RAM PAL @ BUNDA Vs STATE OF HARYANA
Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN,FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000120-000120 / 2012
Diary number: 40105 / 2011
Advocates: CHANDER SHEKHAR ASHRI Vs
KAMAL MOHAN GUPTA
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