Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 658-659 OF 2010

Ram Chander & Ors.         Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of Haryana       Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) These appeals are filed against the common final

judgment and order dated 12.08.2008 passed by the

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in

Criminal  Appeal  Nos.  448-DB  and  395-DB  of  1998

whereby  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court

dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants herein

1

Page 2

and  upheld  the  judgments/orders  of  conviction  and

sentence rendered by the Trial Court.

2) The case of the prosecution is as under:

One  Hari  Singh  (since  dead)  was  married  to

Messo (deceased). Out of this wedlock, the couple was

blessed  with  three  daughters,  namely,  Dholi  alias

Krishna,  Sumitra  and  Raj  Bala.  Raj  Bala  was  aged

around 15 years and the youngest amongst the three

daughters. Both Dholi and Sumitra were married at a

place  (village)  called  Kagdana  whereas  Rajbala  was

unmarried.  

3) Hari Singh has two brothers, namely, Sohan Lal

(accused - since dead) and Bhoop Singh.  Sohan Lal

has  four  sons,  namely,  Ram  Chander,  Ranbir  alias

Randhir,  Ram  Kumar  and  Om  Parkash  (accused-

appellants herein).  Messo has one sister Guddi (PW-

9) who is married to Bhoop Singh.

2

Page 3

4) Messo and Raj Bala (mother and daughter) were

living in one house at village Arnianwali. Guddi  was

their next-door neighbour. Messo was in search of a

boy for Raj Bala and had selected one boy from a place

called Manak Dewan for which talks had been going

on  for  the  last  one  month  or  so  from  the  date  of

incident.  The engagement  ceremony was accordingly

fixed for 22.09.1996 at Arnianwali. Dholi alias Krishna

(married daughter of  Messo)  had,  therefore,  come to

her  mother’s  place  at  Arnianwali  on  19.09.1996  to

help her mother and sister–Raj Bala for the ceremony.

5) On 20.09.1996, around 3 p.m. Sohan Lal along

with  his  four  sons,  namely,  Ranbir,  Ram  Chander,

Ram Kumar and Om Parkash, came to the house of

Messo and told her to desist from settling the marriage

of Raj Bala with a boy from Manak Dewan. Sohan Lal

said that  they could settle  it  according to their own

choice.  Sohan  Lal,  who  was  not  happy  with  the

3

Page 4

marriage  proposal,  expressed  his  total  unhappiness

and did not want the marriage proposal to fructify.  He

then threatened Messo that in case she did not agree

to his proposal then both (Messo and Raj Bala) would

not see the sun the next day. After giving this threat,

Sohan Lal along with his sons (appellants herein) left

the place.  Dholi  and Guddi were present along with

Messo and Raj Bala when Sohan Lal and his four sons

had come.

6) Messo fearing with the threat of Sohan Lal asked

her daughter Dholi to go immediately to her brother,

Ram Sarup at village Dhigtania which was around 20

KM  away  from  her  house  and  inform  him  about

happening  of  such  incident  with  her.  Dholi,

accordingly,  went there and narrated the incident to

Ram  Sarup-her  maternal  uncle.   She  then  stayed

overnight with Ram Sarup.

4

Page 5

7) On 21.09.1996, in the early hours, when Dholi

and   Ram  Sarup  accompanied  by  one  Om

Prakash-Sarpanch of Village Dhigtania reached to the

house of Messo, they found both, Messo and Raj Bala,

missing from the house.  They, therefore, went to the

house  of  Guddi  (PW-9),  who  was  living  next  to  the

house of Messo. They noted that Guddi was weeping

and was in the state of shock.  

8) When  they  inquired  from  her  about  the

whereabouts of Messo and Raj Bala, Guddi told them

that  Sohan Lal  and his  four  sons  had come in  the

night and murdered Messo and Raj Bala, burnt their

bodies in house and carried the remains of the dead

bodies and ashes in a cart driven by the tractor from

her house to an unknown place.

