http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 16  

PETITIONER: STATE OF U.P.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DR. RAVINDRA PRAKASH MITTAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/04/1992

BENCH: PANDIAN, S.R. (J) BENCH: PANDIAN, S.R. (J) FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)

CITATION:  1992 AIR 2045            1992 SCR  (2) 815  1992 SCC  (3) 300        JT 1992 (3)   114  1992 SCALE  (1)937

ACT:      Penal  Code,  1860-Sections  302,  201-Appeal   against acquittal by High Court-Circumstantial evidence-Ingredients- Links of chain of circumstances established-Offences proved.      Penal   Code,  1860-Sections  302,  201-Conviction   of accused by Trial Court-Aquittal by High Court-Appeal against High  Court’s  judgment suffering from  illegality-Delay  in disposal of appeal-Whether a ground for non-interference  of the findings of High Court.

HEADNOTE:      The prosecution’s case was that the  accused-respondent was a private medical practitioner and the deceased was  his second  wife.  He married her on 30.7.1971, when  his  first marriage  was dissolved by an ex parte decree in a suit  for dissolution filed by his first wife.      The  respondent  and  his widowed mother  and  his  two married  brothers  and one unmarried  younger  brother  were living  under  a  common roof having  common  mess,  but  in separate rooms in the first floor of their house.      The  accused was a chronic alcoholic addict and he  was having  a  large circle of friends. He used to come  to  his house in odd hours in drunken state.  This was resented  by his wife, the deceased.  She insisted the accused to  return home  early.   On  account  of  this,  there  were  frequent quarrels  between  them.   Accused,  disliking  his   wife’s interference in his private affairs, even started suspecting the fidelity of his wife.  It was said that the accused  had on  more  than one occasion unleashed threats to  shoot  and kill the deceased.      On the night of 11.10.1971 the accused and the deceased took  their bed inside their room.  On the next morning,  on seeing  smoke  out of the bed room of the accused,  a  large number of people gathered at the house of the accused.                                                        816      At about 7.30 a.m., PW-2 and another, the two  brothers of the deceased arrived there with ‘Ahoi Bayna’ in  baskets. Seeing the crowd in front of accused house, they entertained a  suspicion.  When they were told that the  accused’s  wife had set fire to herself, throwing the ‘Bayna’ baskets in the courtyard, they went up to the first floor and saw the  dead

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 16  

body of their sister lying on the floor with extensive burns all  over her body.  When they confronted the  accused,  the accused  told them that when he had gone to the  latrine  in the  early morning, the deceased committed suicide,  for  no visible reason.  The deceased’s brothers did not believe the version  of  the  accused. They  shouted  that  the  accused murdered their sister.  While they were quarrelling, PW-4, a Head Constable came to the scene found the accused  standing in his night-gown.  P.W.4  was informed by the accused  that the decreased had burnt herself.      The  S.P.(PW-3)  was  informed over  telephone  by  the accused  that his wife committed suicide and  he  instructed the  accused  to inform the local police.  He  come  to  the scene  at about 9.15 a.m., after directing the local  police to  come  to the scene.  After inspection,  the  S.P.  left, giving instructions to the Investigating Officer.      The  Investigating Officer (PW-4) examined the  inmates of  the  house and made an entry in the  General  Diary  and registered a case against the accused.      The  accused was charged u/ss.302 and 201, IPC for  the committing  the  murder  of his wife  and  for  causing  the evidence  of  the  offence of murder to  disappear  with  an intention  of  screening himself from legal  punishment,  by burning the dead body by sprinkling kerosene oil.      The   Trial  Court  convicted  the   accused-respondent u/ss.302   and   201  IPC  and  sentenced  him   to   suffer imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years, respectively with a direction that the sentences were to run concurrently.      The  High  Court allowed the appeal and  acquitted  the accused-respondent.      Against  the  acquittal passed by the High  Court,  the present  appeal was directed by the State,  contending  that the  cumulative effect of all the pieces  of  circumstantial evidence brought on record by the prosecution                                                        817 justified the conviction of the respondent.      The respondent submitted that the circumstances  relied upon  by the prosecution were not clinching the issue;  that the  presence  of the respondent at the scene house  at  the time of the occurrence was disproved by CWs-1 and 2 and also by  the  evidence  of  PWs-6  and  9  did  not  support  the prosecution  case; that in the early hours of 12.10.1971  he at the request of PW-9 paid a visit to one Shashi’s house as the latter was suffering from some ailments and he  returned at  about  7.45 or 8.00 a.m. to his house and came  to  know about  the incident; that the brothers of the deceased  came to  his  house  only  at 11.15 a.m.  and  that  too  on  his telephonic  information to them; that the  deceased  herself had  created a hell of her own in the family and  ultimately committed  suicide  by pouring kerosene on her  and  setting fire; that on the advice and prescription given by a Doctor, the  deceased was put on medicine  containing  barbiturates, the  traces  of  which were found in  her  visra;  that  the symptoms  found  by PW-1, the Medical Officer  were  not  in support of the conclusion arrived at by PW-1, whose  opinion was  only  attributable to his inexperience  or  negligence; that the bones could have been fractured due to excess  heat and the death could have been on account of shock due to the burn  injuries; that the cause of death could not have  been due  to strangulation, but it was due to suicide by  pouring kerosene  and setting herself on fire and the  fractures  of the  bones and other symptoms found on the body should  have been due to the intensity of the heat and that the  evidence of  PW-1  supporting the prosecution version should  not  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 16  

