REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 654  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7049 of 2014)

Chandra Bhawan Singh     ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

The State of Uttar Pradesh    ….Respondent(s)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 655 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 7664 of 2014)

                 J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are filed by the accused persons

against the final judgment and order dated 20.05.2014

passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

in Criminal Appeal No.1114 of 1986 whereby the High

1

Court  dismissed  the  appeal  in  respect  of  the

appellants-accused  and  affirmed  the  judgment  and

order  dated  07.05.1986  passed  by  the  Additional

Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Sessions Trial No. 291 of

1984.  

3. In order to appreciate the issues involved in the

appeals, it is necessary to set out the facts of the case.

4. Four  persons,  namely,  (1)  Tribhuwan  Singh

(appellant), (2) Chandra Bhawan Singh (appellant) (3)

Smt. Makoi Devi and (4) Jwala Singh were prosecuted

for  committing  murder  of  one  lady   by  name

"Satyawati".  

5. The Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur by his

judgment dated 07.05.1986 in Sessions Trial No. 291

of  1984  acquitted  one  accused-Jwala  Singh  but

convicted the remaining three accused.    Tribhuwan

Singh  was  convicted  under  Section  302/34  of  the

Indian  Penal  Code,  1860  (hereinafter  referred  to  as

2

“IPC”) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for

life  and  to  pay  a  fine  of  Rs.5000/-  in  default  of

payment  of  fine,  to  further  undergo  rigorous

imprisonment  for  one  year.   Smt.  Makoi  Devi  was

convicted  under  Section  302/34  IPC  and  was

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.  Chandra

Bhawan Singh was convicted under Section 32/34 IPC

and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life

and further convicted under Section 201 IPC and was

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five

years.  All  the  sentences  of  Chandra  Bhawan  Singh

would run concurrently.  

6. The aforementioned three-convicted accused felt

aggrieved of their respective conviction and sentence

awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge filed appeal

in  the  High Court.   The High Court,   by  impugned

judgment,  allowed  the  appeal  in  respect  of  one

accused – Smt. Makoi Devi and accordingly acquitted

3

her from the charges leveled against her but dismissed

the  appeal  in  respect  of  remaining  two  accused

persons,  namely,  (1)  Tribhuwan  Singh  and  (2)

Chandra  Bhawan  Singh  and  accordingly  confirmed

their  conviction  and  the  sentence  awarded  by  the

Additional Sessions Judge.  

7. The remaining two accused felt aggrieved by their

respective  conviction  and  award  of  sentence  filed

separate special leave petitions in this Court.  

8. So  far  as  SLP(Crl.)  No.  7049  of  2014  is

concerned,  it  is  filed  by  Chandra  Bhawan  Singh

whereas SLP(Crl.) No. 7664 of 2014 is concerned, it is

filed by Tribhuwan Singh.  

9. In  both  these  special  leave  petitions,  the

challenge  is  to  the  impugned judgment  of  the  High

Court,  which  has  confirmed  their  conviction  and

sentence.

10. In short, the case of the prosecution is as under:  

4

11. All  the  four  accused  named  above  are  the

members of one family.  Smt. Makoi Devi is the mother

of Tribhuwan Singh and Chandra Bhawan Singh. In

other words, Tribhuwan Singh and Chandra Bhawan

Singh are real brothers being the two sons of  Smt.

Makoi Devi.  

12. The  deceased-Satyawati  was  the  wife  of

Tribhuwan Singh. Their marriage was performed in the

year 1981. Satyawati stayed in her matrimonial home

with her husband for 8 days and then returned to her

parents’ house.  

13. It is the case of the prosecution that the members

of  Satyawati  in-laws family,  which included the four

accused named above, were harassing her while she

was staying in her in-laws house for not bringing any

dowry in her marriage. The family members had been

demanding  "motor  cycle"  in  dowry.  Due  to  constant

harassment given to her by the aforementioned four

5

accused persons, it had become unbearable for her to

stay in the house and, therefore, she returned to her

parents’ house and started living with her parents.

14. On  15.03.1984,  Jwala  Singh  and  Chandra

Bhawan Singh went to Satywati's parents’ house and

brought  Satyawati  back  to  her  in-laws  house.  On

18.03.1984 (after 3 days), Satyawati was found dead

in  her  in-laws  house.   She  died  due  to  gun  shot

injuries.  

15. Chandra  Bhawan  Singh-the  elder  brother  of

Tribhuwan Singh lodged a FIR in the Police Station,

Kishanpur  on  the  same  day,  i.e.,  18.03.1984,

informing therein that Satyawati committed suicide in

the house by gun shot injuries and that her dead body

was lying in the courtyard of the house. One FIR was

also lodged by village Pradhan. It was registered as FIR

No.  30/1984 (GD No.  14/84)  at  PS Kishanpur.  The

brother  of  the  deceased-Rajender  (PW-1)  lodged  the

6

FIR on the same day stating therein that all the four

accused named above have killed his sister because of

non-fulfillment of their demand for dowry.      