9) This led to the registration of FIR bearing No.197

(Ex-PA-1) dated 21.09.1996 by Dholi at Police Station

Nathusari  Chopta  naming   Sohan  Lal  and  his  four

5

Page 6

sons  (appellants  herein)  as  accused  persons  for

committing  the  murder  of  her  mother-Messo  and

sister–Raj  Bala.  The  police  authorities  then  started

investigation, visited the spot, recorded the statements

of  the  witnesses,  prepared  the  spot  map,  recovered

several articles from the spot and arrested the accused

persons.  On  being  interrogated,  the  accused  made

disclosure  statements  about  the  manner  in  which

ashes/bones of both the deceased were disposed of in

a nearby Canal known as-Sheranwali Canal and also

disclosed  the  place  where  the  weapons  used  in

commission of the offence and tractor with cart were

kept. On such disclosure being made, the police made

recoveries  of  the  articles  at  the  instance  of  the

accused.  

10) After  completion  of  the  investigation,  the  case

was  committed  to  the  Court  of  Sessions  and  the

accused persons were charged for commission of the

6

Page 7

offences  punishable  under  Sections  148,  302  read

with  Section  149  and  201  of  the  Indian  Penal

Code,1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

11) On 07.08.1997, Om Parkash-one of the accused

escaped from police custody from Civil Hospital Sirsa.

Proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Criminal

Procedure  Code,1973  (for  short  ‘the  Code’)  were

initiated  against  him.  He  was  declared  ‘Proclaimed

Offender’  and proceedings  under  Section 299 of  the

Code were ordered to be taken up against him. The

trial of other accused, however, proceeded on merits.  

12) The prosecution, in support of his case, examined

as many as 11 witnesses whereas the defence did not

choose  to  lead  any  evidence.  Proceedings  under

Section  313  of  the  Code  were  carried  out.  After

completion  of  the  trial,  the  Trial  Court  (Additional

Sessions  Judge,  Sirsa),  vide  judgment  dated

27.07.1998, convicted Sohan Lal, Ranbir @ Randhir,

7

Page 8

Ram  Chander  and  Ram  Kumar  for  the  offences

punishable  under  Sections  148,  302/149  and

201/149 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous

imprisonment  for  a  period  of  one  year  each  under

Section 148 IPC. Ram Chander and Ranbir @ Randhir

to  undergo  imprisonment  for  life  under  Section 302

IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default of

payment,  further  to  undergo  rigorous  imprisonment

for  a  period  of  one  year  each.  Sohan  Lal  and  Ram

Kumar were sentenced to imprisonment for life under

Section 302/149 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-

each, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each.

All  the  four  accused  were  sentenced  to  undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each

for  the  offences  punishable  under  Section  201/149

IPC.  All  the  sentences  were  ordered  to  run

concurrently.

8

Page 9

13) After  arrest  of  Om  Parkash  on  22.02.1999,  a

separate trial was conducted against him and after its

completion,  the Trial  Court,  by a separate judgment

dated  7/8.08.2000,  convicted  him  for  the  offences

punishable  under  Sections  148,  302/149  and

201/149 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous

imprisonment  for  one  year  under  Section  148  IPC

imprisonment  for  life  and  fine  of  Rs.5000/-  with

default  clause  under  Section  302/149  IPC  and

rigorous  imprisonment  for  two  years  under  Section

201/149  IPC.  All  the  substantive  sentences  were

ordered to run concurrently.

14) Against the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 27.07.1998, Sohan Lal, Ram Chander,

Ram  Kumar  and  Ranbir  @  Randhir  filed  Criminal

Appeal No. 448-DB of 1998 before the High Court.       

15) Against the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 7/8.9.2000, Om Parkash filed separate

9

Page 10

Criminal Appeal No. 395-DB of 2000 before the High

Court.  

16) The appeals were heard together.  By impugned

judgment dated 12.08.2008, the High Court dismissed

both the appeals. During the pendency of the appeals

before  the  High  Court,  Sohan  Lal  died,  therefore,

appeal against him stood abated.

