PREM SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA
Bench: A.K. SIKRI,UDAY UMESH LALIT
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000569-000569 / 2014
Diary number: 5285 / 2013
Advocates: J. P. DHANDA Vs
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 569 OF 2014
PREM SINGH .....APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA .....RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
A.K. SIKRI, J.
The appellant herein is convicted for committing offence
under Section 354, 302, 404 of the Indian Penal Code by the
Session Court vide judgment and conviction dated 11.09.2001
followed by order of sentence dated 13.09.2001. His conviction
and sentence has been upheld by the High Court vide judgment
dated 12.07.2010 and it is this judgment which is impugned in the
present proceedings.
2) Unfolding the prosecution case, we find that Jaibir (PW-12),
complainant, who is the father of deceased Sunita, had made a
complaint at PS Sadar, Hansi stating that he was an agriculturist
and had two sons and one daughter (Sunita). He had married his
Criminal Appeal No. 569 of 2014 Page 1 of 17
Page 2
daughter, who was aged 24-25 years, to one Rajesh, s/o
Chhanna, at Village Dhantan, Hisar. She had come to the
parental house about 8-9 days prior to the incident and was
staying with the complainant. On 03.03.1999 at about 9/10 a.m.,
she went to the field to bring Barseem (green fodder) but did not
return till 3/4 p.m. on that day. Then, complainant's
daughter-in-law Murti (PW-8) went to the field to look for Sunita.
When she reached there, she found Sunita lying dead in the field
of Barseem. There was a cut mark on the left side of the neck of
deceased. Murti returned home and informed the complainant
about the same. After hearing the news of the death of Sunita,
the complainant and his brother Mahavir and one Chhajju, s/o
Buta, went to the field and they found dead body of Sunita lying
there with cut mark on her neck. The blood had oozed out and
there was one teeth bite mark on her right cheek, which was an
indication that some unknown person had tried to molest her.
Complainant then lodged the complaint.
3) FIR was registered on the basis of the said complaint and police
started investigation. The blood stained earth and a pair of
chappels were taken into possession from the spot. Rough site
plan regarding the place of occurrence Ex. PO and inquest report
Criminal Appeal No. 569 of 2014 Page 2 of 17
Page 3
were prepared. Thereafter, the statement of certain witnesses in
the case were recorded wherein name of the appellant surfaced
as a suspect. The post mortem on the dead body of Sunita was
conducted in the General Hospital, Hansi. The clothes of the
deceased and other parcels were handed over by the doctor after
conducting post mortem report.
4) The appellant, Prem Singh, was arrested on 07.03.1999 who
made a disclosure statement Ex.PJ on 08.03.1999. After the
disclosure statement, a pair of earrings and one dhol (jewellery
article of gold which is worn around the neck of the women) and
sickle was recovered at the instance of the appellant. Site plan
Ex.PR was prepared regarding place of recovery. On the same
day, one Balraj was also arrested. With this exercise undertaken
by the police, the investigation was completed. A challan under
Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed before the concerned Area
Magistrate. The Area Magistrate sent the challan after observing
the formalities and produced before the trial court.
5) The charges under Sections 302, 404 and 354 of IPC were
framed against the accused Prem Singh. Charges were also
framed against accused Balraj under Section 109 read with
Section 302 of IPC. The trial court examined PW-1 Jagdish
Criminal Appeal No. 569 of 2014 Page 3 of 17
Page 4
Chander Assistant Sub Inspector, PW-2 Ramji Das Patwari, PW-3
Dr. O.P. Charaya, PW-4 Head Constable Subhash, PW-5 Kharati
Lal Sub Inspector, PW-6 Krishan Kumar Assistant Sub Inspector,
PW-7 Ramesh Kumar Constable, PW-8 Murti Devi, wife of Sushil
Kumar, PW-9 Sushil Kumar son of Jaibir, PW-10 Subhash son of
Balbir Singh, PW-11 Shamsher Singh Constable, PW-12 Jaibir
Singh son of Chandgi Ram, PW-13 Mahabir son of Chandgi
Ram, PW-14 Shivdan Singh Inspector. After completion of the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of the
appellant/accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
wherein the appellant pleaded that he was innocent and falsely
framed in the case.