accepted,  as  the Medical Officer gave  false  evidence  on account  of some heated exchanges between him and PW-1  over an election held among the medicos which took place about  2 or 3 days before occurrence;      Allowing the appeal of the State, this Court,      HELD:1.01 . There is no direct evidence to connect  the respondent  with this offence of murder and the  prosecution entirely rests its case on circumstantial evidence. [827 C]      1.02.  The essential ingredients to prove guilt  of  an accused person by circumstantial evidence are:      (1)   the  circumstances from which the  conclusion  is drawn should be fully proved;                                                        818      (2)  the circumstances should be conclusive in nature;      (3)  all the facts so established should be  consistent           only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent           with innocence;      (4)   the circumstances should, to a  moral  certainty,           exclude  the  possibility of guilt of  any  person           other than the accused.                                                    [827 D-F]      1.03. The circumstances which are established as having closely linked up with one another are as follows:      (1)  The motive for the occurrence.      (2)   The  room  in  which  this  tragic  and  pathetic           incident   took   place  was  in   the   exclusive           possession  and occupation of the  respondent  and           the deceased.      (3)   The occurrence had happened in the wee  hours  of           12th  October 1971 when nobody would have  got  an           ingress into the room wherein the husband and wife           admittedly slept.      (4)  The evidence of PW-2, swearing that the respondent           was found in the scene house at 7.15  a.m.      (5)   The  presence of the respondent inside  the  room           wearing  night-gown  when PW-4 went to  the  scene           room.      (6)  The position of the dead body lying on the  ground           within a cot frame with extensive burns except  on           the back and lumbar regions.      (7)   The presence of the traditional external  visible           features of strangulation as well as the  internal           injuries establish the use of violence.      (8)   The  positive opinion of PW-1 who  conducted  the           autopsy on the dead body of the deceased,  stating           that  the death was due to strangulation  and  the           burns were post mortem.      (9)   False  plea  of  alibi and  the  conduct  of  the           respondent feigning innocence.                                                        819      (10)   The  intrinsic  value  of  the  inviolable   and impregnable  evidence let in by the  prosecution  completely and conclusively establishing the links of the entire  chain of circumstances as a whole and not in fragments proving the guilt of the respondent/accused. [828 B-H]      1.04.  The conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court  is logical,  tenable, and reasonably sustainable and  that  the High Court after holding that the death of the deceased  was homicidal has gone wrong in recording the impugned order  of acquittal on erroneous and incredulous reasons.                                                   [835 G-H]      Rama  Nand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, [1981]  1  SCC 511;  Gambir  v.  State of Maharashtra, [1982]  2  SCC  351; Earabhadrappa  v. State of Kamataka, [1983] 2 SCC  330;  Ram Avtar  v. State of Delhi Administration, [1985] (supp.)  SCC

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 16  

410 and Chandra Mohan Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh,  JT (1992) 1 SC 258, followed.      Modi’s  Medical  Jurisprudence  and  Toxicology,   21st Edition  at  page 23; Taylor’s Principles  and  Practice  of Medical Jurisprudence, referred to.      2.01.  The  plea  of  the  respondent  that  since  the occurrence took place in the year 1971 and that more than 14 years have now elapsed since the delivery of the judgment by the High Court in October 1977, this Court be pleased not to disturb the finding the acquittal at this length of time has to  be summarily rejected when the facts and  the  impelling circumstances  surrounding the present case cry for  justice which  in  turn  demands  for  awarding  proper   punishment according to law, is fervent and inexorable.                                                    [836 A-B]      2.02.  If  the  High  Court’s  judgment  of   acquittal reversing  the  well reasoned judgment of the  Trial  Court, convicting  the respondent is affirmed, it will  be  nothing but   a  mockery  of  justice  and  will  also   amount   to perpetration  of gross and irreparable injustice.  Moreover, when a judgment appealed against, suffers from illegality or manifest error or perversity, warranting an interference  at the  hands of an Appellate Court in the interest of  justice on substantial and compelling reasons, the mere delay in the disposal of the appeal will never serve as a ground for non- interference  and on the other hand, the Appellate Court  is duty bound to set at naught the miscarriage of justice. [836 C-D]

JUDGMENT:                                                        820 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 1979.      From  the  Judgment and Order dated 11.10.1977  of  the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2370 of 1972.      R.K. Singh and A.S. Pundir for the Appellant.      R.L. Kohli and J.M. KHanna for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. This appeal is preferred by the State  of  U.P.  on being aggrieved by  the  judgment  dated 11.10.1977  rendered  by  the High  Court  of  Allahabad  in criminal Appeal No. 2370 of 1972 whereby the High Court  has allowed  the  appeal, preferred by  the  respondent/accused, namely, Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal.      The  respondent took his trial on the allegations  that on the intervening night of 11/12th October 1971 inside  the house in Mohalla Moreganj Police Station Kotwali, Saharanpur committed  the  murder of his wife Smt. Kamlesh;  burnt  the dead body by sprinkling the kerosene oil and thereby  caused the  evidence of the offence of murder to disappear with  an intention  of screening himself from legal  punishment.   On the above allegations, he stood charge under two heads, that is under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.      Adumberated in brief, the facts of the prosecution case can be summarised as follows:      The  respondent Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal aged  about 29  years  in  1971 was a private  medical  practitioner  at Saharanpur  city.  He  married one Smt.  Mithlesh,  but  the marriage  was dissolved by an ex-parte decree in a suit  for dissolution  filed by the wife.  The  respondent  thereafter married  on 30th July 1971 the deceased Smt.  Kamlesh,  aged about  20 years who was a resident of Jagadhri.  The  family of  the  respondent  consisted of his  widowed  mother  Smt.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 16  