17) Aggrieved by the said judgment, all the accused

have  filed these appeals  by special  leave before  this

Court questioning the legality and correctness of their

conviction and sentence.  

18) Heard Mr. Naresh Kaushik, learned counsel  for

the appellants (accused) and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen

learned counsel  for  the  respondent-  State.   We also

perused  the  written  submissions  submitted  by  the

learned counsel for the parties.

10

Page 11

19) Learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  (accused)

while  assailing  the  legality  and  correctness  of  the

impugned  order,  reiterated  the  same  submissions

which were pressed in service though unsuccessfully

by the appellants before the two courts below resulting

in their conviction.  

20) In substance, the submissions were that firstly,

the appellants were falsely implicated in the incident

inasmuch as none of  the appellants were connected

with the commission of the offence in question in any

way so also their complicity in the commission of the

offence could not be established by the prosecution for

want of evidence against any of them.  

21) The  second  submission  was  that  neither  the

motive  for  commission  of  the  offence  and  nor  the

presence  of  any  of  the  appellants  either  jointly  and

individually was proved at the time of the commission

of  the  offence  by  the  prosecution  and  the  evidence

11

Page 12

adduced  by  the  prosecution  is  not  sufficient  to

implicate the appellants for commission of the offence.  

22) The  third  submission was  that  the  two Courts

below erred in placing reliance on the evidence of the

so-called eye-witness-Guddi (PW-9) as according to the

learned  counsel,  her  testimony,  if  scanned  properly

would  neither  inspire  confidence  and  nor  will

command  creditability  due  to  her  close  relationship

with the deceased family.  

23) The fourth submission was that apart from the

evidence of Guddi (PW-9), no independent eye-witness

to  the  incident  was  examined  by  the  prosecution,

therefore, it is not safe to rely on the uncorroborated

testimony  of  Guddi  (PW-9)  for  sustaining  the

appellants’ conviction.  

24) The  fifth  submission  was  that  when  the

prosecution claimed that on the strength of disclosure

statement of one accused, they recovered  “Ashes and

12

Page 13

Bones" from the canal, this itself renders the case of

the  prosecution  wholly  unacceptable  because  ashes

could never be recovered from canal.

25) The sixth submission was that  it  looked highly

improbable that no villager could witness the incident

except  Guddi(PW-9).  This,  according  to  learned

counsel,  is  sufficient  to  hold  that  the  prosecution

failed to establish the complicity of the appellants in

commission of the crime.  

26) The  seventh  submission  was  that  no  expert

opinion was obtained to find out as to whether bones

recovered were human bones or animal bones?  

27) It  is  basically  these  submissions,  which  were

elaborated by the learned counsel  for the appellants

with reference to the evidence on record.

28) In  reply,  learned  counsel  for  the  respondent

supported  the  impugned  order  and  contended  that

13

Page 14

since both the Courts below, on proper appreciation of

evidence, have held that the appellants were involved

in  the  commission  of  the  offence  in  question  and

committed  brutal  murder  of  two  innocent  ladies,

mother  and  daughter,  and  further  both  the  Courts

have  given  cogent  reasons  while  rejecting  their

submissions  and  hence  there  arises  no  reason  to

interfere in the impugned order.

29) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no

merit in the appeals.

30) At  the  outset,  we  may  take  note  of  one  legal

principle  consistently  reiterated  by  this  Court  since

inception that it is not the function of this Court to

re-assess evidence and an argument on a point of fact

which did not  prevail  with the Courts  below cannot

avail the appellants in this Court (see observation of

learned Judge – Saiyid Fazl Ali, J. while speaking for

14

Page 15

the Bench in the case of Lachhman Singh and others

vs State (AIR 1952 SC 167).  

31) Here is a case where the Trial Court and the High

Court,  on  appreciating  the  entire  oral  evidence,

recorded categorical concurrent findings of fact against

the  appellants  (accused)  about  their  complicity  in

commission  of  crime  in  question  which  resulted  in

killing of mother and her unmarried daughter.  