6) The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the
arguments of both the counsel and going through the record of
the case, delivered his judgment dated 11.09.2001, finding the
appellant guilty of offences under Section 302, 404 and 354 of
IPC and sentenced him on 13.09.2001. Accused Balraj was
acquitted. Appellant was convicted for life imprisonment and fine
was imposed of Rs.2,000/- for committing the offence under
Section 302 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, the appellant
was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
Criminal Appeal No. 569 of 2014 Page 4 of 17
Page 5
four months. For committing the offence punishable under
Section 404 IPC, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for
a period of two years and was directed to pay a fine of Rs.500/-,
in default to serve for one month. For committing the offence
under Section 354 of IPC he was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year.
7) In appeal, the High Court has, vide impugned order dated
judgment dated 12.07.2010, affirmed the aforesaid conviction and
sentence, thereby dismissing the appeal. From the evidence of
PW3, Dr. O.P. Charya, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Hansi
who conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Sunita, it
becomes apparent that the cause of death was due to
hemorrhage and shock and injury No.1 in the post mortem report
i.e. incised wound on the neck anteriorly 10” x 25” into muscle
deep extending latterly on both the sides and more towards the
left side along with cutting of trachea, oesophagas all the major
vessels starno claido mastoid muscle on the left side was
sufficient to cause the death in due course of nature. According
to PW-3, there was a possibility of subjecting the victim to sexual
intercourse before murder. He admitted in his cross-examination
that as per the report of chemical examiner Ex.PD semen was not
Criminal Appeal No. 569 of 2014 Page 5 of 17
Page 6
detected on the pubic hair and swabs. However, he opined that it
is not necessary in every case that semen must be detected on
the swabs as it depends on the discharge of semen. He also
stated that in the present case, the semen was discharged and it
was detected on the salwar of the deceased.
8) Though, the appellant has questioned the opinion of PW-3 about
the possibility of sexual intercourse before murder, it is not
disputed that Sunita had died unnatural death which was the
result of murder. It is also not a case where there is any
eye-witness. It becomes clear from the narration of prosecution
story that it is a case of blind murder. Therefore, the only
question to be examined is as to whether the findings of the
courts below finding appellant guilty of murder are legally
sustainable or not.
9) The appellant became a suspect allegedly for the reason that
Murti Devi wife of Sunil Kumar (daughter-in-law of the
complainant) who had gone to the fields in search of Sunita and
saw her lying dead there, had made a statement under Section
161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the effect that one day
prior to Holi festival, when the deceased returned to the house
after bringing fodder, she had told her that the appellant was a
Criminal Appeal No. 569 of 2014 Page 6 of 17
Page 7
bad person and had winked at her on that day while she was
lifting fodder. The deceased had also disclosed to her that even
prior to this incident, the appellant was behaving like this
everyday. Brother of the deceased (PW-9) had also mentioned
about the appellant in his statement. It is because of this reason
that when PW-8 and PW-9 named him in their statements, the
appellant was arrested. Further, after his arrest, his disclosure
statement was recorded which led to recovery of sickel which was
soiled with some sand. Some gold ornaments were also
recovered which were identified to be that of the deceased by
PW-8 and PW-10 Subhash s/o Balbir Singh who had joined the
investigation when appellant was in custody of police and being
taken to the fields for the recovery of the sickel and gold
ornaments. The courts below have accepted the testimony of
these witnesses and other witnesses as well as recovery of sickel
and ornaments at the instance of the appellant and named the
appellant on the basis of this evidence holding that his charge
stands proved beyond reasonable doubts.