Darshnadevi  (CW-1), and three brothers,  namely,  Bhupendra Prakash  (CW-2), Narendra Prakash and Virendra  Prakash,  of whom  the  first two brothers were  married  while  Virendra Prakash was unmarried. It is stated that his father had died of  heart  attack a few months before his  second  marriage. They all lived under common roof, having common mess but  in separate rooms in the first floor of their house with  their respective  wives  and children. Smt.  Darshnadevi  and  her younger son                                                        821 Virendra   Prakash  had  occupied  a  separate  room.    The respondent  had  his clinic in the ground floor.   PW-6,  by name, Mohd. Aslam alias Chini was working as a Compounder in the clinic, occasionally doing domestic work.      Smt.  Kamlesh had two brothers, by name,  Mamchand  and Suresh  Chand  (PW-2).  Her elder sister’s  husband  is  one Nagesh Agarwal (PW-7).  It transpires from the evidence that after  her mother’s death she had mostly lived in her  elder sister’s  house till her marriage.  After the marriage,  she visited  her parents and brother-in-law twice or  thrice  in quick  succession and wrote some letters, two of  which  are marked  as  Exts.  Ka-3  dated  18.9.1971  and  Ka-4   dated 19.9.1971.   The case of the prosecution is that  some  time after the marriage the relationship between the deceased and the  respondent  became  strained.   It  is  said  that  the respondent  had on more than one occasion unleashed  threats to  shoot  and kill the deceased.  While it was so,  on  the fateful  night the respondent and the deceased after  taking their  dinner slept in a room which was in  their  exclusive possession.   In the morning the dead body of  the  deceased Smt. Kamlesh smelling of kerosene  was found by the  inmates of the house inside the bed room lying within a cot frame of the  floor.  The respondent and his family members came  out with  a  statement that deceased had  committed  suicide  by sprinkling  kerosene  and  setting  herself  on  fire.   The respondent  telephoned  to  the  Superintendent  of  Police, Saharanpur  (PW-3) and informed that his wife  Smt.  Kamlesh had committed suicide.  PW-3 asked the respondent to  inform the  local police and told that he would himself soon  reach the  spot.  Meanwhile, PW-4, Ram Krishan, a  Head  constable attached to the outpost Mali Gate came to the scene place on his way to Kotwali.  He on receipt of the information  about the  death of Kamlesh telephoned to Kotwali  Police  Station and  informed  PW-13,  another  Head  Constable  about   the incident.   This piece of information passed on by PW-4  was entered  in  the  General Diary (Ext. Ka-28)  at  8.00  a.m. reading that PW-4 had informed over telephone that the  wife of  the respondent had died of burns.  The Sub Inspector  of Police,  Ganga  Ram  Nagar (PW-10)  in  whose  presence  the telephonic  message from PW-4 had been received at  Kotwali, immediately  proceeded to the scene accompanied  by  another S.I. Asthan and Inspector Wajid Ali Khan (PW-14).  They  all reached  the scene at about 8.30 A.M. and found a  crowd  of about  150 to 200 persons at the scene house.   On  reaching the  scene house, PW-10 found a basket with some snacks  and sweets lying scattered in the court-yard.  The police  party went  to  the upstairs and found the  respondent  and  other members of the family                                                        822 present. Insides the bed room the dead body of the  deceased was  found  lying on the floor within the frame of  the  cot with  extensive  burns.  An inquest was held over  the  dead body.  Certain photographs (Exts. A-D, F and G) were  caused to  be  taken with the help of PW-11, a  photographer.   The inquest  report  is filed as Ext, Ka-8.  After  sending  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 16  

dead  body for post-mortem, PW-10 inspected the scene  place and prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka-10).  The room in  which the  dead body was lying had its door opening to  the  inner balcony  towards  east.  Adjacent to this room there  was  a small  kitchen containing utensils and other articles.   The wooden frame of the cot was scorched.  About two steps  away from the dead body a match box containing a large number  of burnt  match sticks was found lying.  A thin layer of  smoke was present on the walls and ceiling of the room.  A plastic bucket with water was found two or three steps away from the dead  body,  but there were no signs of  water  having  been poured  either  on the dead body or in the  scene  room.   A medicine  box  was found inside the room with  an  injection syringe fitted with a needle.  A five litre kerosene oil tin was  in the room containing about a litre of kerosene.   All the  articles  (Exts. 4 to 22) which were found  inside  the room  were  recovered under Memos (Exts.  Ka-11  to  Ka-17). Meanwhile,  the Superintendent of Police (PW-3) reached  the spot  by  about 9.15 a.m.  He also inspected  the  place  of incident and left the scene after giving instructions to the Investigating  Officer.  The  Investigation  Officer   after examining the inmates of the house came to the station; made an entry in the General Diary (Ext. Ka-18) and registered  a case  against  the  respondent  under  Section  302  IPC  on entertaining  a suspicion against him on the materials  that he had collected.      PW-1,  the  Medical Officer attached  to  the  District Hospital, Saharanpur, conducted necropsy on the dead body of the deceased on the following day i.e. 13.10.1971.  The dead body with blackening of the skin was smelling kerosene.  The hands  of  the  deceased  were  clenched.   The  eyes   were congested and the eye-balls were prominent.  The tongue  was swollen  and protruding out and also compressed between  the teeth.   Blood  mixed  with froth  was  coming  out  through nostrils.   On  internal examination,  the  Medical  Officer found  the 6th and 7th ribs fractured.  The right cornua  of the Hyoid bone was also fractured.  The brain was congested; the  thorax had extensive burns in the upper region.   There was  a contused area measuring 5 cm. X 4 cm. on the side  of th  fracture.   On  the right side of  the  neck  there  was clotted blood in an area of 4 cm. X 3 cm. and the muscles at that place were lacerated.  The larynx and trachea and  both the                                                        823 lungs  were  all  congested and they  contained  dark  fluid blood.   The  inner layers of the right carotid  artery  was congested.   The bladder was empty.  The Medical Officer  is of the opinion that death was due to strangulation and  that the  fractures on the body were ante-mortem.  His report  is marked as Ext. Ka-1.  In the cross-examination, the  Medical Officer  has  stated that the deceased could  have  died  on 12.10.1971  between 7.00 a.m. and 8.00 a.m. in the  morning, which he has clarified in his re-examination  stating   that this  opinion  is  subject to a margin of 2 to  4  hours  on either  side.  He gave a supplementary report, stating  that the  fractures of the bones were ante-mortem but  the  burns were-post-mortem.   The  supplementary report is  marked  as Ext. Ka-2.  The report of the Chemical Examiner (Ext. Ka-38) revealed  traces  of  barbiturates in the  portions  of  the viscera of the deceased.      The    Investigating   Officer   searched    for    the respondent/accused,  but he could not secure him as  he  was not  available.  He examined the inmates of the  house,  and the   compounder   (PW-6)   and   some   others.     Further investigation  was taken up by the Inspector of Police  (PW-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 16  