32) Both the Courts below held that firstly,  it  were

the appellants who had come to the house of Messo

(mother) and threatened her that she (Messo) should

not pursue her daughter, Raj Bala's marriage with the

boy from Manak Diwan, otherwise both will not see the

sun the next day.  Secondly, noticing that both did not

pay any heed to  the  threat,  the  appellants  came to

Messo’s house in the midnight with a pre-determined

mind to  eliminate  Messo and Raj  Bala.  Thirdly,  the

appellants  accomplished  their  plan  by  mercilessly

15

Page 16

killing Messo and Raj Bala with the use of  gandasa

when  both  were  in  fast  asleep.   Fourthly,   the

appellants first caught hold of Messo  and chopped her

head with Gandasa and then did the same to Raj Bala

and then put them on a cot and put mattresses and

wood  sticks  over  their  bodies  and  poured

kerosene/diesel and set their bodies to fire.   Fifthly,

the appellants then removed the ashes and bones from

the place of occurrence in a tractor and all this was

witnessed by Guddi (PW-9) who was living as next door

neighbour of the deceased.  Sixthly, Guddi (PW-9) was

a reliable  eye-witness whose  evidence  did  not  suffer

from  any  infirmities  or/and  inconsistencies.

Seventhly,  the  ashes,  human  bones,  plastic  bags,

Gandasa  used  in  execution  of  the  offence  were

recovered from the canal and house at the instance of

the respective appellants on the strength of individual

disclosure statements made during their interrogation.

Eighthly, the defence did not adduce any evidence to

16

Page 17

demolish  the  case  of  the  prosecution  and  nor

statements of the accused made under Section 313 of

the Code, in any manner, could  demolish the case of

the prosecution on any material points.  Ninthly, the

case set up by the prosecution was proved with the aid

of  evidence  adduced  by  witnesses,  namely,  PW-1 to

PW-11.   

33) As observed supra, the aforementioned nine main

findings  of  the  Sessions Court  were  affirmed by the

High Court after appreciating the oral evidence. These

findings of fact being concurrent in nature are usually

binding  on  this  Court.   This  Court,  being  the  last

Court of appeal, does not re-visit and re-appreciate the

entire oral evidence  de novo in its jurisdiction under

Article 136 of the Constitution unless there are strong

and prima facie reasons to do so pointing out therein

any apparent legal and jurisdictional error prejudicing

any rights of the accused.

17

Page 18

34) However,  since  this  Court  granted  leave  to  file

appeal to the appellants against the impugned order of

the High Court and hence we considered it just and

proper  to have a re-look to the evidence of  material

witnesses  with  a  view  to  find  out  whether  the

concurrent findings of the two Courts below are based

on  proper  appreciation  of  evidence  or  any  of  these

findings call for any interference.  

35) As mentioned above, the only eye-witness to the

incident in question is Guddi (PW-9). Both the Courts

below found her testimony to be natural, credible and

consistent.

36) Guddi  (PW-9)  is  the real  sister  of  the deceased

Messo and she was living next to the house of Messo.

She, in her evidence, narrated in detail her family tree

and their inter se relations including her relation with

the accused family.  

18

Page 19

37) She  stated  that  Sohan  Lal-one  of  the  accused

(since dead) was her husband's (Bhoop Singh’s)  real

elder brother and the accused are Sohan Lal and his

sons.  She  stated  that  Sohan  Lal  and  his  sons

(appellants)  had  come  to  Messo's  house  in  the

afternoon  on  the  date  of  incident  (incident  had

occurred in midnight  the same day)  and held out a

threat to her and Raj Bala that marriage proposal of

her daughter with the boy from Manak Diwan should

not be materialized and if it is not cancelled then she

and her daughter will not see the sun the next day.

