Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.120 OF 2012

RAM PAL @ BUNDA    …Appellant VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA  …Respondent

O R D E R  

1. The sole appellant is the accused who was convicted  

for the offences under Sections 302 and 376, Indian Penal  

Code  (IPC).   He  was  sentenced  to  undergo  rigorous  

imprisonment for life and 10 years rigorous imprisonment for  

committing  rape  and  murder  of  one  Devi  (real  name  

disguised).  According  to  the  prosecution,  a  telephonic  

intimation was received in the police station regarding the  

dead  body  of  Devi  resident  of  Mangalore  within  the  

jurisdiction of Shahzadpur police station, Ambala, lying in the  

fields of one Prithi Pal.  On reaching the spot PW-14, SHO  

Criminal Appeal 120 of 2012                                                                                      1 of 9

Page 2

recorded the statement of PW-10 Sumitra Devi the mother of  

the deceased.  It was learnt through her that she had two  

daughters, that the elder one was married while the younger  

one who went to the fields on 18.2.2005 at 6.30 p.m. to ease  

herself did not return and their intensive search was in vain.  

In her statement she mentioned the name of the appellant  

who was stated to have been found at the place of search  

and on being asked, he pleaded ignorance about the victim.  

It  was  her  further  statement  that  only  on  the  next  day  

morning in day light they were able to trace the body of the  

victim whose neck was wrapped with a blue shawl owned by  

her.   The  complainant  PW-10  raised  suspicion  about  the  

involvement  of  the  appellant  in  the  commission  of  the  

offence in view of his past misbehavior towards her elder  

daughter on which occasion he was reprimanded before the  

local Panchayat and was forced to tender an apology.  As it  

was a case of circumstantial evidence, the trial Court after  

scrutinizing the evidence of prosecution witnesses and after  

taking into  account  the  stand of  the  appellant  in  his  313  

Criminal Appeal 120 of 2012                                                                                      2 of 9

Page 3

Cr.P.C. statement noted the circumstances in paragraph 17  

of the judgment.

2. The circumstances noted were as under:

1) Medical evidence  

2) presence of accused at the scene of crime  immediately after the occurrence  

3) conduct of the accused in running away from  the  village  and remaining  absconding  for  two  days after the occurrence and  

4) motive for the offence.

3. While  examining  the  above  circumstances,  on  the  

motive aspect the trial Court found that PW-11 Natho Devi,  

the elder daughter of PW-10 in her evidence deposed that in  

the year 2002 when she along with her cousin was returning  

from the fields, the appellant met them on the way along  

with  his  cousin  Sham  Lal  and  that  both  of  them  teased  

deceased PW-11 and her cousin and the bundle of the grass  

carried by them fell down.  It was also her statement that by  

providence they could save themselves from the onslaught  

of  the  appellant  and  his  cousin  on  that  occasion.   She  

reported the same to her parents. Pursuant to her complaint,  

Criminal Appeal 120 of 2012                                                                                      3 of 9

Page 4

a  Panchayat  was  convened  in  her  village  and  in  the  

Panchayat, the appellant and his cousin begged pardon and  

that the appellant thereafter used to tell her that one day or  

other he would take a revenge for the said incident.  It was  

also in her evidence that she belonged to labour class and  

the appellant was nurturing a long standing grievance and  

grudge in his mind against the family of the complainant as  

he felt  that he was humiliated in the Panchayat.  The said  

version  of  PW-11  was  also  corroborated  by  PW-10,  the  

mother  of  the  victim and  Natho  Devi,  PW-11.  In  the  313  

statement except making a simple denial, the appellant did  

not come forward with any explanation insofar as the motive  

aspect was concerned.  

4. As far as the presence of the appellant at the scene  

of  occurrence  was  concerned  PW-10  in  her  evidence  

categorically  explained  as  to  how while  searching  for  her  

daughter she found the appellant in the fields and that on  

being questioned about the whereabouts of her daughter the  

appellant without responding to her query ran away from the  

Criminal Appeal 120 of 2012                                                                                      4 of 9

Page 5

place of occurrence.  Though at the instance of the appellant  

it  was  suggested  that  there  were  certain  variations  as  

compared  to  her  statement  to  the  police  as  regards  the  

presence of  the appellant,  the trial  Court  found that  such  

variation did not materially affect the evidence of PW-10 as  

regards  the  presence  of  the  appellant  in  the  place  of  

occurrence  at  the  relevant  point  of  time  and  his  running  

away from the scene of occurrence without responding to  

the queries of the complainant PW-10.