14) on 14.10.1971.  PW-14 received the two letters (Exts.Ka- 3  and Ka-4) on being handed over by PW-7.  At  about  11.00 p.m. on that day the respondent was arrested when the latter was  proceeding in a car towards Dehradun and  interrogated. After completing the investigation the charge sheet (Ext.Ka- 33) was laid.      The  respondent denied his complicity with the  offence in question and gave a lengthy statement.  According to him, he was having cordial relationship with his wife and he  did not cause the death of his wife or he sprinkled kerosene  on her  dead  body.  On the early morning of the  date  of  the occurrence he, leaving his wife in the kitchen, went outside to examine a patient accompanied by one Jageshwar (PW-9) and returned  only  at about 7.45 or 8 a.m. and found  his  wife lying  dead.  He further adds that he  immediately  informed the  Superintendent  of  Police  (PW-3)  about  this  tragic incident.      There  is  no  direct  evidence  to  prove  to  charges levelled   against  the  respondent  and   the   prosecution endeavours to establish the guilt of the respondent only  on the circumstantial evidence - both oral and documentary.  14 witnesses  were examined on the side of the  prosecution  of whom  PW-6  (the  Compounder)  and  PW-9  (Jageshwar)   were declared   as  hostile  witnesses.   In  addition   to   the prosecution  witnesses, the Trial Court examined the  mother and a brother of the respondent as Court Witnesses 1                                                        824 and 2.  The substance of the evidence of the Court Witnesses is to the effect that the deceased was found dead inside the room; that they both threw water evidently to extinguish the fire  and  that the respondent was not in the house  in  the early morning.  The Trial Court after analysing the evidence in extenso found thus:          "In any case, the circumstances established are  so          patent  and most of them are even accepted  by  the          accused,  that  latches  of the  investigation,  if          any,  have  little  bearing on  their  proof.   The          truthfulness  of  the  evidence  leading  to   them          cannot,  therefore,  be  questioned  for  any  such          reason.............................................          ...................................................          In  the background of their strained relations  and          the  suspicion lurking on the mind of the  accused,          it  may be that on the deceased uttering  something          to  his  dislike, he suddenly jumped upon  her  and          throttled her to death.  Such an opportunity  could          scarcely  be available to anyone else in the  house          with the result that the possibility of anyone else          committing the murder can on the established  facts          and  circumstances, be reasonably excluded in  this          case...............................................          ...................................................          In the circumstances, the chain of evidence, to  my          mind,  can be considered to be so complete  against          him  as to show that within all  human  probability          the  murder of Kamlesh must have been committed  by          him  and none else.  He can, therefore,  be  safely          held  guilty  on the basis of  these  circumstances          alone."      On  the  basis of the above findings, the  Trial  Court convicted the respondent under Sections 302 and 201 IPC  and sentenced  him to suffer imprisonment for life and  rigorous imprisonment  for  a period of 3 years respectively  with  a direction that the sentences are to run concurrently.      Challenging  the  judgement  of the  Trial  Court,  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 16  

respondent filed criminal Appeal No. 2370 of 1972 before the High Court which for the reasons mentioned in its  judgement allowed the appeal, set aside the  conviction and  sentences awarded  by  the Trial Court and acquitted  the   respondent holding that:          "The  prosecution has, therefore, not been able  to          establish   the   chain  of   circumstances.    The          circumstances as proved are not                                                        825          incompatible with the innocence of the appellant."      The  present appeal is directed by the State  on  being aggrieved with the judgement of the High Court.      Before  adverting to the rival contentions, adduced  by the  respective  parties, we shall give a  prelude  to  this incidence  which  in  our opinion has  become  necessary  to narrate since it serves as a strong motive for this  heinous crime executed in an extremely cruel manner.      The  father  of the deceased had married  thrice.   His third wife was the deceased’s mother, who died about 4 years before the occurrence.  The deceased’s father was working at Karatpur  Sahab in Punjab.  The deceased’s sister Urmila  is given in marriage to PW-7 and she had two brothers,  namely, PW-2  and  Mamchand.   As Urmila  had  loved  the  deceased, Kamlesh, too much she brought Kamlesh with her while Kamlesh was  10  years  old and educated her.   At  that  time,  the parents of the deceased were in Calcutta.      The   respondent  previously  married   one   Mithlesh, daughter  of  one  Ram Kishan, resident  of  Shamali.   This marital tie did not serve long and ended in a divorce.   The respondent married the deceased Kamlesh on 30.7.1971 and the marriage  was celebrated in the house of PW-7 at  Jagadhari. After the marriage, the deceased Kamlesh was living with her husband, respondent, occupying a separate room in the  first floor of their house allotted to them.      The  respondent, his widowed mother and three  brothers were all living under a common roof having common mess.   It is  stated  by  PW-2  that  the  respondent  was  a  chronic alcoholic addict and used to come to his house in odd  hours in  drunken  mood.  The respondent was also having  a  large circle of friends inclusive of one Mahesh Goyal, an Engineer with whom he used to spend his evenings.  This was  resented by  the deceased who insisted the respondent to return  home early.   On  account  of this, there  used  to  be  frequent quarrels between the spouses.      PW-5,  who is an independent and disinterested  witness has testified to the fact that while he was in service as  a bearer  in Victoria Bar at Saharanpur serving liquor to  the customers,  he had seen the respondent often  visiting  that bar and taking wine.  He further states that on the                                                    826 previous  night, that is on the night of 11th  October  1971 the respondent came to the Bar at about 8 or 9 p.m. and  was there  for half an hour drinking wine served by him  and  on the next early morning he heard about the occurrence.  It is the  evidence of PW-7 that after the marriage, the  deceased used to visit his house  and also sent letters.  As per  the evidence  of PWs 2 and 7 some time after the  marriage,  the relationship between the deceased and the respondent  became strained and discordant and on account of that, the deceased was  separately cooking her food on being compelled  by  the respondent.      The  prosecution has marked two letters written by  the deceased  Exts.  Ka-3  and Ka-4 dated  18.9.71  and  19.9.71 through PW-2.  In both these letters, the deceased had given a  brief note of the circumstances which ultimately  led  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 16  

