IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2122 OF 2010

MANOJ KUMAR     … APPELLANT

Versus

THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND  … RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

1. The  present  matter is  placed  before  us  by virtue  of referral

order dated 22.05.2014 wherein the following  question was placed

for reference before us that,  “whether the 2nd FIR and the

investigation in pursuance of further information thereof should be

straightway quashed or should it require a scrutiny during trial of

the permissible matter of prejudice, and truthfulness of the evidence

collected on the basis of second FIR.”

2. But it is to  be  noted that,  during the course  of arguments

counsels from both the sides admitted that,  no second  FIR  was

1

NON­REPORTABLE

registered in the present case. Although the reference was made to

us, to adjudicate the above question of law, basing on the

submissions we can conclude that the issue of second FIR does not

arise in the present matter. Therefore, we are proceeding to

adjudicate the matter on merits.

3. The brief facts of the case necessary  for  adjudication are as

follows: the accused­appellant used to stay in the same block under

the complainant (PW­1) and he used to frequently visit the house of

complainant (PW­1). Further he also owned a betel shop in the

vicinity. On the day of incident, i.e. 24.08.1993, both the

complainant and his  wife  left for  their  duties,  and their  daughter

(hereinafter referred as  ‘the deceased’) aged around 17 years, was

alone at the house. Thereafter, on finding an opportunity at around

10.45 A.M.,  the accused­appellant entered the house and tried to

establish forceful physical relations with the deceased and the same

was strongly resisted by her. Thus, a physical altercation broke out

between the two,  wherein the  accused­appellant  strangulated the

deceased by putting the weight of his right hand on the throat of the

deceased. The accused­appellant thereafter orchestrated the entire

incident into a suicide, by hanging the deceased from the roof with

2

the help of a white bedsheet. However, during this incident, two key

witnesses namely Kushalpal  and Vinod Kumar  (PW­2),  visited the

house of the complainant (PW­1) for some personal work. On their

call at the main­door, they were addressed by the accused­appellant

who informed them that nobody was present at home and therefore,

considering the accused­petitioner to be a neighbour, both the

persons left  the house without doubting the accused­petitioner or

suspecting that anything was wrong.

4. Later that day, after returning from duty at around 12:00 noon,

the complainant (P.W­1) found the dead body of his daughter

hanging from the roof and informed the police about the same.  But

subsequently, on 26.08.1993, Vinod Kumar (PW­2), visited the

house of complainant and informed  him that on the day of the

incident, at around 11:00 A.M., the accused­appellant came out of

their  house on  their  call  and  informed  them that  nobody was at

home. Therefore, the complainant (P.W­1) approached the police on

26.08.1993 to inform them about the presence of the accused at the

scene of offence. On the basis of the aforesaid information the First

Information  Report  No.  221  was registered  under  Section  302  of

Indian Penal Code against the accused­appellant and the search for

3

the accused was initiated. Simultaneously, on 26.08.1993, the

accused appellant had  made an extra­judicial confession before

Sanjay  Sharma (PW­4);  who in turn  narrated the entire incident

before the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, investigation was

conducted and after completion of the same, charge sheet was filed

against the accused­appellant.

5. The trial court  vide  its judgment dated 14.05.1997, convicted

the accused for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced

him to undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/­, in

default rigorous imprisonment of 5 years. Aggrieved, the appellant

approached  the  High Court in  Criminal  Appeal  No.1192 of  2001,

wherein the High Court upheld the order of conviction passed by the

trial court and  dismissed the appeal preferred  by the appellant.

Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the accused­appellant contended that the

High Court gravely erred in convicting the accused for the aforesaid

offence without any incriminating evidence against him. The counsel

emphasized that the conviction was solely based on the extra­

judicial confession which is not corroborated by any material

evidence. Moreover, it was also contended that, it is a simple case of

4

suicide but PW­1 with the help of the testimonies of PW­2 and PW­4

has falsely implicated the appellant as an accused and these

testimonies cannot be relied on as they were created as an

afterthought  after  a  delay  of  2  days.  Lastly, this  being  a  case  of

circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances does not prove

the guilt of the accused.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that prosecution

has successfully discharged its burden by placing reliance on last

seen, extra­judicial confession made by the accused, injuries on the

accused, absence of accused from his house at the time of

occurrence and lack of an alibi to prove his presence elsewhere and

the medical evidence. The counsel therefore contends that the High

Court has rightly upheld the conviction of the accused keeping in

view the aforesaid chain of circumstances which proves the guilt of

the accused. Therefore, the counsel pleaded that the appeal of

appellant being devoid of merits should be dismissed without any

indulgence.

8. Heard the learned counsels on merits. Admittedly, since there

is no direct evidence, the present case is based on circumstantial

evidence. Therefore, it is pertinent to focus on facts leading to the

5

completion of the chain of circumstances which proves the guilt of

the accused.

9. The trial court began its analysis of the facts by laying

emphasis on the proximity of the house of the deceased and the

accused so as to prove that access was highly probable considering

the fact that, the accused used to live in the floor beneath that of the

deceased.  Admittedly, on the date of incident, the  deceased  was

alone in the house as her parents and siblings had left for their jobs

and school at around 6:30 a.m. respectively. It  is in this scenario

that the evidence of Vinod Kumar (P.W.2)  plays a vital  role,  as  it

proves  that the  accused was present  at the scene of the  offence.

Vinod Kumar (P.W.2) clearly stated that he had visited the house of

the complainant (P.W.1) and called out his name, although there was

no response for the first time, the accused answered the second call

and informed P.W.2 that there was no one available at home. Owing

to the proximity of both the families, P.W.2 left for his hometown

without any suspicion. It is in this context that the evidence of

complainant (P.W.1) becomes relevant so as to analyse the conduct

of the  accused  just  after the incident.  P.W.1 has  stated  that the

accused and his father were missing from their residence since the

6

time of the offence itself and that they had not even participated in

the cremation ceremony of the deceased. It was only on 27.08.1993

that the accused was apprehended by the police with the help of the

secret informer.  

10. Further, both the trial Court and the High Court placed

reliance on the injuries found on the face of the accused. It is

pertinent to note that the accused failed to provide any explanation

as to how he had incurred the aforesaid injuries. Further, the

injuries on the body of the deceased also indicate signs of struggle.

Furthermore, the post­mortem suggests that the death of deceased

was not suicidal but rather she  was hanged after she had lost

consciousness. All the aforesaid circumstances further substantiate

the voluntary extra­judicial confession of the accused made before

P.W­4.   Moreover, the fact of the commission of death by hanging

corroborated by the Exhibit P­12, (Panchayatnama) which notes that

the deceased was hanging from the roof with the help of a bed sheet.

It is noted that the Exhibit P­12, (Panchayatnama) stands proved by

the Sub­Inspector (P.W.8). The extra­judicial confession of the

accused, therefore, finds independent reliable corroboration from the

aforesaid circumstances.  (See  Ram Singh v. State of U.P.,  1967

7

Cri LJ 9) In light of the aforementioned chain of events, there exists

sufficient evidence on record to connect the appellant with the death

of the deceased, the motive of which is apparent.

11. In the absence of any existing enmity between the accused and

the witnesses there exists no ground to question the veracity of the

witnesses or to raise a ground of false implication. Therefore,

considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, we conclude

that the chain of events has been rightly analysed by both the courts

below and  the  same  leads towards  proving the  culpability  of the

accused. (See Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 4 SCC 668)

12. Therefore, after perusal of the material on record we conclude

that, the appeal preferred by the accused, being devoid of any merit

is liable to be dismissed. In light of the same, we uphold the order of

conviction passed by the High Court.  

     .........................J.      (N.V.RAMANA)        

.........................J.  (MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR)

.........................J.  (INDIRA BANERJEE)

New Delhi, April 05, 2019.

8