She stated that Sohan Lal gave this threat to Messo in

her presence and in presence of Dholi (PW-8) who had

come  to  Messo  to  extend  help  for  engagement

ceremony of Raj Bala.

38) She  stated  that  Messo  on  hearing  the  threat

asked Dholi-her daughter to go to her maternal uncle

19

Page 20

(Ram Sarup) - who was the resident of nearby village

and bring him with her, if possible.

39) She  stated  that  Dholi  immediately  left  to  the

house of Ram Sarup and on reaching there she told

him about the incident.  Dholi  stayed back overnight

with Ram Sarup.

40) She then stated that during mid-night hours, she

heard  some  noise  in  the  house  of  Messo.  She,

therefore, woke up and came out to find out the cause

of noice. She stated that between her house and the

house  of  Messo,  there  is  one  common  wall  with

sufficient  space,  which  enables  anyone  to  peep

through easily in both the houses.

41) She stated that she came near to the joint wall

and through space in the wall saw that Ram Chander

(accused)  and  Randhir  (accused)  were  holding

Gandasas in their hands whereas Sohan Lal (accused)

and Om Prakash (accused) had caught hold of Masso's

20

Page 21

hand and legs and Ram Chander (accused) with his

gandasa gave blow on Messo's neck, which completely

severed Messo's neck from her body.  

42) She  stated  that  Ram  Kumar  (accused)  then

caught hold of Raj Bala who was on a separate cot and

Ranbir (accused) with his gandasa gave blow on Raj

Bala's  throat  due to which her neck was completely

severed from her body. The accused persons then put

both the bodies on one cot along with their  severed

heads and put mattresses on the dead bodies. Sohan

Lal then put some wood sticks by the side of the cot

and poured two tins of diesel/kerosene on the cot and

set the cot ablaze with matchstick.  

43) She stated that  Ranbir  (accused)  then came to

her (Guddi‘s) house and took their tractor and camel

cart to Messo's house. He dumped ashes, bones and

other burnt material in the tractor and proceeded with

the  tractor  to  an  unknown  place.  She  stated  that

21

Page 22

before  leaving,  Ram Chander  plastered  the  place  of

occurrence with mud and cow-dung and cleaned the

place. She stated that she told about this incident to

Bhoop Singh but on hearing it,  he ran away out of

fear.  

44) She stated that next morning when Ram Sarup,

Dholi and Om Prakash-Sarpanch came, she narrated

the entire  incident  to  them,  which eventually  led to

filing  of  FIR  by  Dholi  immediately  in  the  concerned

nearby Police Station naming therein the appellants as

the culprits of commission of the offence.

45) Dholi (PW-8) corroborated the evidence of Guddi

(PW-9) on material points such as (1) all the accused

visiting  Messo's  house  and  giving  threat  in  her

presence  to  Messo  and  Raj  Bala,  (2)  Raj  Bala's

marriage proposal with a boy from Manik Dewan (3)

She having left to her uncle's place at the request of

her mother Messo to inform him about the incident (4)

22

Page 23

her family relations with the accused and with other

family members and lastly, what Guddi (PW-9) told her

about the entire incident and the manner in which it

was accomplished by the accused  on her reaching the

house  next  day  morning  with  Ram  Sarup  and  Om

Prakash.

46) Ram Sarup (PW-10) also corroborated the version

of  Guddi  (PW-9)  and  Dholi  (PW-8)  on  all  material

points. He stated that when he along with Dholi and

Om  Prakash  went  to  Guddi,  she  was  weeping  and

frightened. On being consoled, she narrated the entire

incident (mentioned above) to them.

47) The  evidence  of  the  Investigating  Officer

Hardawari Lal (PW-11) and Kiran Kumar (PW-7) who

was  the  Scientific  Assistant  (Forensic  Science

Laboratory) proved that the blood stains were found on

the walls and earth and also fresh mud and cow-dung

was  found  on  the  walls  and  when  it  was  removed,

23

Page 24

blood stains were noticed on the bricks of  the wall.