her  death stating that the respondent used to come  to  the house  in  odd hours in sozzled condition and  threaten  her life;  that she would not resort to do anything to her  life whatever the harassment might be at the hands of her husband and  that  if at all anything would happen to her  life,  it would  be  only  at the hands of her husband.   Of  the  two letters,  Ext. Ka-3 was addressed to PW-2 and  Ext.Ka-4  was addressed  to PW-7.  Besides, the respondent  disliking  the interference  of  his  wife in his  private  activities  and affairs, went to the extent of even suspecting the  fidelity of his wife.      It  was  only in the above tragic  circumstances,  this shocking and horrifying incident took place in the wee hours of 12th October 1971. Admittedly, on the night of 11.10.1971 both  the  husband  and wife (i.e. the  respondent  and  the deceased)  took their bed inside the room, allotted to  them in  the first floor of the house.  On the next  morning,  on seeing smoke coming out of the bed room in the scene house a large number of neighbours and passers-by had gathered at the scene  house.   At  about 7.30 a.m.  PW-2  and  his  brother Mamchand  arrived  there with ‘Ahoi Bayna’ in  baskets  from Jagadhri.   PW-2 and his brother on seeing the crowd in  the courtyard entertained a suspicion.  They were told that  the respondent’s  wife had set fire to herself.  Thereupon  PW-2 and his brother threw the ‘bayna’ in the courtyard, went  up to the first floor and found the respondent standing  inside the  room  and the dead body of their sister  lying  on  the floor  with  extensive burns all over her body.   When  they confronted  the  respondent  as to what  had  happened,  the respondent  stated  that  they both had slept  well  on  the previous night and that when he had gone to the latrine                                                        827 in the early morning, the deceased had committed suicide for no  visible reason and that she by such act not only  ruined herself but also spoiled his life.  PW-2 and his brother did not  believe the version of the respondent and shouted  that the  respondent had killed their sister.  A  quarrel  ensued between  them.  By that time PW-4 who came to the  up-stairs found  the respondent standing in his night-gown.  PW-4  was informed  by  the  respondent that the  deceased  had  burnt herself.      PW-3  who  was the S.P. of that District  came  to  the scene  spot  at about 9.15 a.m., after directing  the  local police to come to the scene and found the respondent at  the scene.      As  pointed out supra, there is no direct  evidence  to connect  the respondent with this offence of murder and  the prosecution  entirely rests its case only on  circumstantial evidence.  There is a series of decisions of  this Court  so eloquently  and ardently propounding the cardinal  principle to  be followed in cases in which the evidence is purely  of circumstantial  nature.   We think, it is not  necessary  to recapitulate  all  those decisions except stating  that  the essential ingredients to prove guilt of an accused person by circumstantial evidence are:      (1)   The  circumstances from which the  conclusion  is           drawn should be fully proved;      (2)  the circumstances should be conclusive in nature.      (3)  all the facts so established should be  consistent           only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent           with innocence;      (4)   the circumstances should, to a  moral  certainty,           exclude  the  possibility of guilt of  any  person           other than the accused.      Vide  Rama Nand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, [1981]  1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 16  

SCC  511; Gambir v. State of Maharashtra, [1982] 2 SCC  351; Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, [1983] 2 SCC 330 and Ram Avtar  v. State of Delhi Administration, [1985] (Supp.)  SCC 410.      Now  let  us  formulate  the  impelling   circumstances attending the case and examine whether the cumulative effect of  those  circumstances  negatives  the  innocence  of  the respondent  and  serves as a definite  pointer  towards  his guilt and unerringly leads to the conclusion that within all                                                        828 human   probability  the  offence  was  committed   by   the respondent alone and none else.      The  circumstances  which  are  established  as  having closely linked up with one another are as follows:      (1)  The motive for the occurrence.      (2)   The  room  in  which  this  tragic  and  pathetic            incident   took   place  was  in   the   exclusive            possession  and occupation of the  respondent  and            the deceased;      (3)   The occurrence had happened in the wee  hours  of           12th  October 1971 when no body would have got  an           ingress  into  the room wherein  the  husband  and wife admittedly slept.      (4)  The evidence of PW-2, swearing that the respondent           was found in the scene house at 7.15 a.m.      (5)   The  presence of the respondent inside  the  room           wearing  night-gown  when PW-4 went to  the  scene           room.      (6)  The position of the dead body lying on the  ground           within a cot frame with extensive burns except  on           the back and lumbar regions.      (7)   The presence of the traditional external  visible           features of strangulation as well as the  internal           injuries establish the use of violence.      (8)   The  positive opinion of PW-1 who  conducted  the           autopsy on the dead body of the deceased,  stating           that  the death was due to strangulation  and  the           burns were post-mortem.      (9)   False  plea  of  alibi and  the  conduct  of  the           respondent feigning innocence.      (10)   The  intrinsic  value  of  the  inviolable   and impergnable  evidence let in by the  prosecution  completely and conclusively establishing the links of the entire  chain of circumstances as a whole and not in fragments proving the guilt of the respondent/accused.                                                        829      While  the learned counsel appearing for the  appellant strenuously contended that the cumulative effect of all  the pieces  of circumstantial evidence brought on record by  the prosecution justifies the conviction of the  respondent, Mr. R.L.  Kohli,  the learned senior counsel appearing  for  the respondent took much pain in advancing his argument that the circumstances  relied  upon  by  the  prosecution  are   not clinching the issue; that the presence of the respondent  at the  scene house at the time of the occurrence is  disproved by  CWs 1 and 2 and also by the evidence of PWs 6 and 9  who have  not  supported  the  prosecution  case  and  that  the symptoms  found  by  PW-1,the Medical  Officer  are  not  in support  of the conclusion arrived at by PW-1 whose  opinion is only attributable to his inexperience or negligence.   In support  of  his  submission, with regard  to  the   medical evidence,  the  learned counsel drew our attention  to  some passages   from   the   test  book   of   Taylor’s   Medical Jurispurdence and Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence, about  which we will deal infra.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 16  