16. On 19/20.04.1984, all the four accused persons

were arrested. In the investigation, the police recovered

the Gun at the instance of Tribhuwan Singh from his

house, which was alleged to be used in commission of

the offence.  The post  mortem of  the dead body was

performed  which  disclosed  that  Satyawati  was

murdered. The police then made further investigation,

collected evidence,  obtained ballistic  report  from the

experts  and recorded the  statements of  the  accused

persons and other witnesses.

17.  On 09.06.1984 the police filed Challan. The case

was  committed  to  the  Additional  Sessions  Judge,

Fatehpur  for  trial.  The  Additional  Sessions  Judge

framed charges against the four accused persons for

commission of the offences punishable under Sections

7

302/34 and 201 of IPC read with Section 4 of the DP

Act. The prosecution examined six witnesses to prove

their case.  

18. By  order  dated  07.05.1986,  the  Additional

Sessions  Judge  acquitted  Jwala  Singh  finding  no

evidence against him but convicted Tribhuwan Singh

(husband),  Smt.  Makoi  Devi  (mother-in-law)  and

Chandra  Bhawan  Singh  (brother-in-law)  and

sentenced  them  to  undergo  life  imprisonment  for

killing Satyawati.  

19. Thribhuwan Singh, Smt Makoi Devi and Chandra

Bhawan Singh felt  aggrieved and filed appeal  in the

High Court at Allahabad against their conviction and

sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge.  

20.  By  impugned  judgment,  the  High  Court

dismissed the  appeal  filed  by  Tribhuwan Singh and

Chandra Bhawan Singh and accordingly upheld their

conviction  and  sentence.  However,  the  High  Court

8

acquitted Smt. Makoi Devi (mother-in-law) from all the

charges finding no evidence against her.  

21. It  is  against  this  judgment,  the  accused

Tribhuwan Singh  and  Chandra  Bhawan Singh  have

filed the present two appeals by way of special leave in

this Court.  

22. So  far  as  acquittal  of  Jwala  Singh  and  Smt.

Makoi  Devi  is  concerned,  it  has  attained  finality

because the State did not file any appeal in the High

Court and nor in this Court.

23. Heard Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned senior counsel

for  the  appellants(accused)  and Mr.  Ratnakar  Dash,

learned senior counsel for the respondent(State).  

24. Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned senior counsel for the

appellants(accused)  while  assailing  the  legality  and

correctness of the impugned judgment contended that

firstly,  the conviction of  both the appellants,  though

9

concurrent  in  nature,  is  neither  factually  and  nor

legally sustainable.

25. In the Second place, he contended that since the

entire case of prosecution is founded on circumstantial

evidence, it was necessary for the prosecution to have

adduced  evidence  to  prove  the  complete  chain  of

events.  Learned counsel contended that there is no

evidence much less sufficient evidence adduced by the

prosecution to prove the chain of events leading to the

guilt  of  committing  the  murder  of  Satyawati  by  the

appellants and hence the conviction is bad in law.

26. In the third place, learned counsel to support his

second submission took us through the evidence with

a view to show that chain of events to prove the guilt

qua the appellants is not established.

27. In the  fourth  place,  learned counsel  contended

that the circumstances appearing in the case from the

10

evidence  would  show  that  Satyawati  committed

suicide.

28.   In  reply,  learned  counsel  for  the  respondent

(State)  supported  the  reasoning  and  the  conclusion

arrived at  by both the  Courts  below and prayed for

dismissal of the appeals calling for no interference in

the concurrent findings of both the Courts below.  

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. In our opinion,  both the Courts below properly

appreciated  the  evidence  and  came  to  a  right

conclusion  that  the  appellants  were  responsible  for

commission of the offence of murder of Satyawati.

31. It  is  a  settled  principle  of  law  that  when  the

Courts  below  have  recorded   concurrent  findings

against the accused persons which are based on due

appreciation of evidence, this Court under Article 136

11

of the Constitution of India would be slow to interfere

in such concurrent findings and secondly would not

appreciate the evidence de novo unless it is prima facie

shown  that  both  the  Courts  below  did  not  either

consider the relevant piece of evidence or there exists

any  perversity  or/and  absurdity  in  the  findings

recorded by both the Courts below etc.  

