellant  examined  four  witnesses.   It  was

projected that an unidentified dead body of a woman was found in the

agricultural  fields  in  District  Muzaffar  Nagar,  U.P. on  22.01.2003.

The photograph of the dead body taken by the police was produced in

this trial  and marked as DB.  One Brahmpal Singh, Sub-Inspector,

Saharanpur was also examined as Defence witness who stated that he

had  prepared  Inquest  proceedings  regarding  the  dead  body  and

thereafter  the  investigation  was  conducted  by  SSI  Rajinder  Beer

Singh.  By examining these witnesses it was submitted that the dead

8

Page 9

body so found in Muzaffar Nagar on 22.01.2003 was in fact that of

Pushpa Verma.  The trial court rejected this defence.  Relying upon

the circumstances as culled out hereinabove, the trial court found that

the  case  against  the  appellant  was  completely  proved  by  the

prosecution.   The  trial  court,  thus,  awarded  the  sentence  as  stated

hereinabove.

7. The  appellant  carried  the  matter  further  by  filing  Criminal

Appeal No.800-DB/2007 in the High Court.   During the pendency of

this appeal,  the appellant filed CRM No.52692 of 2008 along with

documents pertaining to a case registered against one Suresh under

Section 25 of the Arms Act.  Copy of the General Diary pertaining to

investigation of said crime was also filed which contained statement

of said accused Suresh according to which Suresh and one Baljeet had

taken  Pushpa  Verma  from  Karnal  in  a  car,  that  Baljeet  had

strangulated her  and that  thereafter  they both had thrown her dead

body in sugar-cane fields.  The record as filed did not indicate whether

any case under Section 302 IPC was registered against said Baljeet

and Suresh.  The appellant also filed a report of a privately engaged

Forensic Expert stating that the photograph of the dead body of the

lady found in Muzaffar Nagar was that of Pushpa Verma.  Relying on

9

Page 10

these materials, the appellant submitted an application under Section

391  Cr.P.C.  praying  that  additional  evidence  be  recorded  at  the

appellate stage.  The High Court directed that these applications be

considered along with the appeal itself.

8. The High Court considered the matter  and the circumstantial

evidence placed on record.   It  found that  the signatures of  Pushpa

Verma on the documents in question were a crude attempt at imitation

and in one of the documents, namely, Will Ext. PG-1, the signature

was  “Puspha  Verma”  instead  of  normal  signature  being  “Pushpa

Verma”.  The High Court found that  the case against the appellant

stood completely established.  As regards application under Section

391 Cr.P.C., it was observed that the appellant had taken the defence

that the dead body recovered in Muzaffar Nagar was actually that of

Pushpa Verma and in such circumstances it was imperative for him to

have examined the expert in his defence at the trial court stage itself

and that the report of the privately engaged Forensic Expert at such

belated stage could not be allowed to be taken on record.  The High

Court thus dismissed the appeal affirming the conviction and sentence

of the appellant.

10

Page 11

9. This judgment of the High Court is presently under appeal. Crl.

Miscellaneous  Petition  No.10525  of  2012  was  filed  in  the  present

matter seeking leave to bring on record additional documents which

include the order of conviction in so far as aforementioned Suresh is

concerned under Section 25 of the Arms Act as well as deposition of

the very same Sub Registrar S.P. Meena in Civil Suit No.142 of 2009.

Said  Civil  Suit  was  filed  by  Chander  Prakash  against  the  present

appellant seeking to invalidate the transactions allegedly entered into

by  Pushpa  Verma.   In  that  suit  S.P.  Meena,  Sub-  Registrar  was

examined as his witness by the appellant.   His deposition now states

that he had read over the contents of the general power of attorney and

the Will to Pushpa Verma and after understanding the same she had

signed in the presence of said S.P. Meena.  

10. Mr. Brijender Chahar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for

the appellant submitted that none of the aforesaid circumstances were

proved and in any event these circumstances do not form a complete

chain  excluding  every  other  hypothesis  except  the  guilt  of  the

appellant.  It was submitted that the dead body of Pushpa Verma was

never recovered from Gang Canal or thereabouts.  On the other hand a

dead body of an unidentified female was found in agricultural fields in

11

Page 12

District Muzaffar Nagar and FIR No.427-12 of 2003 was registered

against  unknown  persons  at  Police  Station  Nai  Mandi,  Muzaffar

Nagar.   It was submitted that the High Court ought to have allowed

the prayer for leading additional evidence at the appellate stage. It was

accepted that the documents referred to above had given the appellant

full authority to dispose of the properties of Pushpa Verma and that

the  appellant  had  entered  into  transactions  in  question.   It  was

however submitted that all the payments that he had received were

made over to Pushpa Verma and that an attaché kept with one Ram

Kishore was taken by son of the complainant.  The attaché used to

contain valuable securities of Pushpa Verma and was kept with Ram

Kishore  with  instructions  to  hand  over  to  her  relations  in  case

anything were to  happen to her.  It  was suggested  that  the money

received in cash must have been kept in that attaché.  Mr. Devender

Kumar Saini, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the

State submitted that the concurrent view taken by the trial court and

the High Court  did not  call  for  any interference and the appeal  be

dismissed.   