We have already elaborately discussed the evidence  relating to  the  motive part of the occurrence and  found  that  the respondent  who had married the deceased as his second  wife had not only entertained a suspicion about her fidelity, but also  was  repelling  the conduct of the  deceased  for  her finding  fault with his activities, affairs and  association with his friends.      It  is not in dispute that on the ill fated night  both the  husband  and  wife  (that is  the  respondent  and  the deceased)  took  their bed in the room, which was  in  their exclusive  use and that barring the duo no one was in  their room  and  that  the deceased was found dead  in  the  early morning   notwithstanding  the reasons for her  death.   The case  of  the  prosecution is  that  the  respondent  caused several anti-mortem injuries to the deceased and  ultimately strangulated  her  resulting  in her  death.   It  was  only thereafter   the respondent sprinkled kerosene on  the  dead body  and burnt it to cause disappearance of the evidence of the  offence of murder in order to screen himself  from  the legal  punishment and that all the burn injuries  were  only post-mortem injuries.      Seriously   opposing  the  prosecution   version,   the respondent  has  abjured his guilt stating that he  and  his wife  were having a happy marital life occupying  and  using the  room allotted to them in the first floor and  that  the deceased  who  was  a woman of an  arrogant,  obstinate  and irritable                                                        830 temperament   with   frequent  fluctuations  of   mood   was displeased  with their mother-in-law, that  is  respondent’s mother,  who did not like her independent way of  moving  in the  family  and  frequently  visiting  cinema  halls.   The deceased had made complaints not only against his  mother-in -law, but also against her unmarried brother-in-law  stating that  her brother-in-law misbehaved with her, and  that  she was writing letters to PWs 2 and 7 at the instance of  PW-7, who  had once in his letter addressed her as ‘Dear  Kamlesh’ and  incited her to write letters accusing  the  respondent. It  is the further case of the respondent that in the  early hours  of 12.10.1971 he at the request of PW-9 paid a  visit to one Shashi’s house as the latter was suffering from  some ailments and that he returned at about 7.45 or 8.00 a.m.  to his  house and came to know about this incident.   According to  him,  his  brothers  poured  water  into  the  room   to extinguish  the  fire.   It is his  further  case  that  the brothers  of  the deceased came to his house only  at  11.15 a.m.,  that too on his telephonic information to  them.   He continues  to  state  that the deceased used  to  feel  pain during  the period of menses, that he took her on  6.10.1971 to  Dr. Mrs. Anstin and that on the advice and  prescription given  by  the  Doctor Ext. Ka-9 the  deceased  was  put  on medicine  containing barbiturates, the traces of which  were found in her visra.  As regards the medical evidence he  has given  an  explanation  that  the  bones  could  have   been fractured  due to excess heat and the death could have  been on account of shock due to the burn injuries and that  PW-1, the  Medical Officer has given false evidence on account  of some heated exchanges between him and PW-1 over an  election held  among the medicos which took place about 2 or  3  days before  the occurrence.  The totality of the defence of  the respondent  is that the deceased herself had created a  hell of  her own  in the family and ultimately committed  suicide by pouring kerosene on her and setting fire.      The above defence version of the respondent is  clearly borne out from his statement given before the Trial Court on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 16  

6.10.1972.      We  shall at the threshold proceed to deal  with  rival contentions  of  the parties regarding the  cause  of  death which is a vital link in the chain of circumstances  serving as  a  definite  pointer  tending  to  prove  the  guilt  or otherwise of the respondent. PW-1 who conducted necropsy  on the body of the deceased has found the positive symptoms  of suicide  and  the fracture of the 6th and 7th ribs  and  the right  cornua of the hyoid bone as well as the  presence  of clotted blood on the right side of the neck in an area of                                                        831 4cms.  X  3cms.   He also found the  congestion  of  larynx, trachea and both the lungs.  It is his definite opinion that the death was due to strangulation  and the fractures on the body were ante-mortem.  In the supplementary report (Ext. Ka 2),  he  has  given his opinion that the  burns  were  post- mortem.   As regards the time of death he has stated in  the cross-examination  that  the death could  have  occurred  on 12.10.1971 between 7.00 A.M. and 8.00 A.M..  However, on re- examination  he  clarifies  his  answer  stating  that   the probable  time  of death was subject to a margin of 2  to  4 hours on either side.  Though we have extracted the evidence of  the  Medical  Officer  in the  preceding  part  of  this judgment,  we  would  like, at the  risk  of  repetition  to reproduce  the  evidence  of  PW-1  hereunder   for   better appreciation  of  his opinion with regard to  the  cause  of death:          "Hands  were clenched.  Eyes and  conjunctive  were          congested  and  eye-balls  were  prominent.   Blood          mixed  forth was coming out from nostrils.   Tongue          was  swollen  and  protruding  and  was  compressed          between the teeth..................................          ...................................................          Sixth  and seventh ribs were fractured.  The  right          cornua of hyoid bone was fractured."      Though   PW-1  has  been  subjected  to  incisive   and searching cross-examination and questioned with reference to various   Text  Books  on  Medical  Jurisprudence,   nothing tangible has been brought out to discredit the testimony  of PW-1.   The cross-examination was directed  suggesting  that the fracture of the hyoid bone and the fracture of the  ribs could have been due to the intensive heat of the fire and by mishandling of the body when it was taken to downstairs.  In fact, PW-1 has withstood the cross-examination and  affirmed his conclusion that the death was only  due to strangulation and  the  burn  injuries were  post-mortem.   He  based  his opinion on the innumerable symptoms found on the dead  body, such  as  the internal contusions,  non-vomitting  which  is usually  the symptom in a case of burning of a victim  while alive and the involuntary non-movements of the deceased even under  the  agony  of fire etc. etc.   The  learned  defence counsel drew our attention to certain hypothetical opinions, given  by PW-1 in the cross-examination, the report  of  the Chemical  examiner, revealing the presence of the traces  of barbiturates in the visra and the pugilistic posture of  the dead body as revealed from the photographs of the dead  body marked as Exts. A, B,C and D and contended that the cause of death could not have                                                        832 been  due  to strangulation, but it was due  to  suicide  by pouring  kerosene  and  setting  herself  on  fire  and  the fractures of the bones and other symptoms found on the  body should  have been due to the intensity of the heat and  that the  evidence  of PW-1 supporting  the  prosecution  version cannot and should not be accepted.  According to the learned