5. As  far  as  the  absence  of  the  appellant  from  the  

village for two days after the occurrence enough evidence  

was let in.   PW-12 father of the deceased who categorically  

stated that while the occurrence took place on 18.2.2005,  

the appellant was produced before the investigating officer  

by Jagmal Singh only on 21.2.2005 when he was arrested.  It  

came to light  that  after  18.2.2005 the appellant  could be  

traced  in  the  village  only  on  21.2.2005  when  he  was  

arrested.  Though PW-13 Jagmal Singh who stated to have  

produced the appellant, turned hostile, having regard to the  

Criminal Appeal 120 of 2012                                                                                      5 of 9

Page 6

record  of  proceedings  which  was  not  contradicted  in  the  

manner known to law, the above factum about the absence  

of the appellant in the village for more than two days was  

quite apparent and there was no reason to dis-believe the  

said factum.  

6. When the medical evidence was analyzed, the trial  

Court has found that according to PW-1 Dr. Ramesh and Dr.  

Sushil Kumar Singal, the cause of death was asphyxia due to  

strangulation which was ante-mortem and was sufficient to  

cause death.  Multiple aberrations and contusion of varying  

sizes on the face, chin and few superficial aberrations on the  

back were noted.   Exhibit  PD and PD/1,  the report  of  the  

forensic science laboratory revealed blood on Shawl, Salwar  

and  underwear  of  the  deceased.   Human  semen  was  

detected  on  the  vaginal  swab  of  the  deceased.  On  

examination of  the accused,  after  his  arrest,  by PW-2 Dr.  

Vikas  Pal  who took  into  possession  the  underwear  of  the  

appellant revealed that human semen was detected in that  

as per the FSL report. The medical evidence also revealed  

Criminal Appeal 120 of 2012                                                                                      6 of 9

Page 7

that the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse before  

her death.  

7. Thus all the above circumstances only supported the  

prosecution version and there was no missing link in any of  

the circumstances found proved against the appellant.  

8. The appellant did not choose to let in any evidence  

for  his  defence.   In  the  313  questioning  what  all  the  

appellant  said  was  that  due to  inimical  relations  with  the  

family of the complainant, he was falsely implicated.  The  

trial  Court  has  rightly  noted  that  apart  from  what  was  

alleged by PWs-10 and 11 no other inimical aspect with the  

family of the complainant was brought forth as against the  

appellant.  In  the  said  circumstances,  the  stand  of  the  

appellant also fully supported the version of PWs-10 and 11.  

It is not the case of the appellant that there was no previous  

contact in any manner whatsoever as between the appellant  

and the family of the complainant.  Further considering the  

version of PWs-10 and 11 and the stand of the appellant that  

Criminal Appeal 120 of 2012                                                                                      7 of 9

Page 8

there  was  inimical  relationship  with  the  family  of  the  

complainant,  it  can  only  be  concluded  that  such  inimical  

relationship  would  only  relate  to  the  appellant’s  

misbehaviour in the past with PW-11 and as stated by her in  

her evidence the appellant who was forced to express his  

apologies in the presence of elders in Panchayat, developed  

a grudge in his mind to settle score with the family of the  

complainant. Therefore, the motive aspect demonstrated by  

the  prosecution  and accepted by  the trial  Court  was  also  

fully justified.  

9. Having  regard  to  our  above  conclusion,  we  are  

convinced that the conviction and sentence imposed on the  

appellant by the trial Court which was also confirmed by the  

High Court was perfectly justified and we do not find any  

good grounds to interfere with the same.  The appeal fails  

and the same is dismissed.

                                         …… .……….…………………………...J.                       [Dr. B.S. Chauhan]

Criminal Appeal 120 of 2012                                                                                      8 of 9

Page 9

  ……….…….………………………………J.

            [Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim  Kalifulla]

New Delhi;  April 11, 2013

Criminal Appeal 120 of 2012                                                                                      9 of 9