11.   At  the  outset,  we  must  deal  with  submissions  as  regards

application for leading additional evidence at the appellate stage.  It

12

Page 13

has been the consistent defence of the appellant that the dead body

found in agricultural  fields  in  District  Muzaffar  Nagar  was  that  of

Pushpa Verma and he went to the extent of producing photograph of

the  dead  body  in  the  present  trial.   He  also  examined  Brahm Pal

Singh, Sub-Inspector and other witnesses.  It was certainly possible to

examine Forensic Expert at the trial court stage itself and the High

Court was right and justified in rejecting the prayer to lead additional

evidence at the appellate stage.  Nonetheless, we have gone through

the  report  of  said  Forensic  Expert  engaged  by the  appellant.   The

exercise  undertaken  by  that  expert  is  to  start  with  the  admitted

photograph of Pushpa Verma on a computer, then remove the “bindi”

by some process on the computer, then by same process remove her

spectacles and by computer  imaging change the image as it  would

have looked if the lady was lying down in an injured condition.  The

computer image so changed was then compared with the photograph

of the dead body.   We have seen both the images and we are not

convinced at all about any element of similarity.  We do not therefore

see any reason to differ from the view taken by the High Court.  

12.    In  the  submissions  of  Mr.  Brijender  Chahar,  learned  Senior

Advocate the circumstances E, F and G as culled out in paragraph 5

13

Page 14

hereinabove  were  not  proved  at  all  and  the  transactions  were

completely genuine.  It was submitted that it is impossible to believe

that the Voter Identity Card of Pushpa Verma could be recovered from

the bushes four months after the incident.  Similarly the recovery of

gold ring was also questioned.  Further, it was submitted that there

was no evidence that the ring in question was that of Pushpa Verma.

Mr. Chahar may be right so far as recovery of Voter Identity Card is

concerned  but  the  recovery  of  gold  ring  with  inscription  ‘PV;

recovered  from the  house  of  the  appellant  is  definitely  a  relevant

circumstance.  The ring after recovery was given under a panchnama

to Abhishek Dewan,  son of  Chander Prakash.   No explanation has

been given as to how the appellant came into possession of said gold

ring.  As regards the extra judicial confession made to PW 16 Sunil

Rana,  the documents  allegedly executed  by Pushpa Verma and the

progression  of  events  including  the  transactions  completely

substantiate  the  case  and  we  have  no  hesitation  in  accepting  the

evidence in that behalf.  

13. The transactions as referred to above have been admitted by the

appellant.  We have seen the signatures alleged to have been put by

Pushpa Verma on said documents.  We have compared the signatures

14

Page 15

and find the view taken by the High Court in that behalf to be correct.

It is impossible and inconceivable that a lady who had retired as head

mistress would mis-spell her own name while putting signatures.  The

flow of signature as evident from the admitted source is completely of

a different nature.  The signatures on the documents in question, to a

naked  eye,  cannot  be  that  of  Pushpa  Verma.   Further,  there  is  no

reason why a lady who has two sisters and two Advocate nephews

staying in same town, would give power of attorney and execute a

Will in favour of a total stranger.  These circumstances are clinchingly

against  the  appellant.   His  assertion  that  he  had  made  over  the

payments received in cash to Pushpa Verma is not supported by any

material  on record.   In  fact,  the appellant  kept  receiving payments

even  in  the  month  of  March,  2003.   None  of  the  payments  are

reflected in the account of Pushpa Verma.  Receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- by

way of cheque in the name of appellant himself is also a circumstance

against the appellant.  The evidence thus shows that the appellant had

fabricated the documents in question and was attempting to defraud

Pushpa Verma, as stated in the extra judicial confession.  Further, by

Ext. PH addressed to Pushpa Verma, a copy of which was sent to the

appellant, she was asked to remain personally present in the office of

15

Page 16

HUDA.  There is nothing on record to show that the appellant had

undertaken  any  attempt,  if  he  was  genuinely  acting  as  power  of

attorney on her behalf.   We are satisfied that the circumstances on

record, even if we were to disregard that relating to the recovery of

Voter Identity Card Ext.P-12, do suggest only one hypothesis and that

is the guilt of the appellant.  The defence set up by the appellant does

not inspire any confidence and merits rejection. The appeal, therefore

fails and is dismissed.

14.   Before we part,  we must  deal with the conduct of PW10 S.P.

Meena.  As  Sub-Registrar,  it  was  expected  of  him  and  was

fundamental part of his duty to see that the persons who are entering

into transactions must appear before him in person and the documents

would  be  registered  only  after  the  essential  formalities  were

undertaken.  His evidence in the present case shows rank dereliction

of duty.  Add to it, his attempt to strike a different chord in the private

proceedings  is  also  questionable.   He  appeared  as  witness  for  the

appellant and took a contradictory stand on oath.  Such conduct must

be dealt  with strictly so that the matters of registration continue to

have  confidence  in  the  eyes  of  people.   We therefore  recommend

suitable  action  against  said  PW10  S.P.  Meena  and  direct  the

16

Page 17

authorities  to  initiate  proceedings  in  that  behalf.   A copy  of  this

judgment  be  sent  to  the  Supervisors  in  the  office  where  he  was

working as Sub-Registrar, Pitampura, Delhi.  

15. The appeal is disposed of in the afore-mentioned terms.

……………………………….. ……J.

(Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla)

 ………………………………..……J.  (Uday Umesh Lalit)

 New Delhi, October 16, 2015

17