10) Mr. Dhanda, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that there were inherent contradictions in the
depositions of the material witnesses; the recoveries were not
proved in accordance with law and could not be connected with
Criminal Appeal No. 569 of 2014 Page 7 of 17
Page 8
the crime. He argued that these aspects have been ignored
leading to wrong conviction. He submitted that from the
testimonies of PW-8 (sister-in-law of the deceased) and PW-9
(brother of the deceased), it would become clear that they have
improved upon their version in the statements made in the Court
which were not there when their statements were earlier
recorded, during investigation, under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
He further submitted that it was a case of blind murder wherein
there was no eye-witness and the appellant is found guilty on the
basis of circumstantial evidence. However, whatever
circumstances have been stated to be proved against the
appellant are not sufficient to form a complete chain of events
leading to the guilt of the appellant. He, therefore, pleaded for the
release of the appellant as according to him he was innocent.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, took us to
the analysis of the findings as done by the trial court and the High
Court and submitted that there was no infirmity in the findings
arrived at by the courts below.
11) The incident in this case took place on 03.03.1999. Within few
hours thereafter and without loss of any time, the complainant
Jaibir (PW-12) lodged the report with the police at about 7.15 pm
on the same day. Even the copy of the FIR was sent to the ilaka
Criminal Appeal No. 569 of 2014 Page 8 of 17
Page 9
Magistrate on the same day at 9 pm. As would be noticed later
while discussing the testimonies of PW-8 and PW-9, suspicion
about the involvement of the appellant was nurtured from the very
beginning. He was arrested on 07.03.1999 i.e. within four days of
the occurrence. On the very next day, i.e. on 08.03.1999, he
made the disclosure statement (Ex.PJ) before Shri Shivdan
Singh, the investigating officer in presence of Head Constable
Krishan Kumar and Constable Mahender Singh. Though, it is a
confessional statement which records his admission that he had
murdered Sunita, since this part of the statement is not admissible
in view of Section 25 and Section 26 of the Evidence Act, we are
not supposed to take the confessional part into account. He,
however, also stated that he removed the golden earrings and
one dhol and after wrapping the same into a wax paper, he
concealed underneath the earth after digging in a pit in the onion
fields (Kayari) which was taken by him on share basis. He also
stated that he threw the sickle in the field of Barseem and he
could get these things recovered after pointing out the same.
Pursuant to the aforesaid disclosure statement, the appellant got
recovered two earrings and dhol made of gold as well as sickle in
the presence of Subhash (PW-10) and Mahavir (PW-13).
Criminal Appeal No. 569 of 2014 Page 9 of 17
Page 10
12) Parna, Shirt, Salwar, Dupatta, Brassier, Swabs from the body of
the deceased as well as blood stained earth were taken
possession of and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. The
report (Ex.PD) was received on the said articles stating that they
were found to be blood stained. It was also stated that human
semen was detected on the salwar. Post-mortem on the body of
the deceased was conducted by Dr. O.P. Charya (PW-3) who
opined that cause of death was due to hemorrhage and shock
and injury No.1 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
course of nature. All these injuries were ante-mortem in nature.
This doctor was also of the opinion that probable time that
elapsed between the injury and death was variable and it
happened within 24 hours. On the basis of report Ex.PD of
chemical examiner and report (Ex.PD/1) of Serologist, this
witness gave his opinion that possibility of victim having been
subjected to sexual intercourse before the murder could not be
ruled out.
13) The aforesaid evidence clearly proves that death of the deceased
was unnatural and she was murdered. It also proves that before
the murder either she was molested. Further, it also stands
established that sickle was the weapon of murder.
Criminal Appeal No. 569 of 2014 Page 10 of 17
Page 11
14) Insofar as circumstances leading to connecting the appellant with
the said murder are concerned, following evidence has come on
record:
(i) Brother of the deceased i.e. PW-9 had seen the appellant working in
the fields which are adjacent to the fields of victim's family where
Sunita had gone to collect Barseem.
(ii) The appellant was keeping an evil eye on the deceased.
(iii) The sickle, weapon used in the murder, was recovered on the
disclosure statement made by the appellant and at his instance.
(iv) The deceased was wearing earrings and dhol which were also
recovered from the appellant.