Kiran Kumar (PW-7) also corroborated the existence of

joint  wall  with  sufficient  space  available  in  the

common wall as stated by Guddi (PW- 9).

48) The evidence of Investigating Officer (PW-11) also

proved  the  recoveries  of  articles  on  the  basis  of

disclosure statements  made by respective  appellants

(accused).  The  seized  articles  were  proved  and

exhibited.  

49) It is with this evidence, the question arises as to

whether the two Courts below were justified in placing

reliance on the evidence of  Guddi (PW-9) for  resting

the appellant's conviction?

50) On scanning the aforementioned evidence, we are

of the considered opinion that both the Courts below

were  justified  in  accepting  the  evidence  of  Guddi

(PW-9) for resting the appellants’  conviction upon it.

We,  while  concurring  with  the  reasoning  and  the

24

Page 25

conclusion of both the Courts below, give our reasons

infra.  In our view, the following facts are proved with

the aid of evidence.

51) First, Guddi (PW-9) was next-door neighbour to

the  house  of  both  the  deceased  where  the  incident

took  place.  Second,  she  was  closely  related  to  the

deceased family and the family of the accused. Third,

she  knew  the  accused  persons  and  the  family

members of the deceased very well much prior to the

date  of  incident  being  a  part  of  the  same  families.

Fourth, she was fully aware of the marriage issue of

Raj Bala. Fifth, she was present at the time of threat

given by Sohan Lal and his sons (accused) to Messo.

Sixth, she was able to see the incident graphically due

to  sufficient  space  available  in  the  common  wall.

Seventh, Scientific Assistant, Kiran Kumar (PW-7) on

inspection of the place of occurrence proved that the

common  wall  has  space.  He  said  "there  was  open

25

Page 26

space between this wall and the room". Eighth, it also

corroborates  with  the  evidence  of  Hardawari

Lal(PW-11) and the spot map (EX-PU) of the place of

incidence that the wall and the open space therein did

exist; Ninth, Guddi's narration of entire incident is so

graphic  that  it  looks  natural.  It  also  shows  how

confidently she was able to narrate the role of every

accused  in  commission  of  the  offence.   Tenth,  the

existence  of  blood stains  on wall  and earth coupled

with fresh mud and cow dung put on the walls/earth

duly  proved  by  Hardawari  Lal,  Investigating

Officer(PW-11) and Kiran Kumar (PW-7) corroborates

Guddi's  statement  that   "Ram Chander  -  one  of  the

accused before leaving the place of occurrence cleaned

the place with mud and cow-dung". Eleventh, it is not

possible  to  give  description  of  an  incident  in  such

graphic  manner  and  that  too  by  a  middle  aged

illiterate housewife unless she had actually seen such

incident and why should Guddi (PW-9) give evidence

26

Page 27

against the appellants and falsely implicate them when

there is no evidence to prove their previous animosity;

Twelfth,  motive  to  eliminate  the  two  deceased  was

proved  by  Guddi  against  the  appellants  and  lastly,

nothing could be brought out to shake her testimony

in cross-examination.

52) The  submission  of  learned  counsel  for  the

appellants  that  since  Guddi  (PW-9)  was  in  close

relation with the deceased persons, she should not be

believed  for  want  of  evidence  of  any  independent

witness, deserves to be rejected in the light of the law

laid down by this Court in  Dalbir Kaur and Ors.  vs.

State  of  Punjab, (1976)  4  SCC  158,  and  Harbans

Kaur and Anr. vs. State of Haryana, (2005) 9 SCC

195, which lays down the following proposition:

“There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary, reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the witnesses had reason to shield actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused.”

27

Page 28

53) In  NamdeoVs.State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14

SCC150, this Court further held:

“38. ………. it  is  clear  that  a  close  relative cannot  be  characterised  as  an  “interested” witness.  He  is  a  “natural”  witness.  His evidence,  however,  must  be  scrutinised carefully. If on such scrutiny, his evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly trustworthy, conviction can be based on the “sole” testimony of such witness.  Close  relationship  of  witness  with the deceased or victim is no ground to reject his evidence. On the contrary, close relative of  the  deceased  would  normally  be  most reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent one.”