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 16  

counsel,  the  erroneous opinion, expressed by PW-1  on  the available  data exposes his inexperience or negligence.   In support  of  his argument, he relied upon  certain  passages found in the textbooks on Medical Jurisprudence by  renowned authors.   In  Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence  and  Texicology (21st Edition) at page 93 the following passage is found:          "When    exposed   to   very    high    temperature          characteristically curved fractures may be produced          in long bones and skull.  A bone becomes so brittle          and friable on prolonged exposure of fire victim to          such  intense  heat that it  is  readily  fractured          incident to transport of body or its being moved or          under  examination.   A hyoid  bone  may  similarly          break on manipulation."      In   Taylor’s  Principles  and  Practice   of   Medical Jurisprudence’, a detailed opinion is recorded by giving the symptoms  for determining whether the burns  were  sustained before  or  after  the  death  of  a  victim  which  are  of considerable  medical legal importance in cases of death  by fire.   After examining the evidence on record in the  light of  the  opinion  of the authors of  the  two  textbooks  on Medical  Jurisprudence,  we  are unable to  agree  with  the submissions  of  the defence counsel that all  the  symptoms found in the dead body could have been due to the  intensity of  heat of the fire.  In fact, the opinion in the  Taylor’s Medical   Jurisprudence   is  rather  in  support   of   the prosecution  case  than that of the defence,  which  opinion reads thus:          "Not  uncommonly the victim who inhales smoke  also          vomits  and inhales some vomit, presumably  due  to          bouts  of  coughing,  and  plugs  of   regurgitated          stomach  contents mixed with soot may be  found  in          the smaller bronchi, in the depths of the lungs."      In  the Present case, PW-1 has asserted that there  was no symptom of vomiting at all, which fact lends assurance to the prosecution case that the burning was after the death of the  victim.  According to the defence, water was poured  to extinguish  the  fire  inside  the  room,  but  the  medical evidence shows that there was no blister on the body of  the deceased, which                                                        833 fact disproves the defence version.  Moreover, all  external and   internal  symptoms  in  addition  to   the   fractures unmistakably  go  to show that the death  was  by  homicidal violence,  but  not  due  to  suicidal  one.   We  have   no compunction  in holding on the materials available that  the death could have been only due to strangulation as opined by PW-1.  In fact, the Trial Court after examining the evidence in detail has recorded its finding thus:          "The  result, therefore, is that Smt. Kamlesh  died          an unnatural death as a result of violence and  was          in fact murdered and did not commit suicide."      Though  the High Court has acquitted the respondent  on the  ground  that  "the  circumstances  as  proved  are  not incompatible with innocence of the appellant", it has agreed in toto with the finding the Trial Court so far as the cause of  death  is concerned and the finding of  the  High  Court reads thus:          "We   are,  therefore,  inclined  to   accept   the          statement of Dr. B.G. Mathur that the death of  the          deceased was due to strangulation and that she  was          set to fire after her death."      The  High  Court has rejected the  submissions  of  the defence  relating  to the cause of death  similar  to  those addressed  before us as devoid of any substance.  There  are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 16  