If the aforesaid aspects are treated to have been duly
proved, in our opinion, they form a complete chain of
circumstantial evidence unequivocally pointing out accusing finger
at the appellant. The question is as to whether the evidence of
the prosecution on the aforesaid aspects is trustworthy and
reliable.
15) Apart from the testimonies of Doctor, Investigating Officer and
other police officials etc., testimonies of various witnesses and, in
particular, Murti Devi, sister-in-law of the deceased (PW-8), Sushil
Criminal Appeal No. 569 of 2014 Page 11 of 17
Page 12
Kumar, brother-in-law of the deceased (PW-9), complainant Jaibir,
father of the deceased (PW-12) have been discussed in detail by
the trial court as well as the High Court. After detailed discussion
and analysis of the evidence on record, the courts below have
accepted the version of PW-8, PW-9 and PW-12. The recovery of
the jewellery belonging to Sunita and sickle with which Sunita was
murdered at the instance of the appellant is also believed.
16) Since Mr. Dhanda had argued that there are some contradictions
in the depositions of some of these witnesses, we are required to
do a diagnostic of sorts, with limited purpose to examine as to
whether High Court has faltered in the same very exercise done
by it so seriously that its findings are rendered perverse. We may
say at the outset that great pains are taken by the learned
counsel for the appellant to show the lacuna and loopholes in the
prosecution version, but regrettably, the record does not
substantiate it.
17) As it has come in the testimony of PW-8 that appellant was
having an evil eye on the deceased which deceased had told her,
we would first look into the deposition of PW-8 to find out as to
whether the aforesaid fact stands established. She has stated in
her examination in chief about this fact, accusing appellant as well
Criminal Appeal No. 569 of 2014 Page 12 of 17
Page 13
as Balraj. It is stated that both appellant and Balraj had
misbehaved with Sunita as well as this witness (PW-8). She has
also stated that a day prior to the occurrence, both of them had
teased Sunita and Sunita had informed her about this. However,
they kept mum on account of the family pride and also feared that
it may not lead to fight between the two families. In the
cross-examination, she was confronted with her statement under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. She stated that though she had told the
police that appellant and Balraj had teased Sunita as told by her
earlier and these facts were not disclosed to anyone in the family
as it would result in fight between the two families. However, this
was not so recorded specifically in her statement under Section
161 Cr.P.C. At the same time, it is specifically recorded in the
earlier statement as well that deceased had complained to her
about the misbehaviour of the appellant. Thus, the only thing
which is not recorded in the statement made by her during
investigation is that she and Sunita kept quiet and did not inform
the family members about the behaviour of Prem Singh in order to
save family pride or the possible fight. That by itself is not
sufficient to discredit the version of PW-8 on the conduct of the
appellant who was having an evil eye on the deceased, inasmuch
as, on this aspect this witness is consistent. It would be pertinent
Criminal Appeal No. 569 of 2014 Page 13 of 17
Page 14
to mention here that even PW-9 Sushil Kumar had stated in his
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as in his deposition
in the Court that the appellant had teased Sunita a day prior to
occurrence and she has disclosed this fact to this witness. He
also stated that he did not disclose these facts to anyone in the
family fearing that it would result in fight between the menfolk.
When he was confronted with his earlier statement made during
investigation (Ex.DA), the only thing which was not recorded in
that statement was related to reason why he did not disclose.
However, even in his earlier statement, it is specifically recorded
that deceased had complained to Murti Devi (PW-8) about the
appellant having teased Sunita a day prior to Holi. Thus, on this
aspect, both PW-8 and PW-9 are consistent and there is no
reason to disbelieve.
18) PW-9 has also specifically mentioned that he had gone to his
fields in the early morning, which are close to the fields of one
Hoshiar Singh, and the appellant was cultivating the land. He also
used to operate the tubewell of Hoshiar Singh. When he had
gone to his fields on 03.03.1999 in the morning, he had seen the
appellant and Balraj near his fields who was operating the
tubewell. He further stated that when he was returning from his
Criminal Appeal No. 569 of 2014 Page 14 of 17
Page 15
fields, he met his sister Sunita who was going towards their fields
to bring Barseem. She was carrying sickle (darati) and a palli.