54) We follow and apply this well settled principle of

law for  rejecting the submissions of  learned counsel

for the appellants.

55) In the light of aforementioned twelve reasons, we

are of the view that Guddi (PW-9) was rightly held to

be  an eye-witness  and the  two Courts  rightly  relied

upon  her  sworn  testimony  for  sustaining  the

appellants’ conviction.  

28

Page 29

56) This  takes  us  to  the  next  argument  of  learned

counsel  for  the  appellants.  It  was  urged  that  the

alleged  recovery  of  articles  on  the  strength  of

disclosure statement of the accused and in particular

the  "ashes  and  the  bones"  from  the  canal  is  not

possible. We do not agree.   

57) In our view, there is no evidence to prove the fact

as to whether  the  canal  from where the  recovery of

ashes and bones was made had any water therein or

not  at  the  relevant  time.  We  do  not  find  that  any

question  was  put  to  any  witness  on this  issue  and

secondly,  no  independent  evidence  was  brought  on

record to  prove as  to  whether  the  canal  was full  of

water or had no water therein. In any event, one could

not dispute that bones were recovered from the canal.

In the absence of any evidence, which could otherwise

be led in any form, this submission at this stage is,

therefore, not acceptable.  

29

Page 30

58) This  takes  us  to  the  next  argument  of  learned

counsel  for  the  appellants.  Learned  Counsel  urged

that  why  the  prosecution  did  not  examine  any

independent witness from the village other then Guddi

(PW-9).

59) We  find  no  merit  in  this  submission  for  more

than  one  reason.  First,  no  such  argument  was

advanced  before  the  two  courts  below.  Second,  the

incident had taken place during midnight when all the

villagers  were  fast  asleep.  Third,  no  evidence  was

adduced to prove that near the place of incident, there

were  many  houses  and  lastly,  had  the  injury  been

caused by the Gun Shot, it would have created some

noise in the nearby locality and attract the attention of

the villagers. Such was, however, not the case because

the  weapon  used  in  commission  of  the  offence  was

‘Gandasa’.

30

Page 31

60) In  our  considered  opinion,  the  disclosure

statements  made  by  the  accused  during  their

interrogation on the basis of  which the recoveries of

articles were made such as - gandasa, bones, ashes,

blood stained bricks and earth, tractor with cart, two

plastic  cans  smelling  diesel  oil,  which  were  duly

proved  by  the  Investigating  Officer  are  sufficient  to

sustain  the  conviction  when  it  is  examined  in  the

context  of  oral  evidence.  Merely  because  no  expert

opinion  was  obtained  to  prove  as  to  whether  bones

recovered were human or animal bones, in our view,

would not weaken the case of prosecution in the light

of overwhelming evidence available on record to prove

the complicity of the appellants.   

61) It is the consistent view of this Court that minor

discrepancies,  even  if  noticed,  would  not  affect  the

prosecution case, if  there is a sufficient independent

evidence  to  sustain  the  conviction.  (See  –  Vijay  @

31

Page 32

Chinee vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,  (2010) 8 SCC

191,  Paras  23  &  23).   In  this  case,  the  evidence

adduced was found sufficient to sustain the conviction

and we find no good ground to take a different view

from  the  one  taken  by  the  two  Courts  below  and

concur with their findings and views by giving our own

reasons mentioned supra.      

62) In view of foregoing discussion, the appeals are

found to be devoid of any merit. The appeals thus fail

and are accordingly dismissed. In case if  any of the

appellants is on bail,  his bail bond stands cancelled

and he is directed to be taken into custody forthwith to

undergo remaining period of sentence awarded to him

by the Sessions Court.

………..................................J.           [A.K. SIKRI]

                                .……...................................J.           [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]                 

New Delhi, January 02, 2017

32