32.  We,  however,  made  endeavour  to  peruse  the

evidence  with  a  view to  find  out  as  to  whether  the

concurrent findings of both the Courts below have any

kind  of  infirmity  or/and  whether  the  concurrent

findings  are  capable  of  being  legally  and  factually

sustainable in law or need to be reversed. Having gone

through  the  evidence,  we  are  of  the  view  that  the

findings are legally and factually sustainable.

33. We find that there is evidence to prove the factum

of  demand  of  dowry.   Rajender(PW-1)  is  the  real

brother of the deceased. He was the complainant. His

12

evidence was rightly relied on by the two Courts below

for  holding  that  the  appellants  were  persistently

making  a  demand  of  dowry  (motor  cycle)  from

Satyawati and her family members and they used to

harass her for such cause. The testimony of PW-1 is

natural  and  consistent  having  no  material

contradiction,  we,  therefore,  find  no  justification  to

disbelieve it.  The same deserves to be accepted.

34. So  far  as  the  story  of  suicide  set  up  by  the

appellants is concerned, it  is,  in  our  view,  wholly

unbelievable on the evidence brought on record.  

35. First,  it  is  not  possible  rather  difficult  for  a

person to commit suicide by using DBBL Gun; Second,

it has come in evidence that there were as many as 7

gun shot injuries noticed on the body of Satyawati.  In

our  view,  It  is  not  possible  for  a  person  to  commit

suicide by firing seven gun shots one after the other on

his/her  body  with  the  use  of  DBBL Gun in  hands.

13

However,  one can commit suicide by firing one shot

with a pistol. Such was, however, not the case of the

appellants.

36. Coming to the involvement of  the appellants in

commission of the offence, we find that the High Court

relied  on  the  following  circumstances  appearing

against  the  appellants  for  holding  them  guilty  of

commission  of  the  offence  of  murder  of  Satyawati.

These circumstances are extracted hereinbelow:

“Here prosecution has discharged its part of the burden by leading evidence of which it was capable by substantiating the fact (i) that there has been demand of dowry (ii) deceased has been taken to her in laws house (iii) at the time of death, deceased has been staying with her in laws and appellants are the inmates of the  house  (iv)  death  in  question  has  taken place  inside  the  house  (v)  injuries  caused clearly reflects  that it  is  case of  murder  (vi) story of suicide set up by appellant No.3 was not at all supported by medical evidence (vii) DBBL gun has been used in the commission of offence and once chain of  events are clearly linked  up  then  in  view  of  Section  106  of Evidence Act, as young bride in question has been  killed  inside  the  house,  then  there  is corresponding  burden on  the  inmates  of  the house to give cogent explanation as to how the crime  was  committed.   The  inmates  of  the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet

14

and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no  duty  at  all  on  an  accused  to  offer  any explanation.   The  principle  is  that  when  an incriminating  circumstance  is  put  to  the accused and said accused does not offer any explanation which on the face of  it  is  found false  or  untrue,  then  the  same  becomes additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete.”    

37. In  our  considered  opinion,  the  aforementioned

seven  circumstances  set  out  by  the  High  Court  for

holding the appellants guilty cannot be faulted with.

These seven circumstances do establish the chain of

events and being directly connected with the incident

in  question,  establish  the  involvement  of  the

appellants  in  commission  of  the  offence  beyond

reasonable doubt.  In our opinion, the test laid down

to prove the guilt  by circumstantial  evidence in this

case  is  fully  satisfied  by  the  aforementioned  seven

circumstances against the appellants.  

38. That apart, we also find from the evidence that

Chandra Bhawan Singh-the appellant herein was the

15

first  to lodge the FIR about the incident wherein he

stated  that  Satyawati  has  committed  suicide.

Apparently, this fact proves that first, he was present

in  the  house  where  Satyawati  was  found  dead  and

second,  he  falsely  stated  that  Satyawati  committed

suicide because he wanted to divert the attention of

the police from the reality.  As held above, no evidence

was led to prove that it was a case of suicide.   

39. We also find that  both the  accused (appellants

herein) in their statements recorded under Section 313

of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 failed to give any

explanation when asked about the  circumstances in

which the incident occurred in their house. When the

incident  admittedly  occurred  in  their  house,  the

appellants were required to explain the circumstances

in which Satyawati died. They, however, failed to give

any explanation.  

16

40. We also find that Tribuhuwan Singh said that he

was  not  present  in  the  house  at  the  time  of  the

occurrence and on that day he was in Allahabad. He

also failed to adduce any evidence to prove this fact.

41.   We are, therefore, of the considered view that

both  the  Courts  below  rightly  held  the  appellants

guilty for commission of the offence  in question and,

therefore, we find no good ground to take a different

view than what is taken by the two Courts below.

42. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals

fail and are accordingly dismissed.

     ………...................................J. [R.K. AGRAWAL]

                                         …...……..................................J.

            [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi; May 01, 2018  

17