two  important features appearing from the medical  evidence which  would go in support of our conclusion.   They  being: (1)  that  the dead body was found inside the  scorched  cot frame,  (2)  the  back portion of the  body  was  not  burnt indicating  that  the deceased could not   have  poured  the kerosene  over her body.  Further, had the deceased put  her to  death by burning herself she should  have  involuntarily moved  hither and thither under the agony, and would not  be lying  on her back motion-less.  A careful scrutiny  of  the evidence  reveals  that  there was no  sign  of  involuntary movement  or any evidence of screaming and shrieking by  the victim  while she was reeling under the terrible  shock  and agony  on being engulfed in flames which are not the  normal symptoms  in  a  case  of this  nature,  leaving  apart  the question  of  homicide  or  suicide.   The  traces  of   the barbiturates  in  the  visra does not in  any  way  militate against  the  prosecution  case and  from  that  no  adverse inference could be drawn.      As  regards  the motive, the High Court has  held  that there  was nothing to aggravate the situation on the day  of the occurrence for the                                                        834 respondent  to take this extreme measure of putting  her  to death.    This  reasoning  of  the  High  Court   is   quite inconceivable, for the simple reason that there could be  no evidence as to what had happened during the night of 11/12th October 1971 as the victim herself is dead.  However, as  we have discussed in the earlier part of this judgment, all was not  well with the spouses and their  strained  relationship had  been gaining momentum day by day and ultimately on  the ill fated night it had culminated to this occurrence.      The  next  point for our consideration is  whether  the respondent was present in the house in the early morning  of the  day  of occurrence or whether he had gone  out  of  the house  to  treat  a patient.  In other  words,  whether  the defence  of alibi is true or not.  PW-2 states that  he  saw the  respondent  even at 7.15 a.m. when he had been  to  the scene  house  carrying snacks in a basket.  PW-4,  the  Head Constable was the first official to go to the scene house by chance  on seeing a crowd which was attracted by  the  acrid smoke,  emanating  from the bed room.  He testifies  to  the fact  that  at the time when he went to the house  at  about 8.00  a.m. he found the respondent standing inside the  room in his night dress and quarrelling with PW-2 over the  death of  the  deceased.   PW-3,  the  Superintendent  of  Police, arrived  at  the  scene at about 9.15  a.m.  and  found  the respondent  present.   Thus,  the evidence of  PWs  2  to  4 positively establishes the fact that the respondent was very much present in the scene house, even in the early  morning, falsifying his plea of alibi.      The  case of the respondent that PW-2 and  his  brother arrived  at  the scene only at 11.15 a.m., that too  on  his information is belied by the testimony of PWs 4 and 10.  The evidence of PW-4 is that PW-2 and his brother were found  in the  scene house even at 8.00 a.m.  PW-10 has  deposed  that baskets containing snacks and sweets were lying scattered in the  courtyard even at 8.30 a.m. which basket is  stated  to have been brought by PW-2.      If the respondent had returned from home after paying a visit  to  his patient by 8.00 a.m., as he  now  claims,  he would not have been found in his night dress.  The very fact that  he  was  standing  in his night  dress  at  8.00  a.m. demonstrably  shows  that the respondent had  not  left  the house on his professional visit but he was very much present in the house.  PW-6 (who was in service under the respondent

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 16  

for 4 year) and PW-9 who claims to                                                        835 have taken the respondent to attend on one Shashi have  been treated as hostile witnesses.  CWs 1 and 2, who support  the defence theory are none other than the mother and brother of the  respondent  whose testimony is highly tainted.   On   a careful  scanning  of their evidence, we hold that  no  safe reliance  could be placed on their testimony  especially  in view of the overwhelming circumstantial evidence  falsifying their statements supporting the plea of alibi.      On  an overall survey of the evidence, we are  in  full agreement  with the observation of the Trial Court,  holding that  "his  explanation that he was not present in  the  the house  at the time is patently false".  The High  Court  has placed much reliance on the evidence of not only CWs 1 and 2 but  also of the hostile witnesses PWs 6 and 9  for  holding that  the  respondent  was not in the  house  in  the  early morning,  which  finding  of the High  Court  is  absolutely untenable and in utter disregard of the evidence.     Even  though  we are not finding the  respondent  guilty solely  on  his  false  explanation,  yet  that  explanation assumes  much significance because it is for the  respondent to come forward with an acceptable and plausible explanation explaining  the circumstances under which the  deceased  had met  with  her end, since, in our  considered  opinion,  the respondent  was in the company of his wife on  the  previous night and was found in the bed room in the early morning.      Though   the   respondent  has   deliberately   feigned ignorance   and  incredibly  denied  his   complicity,   the overwhelming persuasive circumstances attending the case and the  crucial  inculpatory evidence bear  chilling  testimony unmistakably proving the gruesome offence of murder and  its diabolical  execution and unerringly establishing the  guilt of the respondent beyond all reasonable doubts.      For   all  the  reasons  stated  above,  we,   on   our independent  appraisal  and evaluation of  the  evidence  in accordance  with  the principle laid down in  Chandra  Mohan Tiwari  v.  State  of  madhya Pradesh,  JT(1992)  1  SC  258 unhesitatingly  hold that the conclusion arrived at  by  the Trial Court is logical, tenable, and reasonably  sustainable and that the High Court after holding that the death of  the deceased  was  homicidal  has gone wrong  in  recording  the impugned  order  of acquittal on erroneous  and  incredulous reasons.   Hence the judgment of the High Court  has  become liable to be set aside.                                                        836      Mr.  Kohli, the learned counsel finally made a  fervent but  inexorable plea, submitting that since  the  occurrence took place in the year 1971 and that more than 14 years have now  elapsed since the delivery of the judgment by the  High Court in October 1977, this court be pleased not to  disturb the  finding of acquittal at this length of time.   We  gave our  anxious consideration to the above submission,  but  we feel  that this plea has to be summarily rejected  when  the facts  and  the  impelling  circumstances  surrounding   the present  case  cry  for justice which in  turn  demands  for awarding  proper punishment according to law.  In our  view, if  the  impugned judgment of acquittal reversing  the  well reasoned  judgment  of  the  Trial  Court,  convicting   the respondent is affirmed, it will be nothing but a mockery  of justice  and will also amount to prepetration of  gross  and irreparable  injustice.  Moreover, when a judgment  appealed against  suffers  from  illegality  or  manifest  error   or perversity,  warranting an interference at the hands  of  an Appellate  Court in the interest of justice  on  substantial

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 16  

and  compelling reasons, the mere delay in the  disposal  of the  said  appeal  will never serve as  a  ground  for  non- interference  and on the other hand, the Appellate Court  is duty bound to set at naught the miscarriage of justice.      In  the result, we set aside the judgment of  the  High Court by allowing the State appeal and restore the  judgment of the Trial Court convicting the  respondent under  Section 302 and 201 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for  life and  rigorous imprisonment for 3 years respectively  with  a direction that the sentences are to run concurrently.      In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed. V.P.R.                                        Appeal allowed.                                                        837