She was wearing pair of earrings and dhol made of gold on her
person. He further specifically stated that when Sunita had gone
to the fields, only Prem and Balraj were present there. He has,
thus, deposed about the earrings and dhol which the deceased
was wearing. When these articles were recovered on the
disclosure statement and at the instance of the appellant, these
are identified to be the same earrings and dhol which deceased
was wearing. On this aspect, namely, Sunita was wearing the
aforesaid articles, there is no cross-examination at all.
19) We would like to point out here that when PW-8 and PW-9 were
confronted with their statements recorded earlier under Section
161 Cr.P.C. by the counsel who appeared for Balraj, what is found
is that name of Balraj was missing which has surfaced later. It is
for this reason insofar as Balraj is concerned, he was given
benefit of doubt and acquitted by the trial court itself. However, as
far as appellant is concerned, there are no contradictions by the
witnesses on the aforesaid aspects. Even if there are some
contradictions, those are of minor nature and it would be
foolhardy to discard the version of these witnesses on miniscule
variations which have no bearing at all.
Criminal Appeal No. 569 of 2014 Page 15 of 17
Page 16
20) Having regard to the above, we are of the considered view that
there is clinching evidence against the appellant and he is rightly
convicted under Sections 354, 404 as well as 302 IPC. The High
Court has summed up the analysis of the evidence in the
following words with which we are entirely agree:
“Thus, from the aforementioned discussion, it is clear that accused Prem Singh had cast an evil eye upon deceased Sunita. He had teased her, a day prior to the occurrence and had also winked at her on previous occasions. The report of post mortem as well as the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex.PD/1) shows that there was a teeth bite mark on the right cheek of the deceased and also human semen was detected on the salwar of the deceased. When the attempt to commit rape upon the deceased failed, the accused committed the murder of Sunita with the sickle which she was having for cutting fodder (Barseem). As per the FSL Report, human blood was detected on the sickle. As per the statement of PW-9 Sushil Kumar, he had seen accused Prem Singh operating the tubewell of Hoshiar Singh which was near his fields. The deceased had gone to the fields of Hoshiar Singh to cut fodder. This witness had last seen the accused on the date of occurrence in the same fields where Sunita had gone for cutting fodder. Thus, the prosecution has been able to prove last seen evidence.
Apart from the above, the recoveries of sickle and gold earrings which the deceased was wearing were effected upon a disclosure statement made by the accused. It was accused Prem Singh, who got recovered the earrings and dhol of gold by digging the earth from the field of Hoshiar Singh Master. Thus, the prosecution has been able to establish that the recoveries were effected at the instance of accused Prem Singh, as per his disclosure statement and the same belonged to the deceased. The recoveries
Criminal Appeal No. 569 of 2014 Page 16 of 17
Page 17
were effected in the presence on PW-10 Subhash and Mahavir PW-13. The post mortem report also corroborates the case of prosecution as according to Dr. O.P. Charaya (PW-3), injury No.1 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The Doctor had also noticed a bite mark on the cheek of the deceased. All the aforementioned circumstances clearly and unequivocally point towards the fact that it was Prem Singh who had firstly intended to outrage the modesty of Sunita and thereafter had committed her murder. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is trustworthy and reliable and furthermore, all the links in the chain are complete which point to the guilt of the accused.”
21) Learned counsel for the appellant had cited certain judgments in
support of his submission that suspicion, however grave it may
be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference
between something that 'may be' proved and something that 'will
be proved'. However, in the present case, as we found that the
guilt of the appellant is conclusively established with the credible
material, those judgments have no application. We find the
appeal bereft of any merits which is accordingly dismissed.
.............................................J. (A.K. SIKRI)
.............................................J. (UDAY UMESH LALIT)
NEW DELHI; MAY 29, 2015.
Criminal Appeal No. 569 of 2014 Page 17 of 17