Back
2011 (3) Supreme 729
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.
Bhagwan Dass — Appellant
versus
State (NCT) of Delhi — Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No. 1117 of 2011
@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1208 of 2011
Decided on : 9-5-2011
(2010) 2 SCC 353; (2010) 2 SCC 583 – Relied upon
(b) Criminal Trial – Circumstantial Evidence – Motive assumes importance in case of circumstantial evidence. (Para 6)
(2011) 3 SCC 306; Cr. Appeal 958/2011; (2006) 5 SCC 475 – Relied upon
(c) Honour Killing – Wholly illegal. (Para 8)
(2006) 5 SCC 475 – Relied upon
(d) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Apart from the appellant and the deceased only two persons present in the house at relevant time – Mother too old – There is no suggestion of the brother having committed the crime – Deceased deserting her husband and living with her uncle – Appellant having both motive and opportunity Clear motive – Appellant not reporting death of his daughter even after ten hours – The entire circumstances point to the guilt of the accused. (Para 8)
(e) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 162(1), Proviso – Statement before Police may be treated as extra-judicial confession and can be taken into consideration – Denial on confrontation may be an afterthought. (Para 8)
Cr. Appeal 916/ 2005; (2003) 8 SCC 180; (2011) 3 SCC 85 – Relied upon
(f) Criminal Trial – Hostile witness – Evidence of a hostile witness should not be totally rejected – The dependable part of it can be relied upon – The maxim “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” having no application in India, the court is duty bound to separate the grain from the chaff. (Para 8)
State v. Ram Prasad Mishra; AIR 1983 SC 911; (2011) 2 SCC 36; AIR 1957 SC 366 – Relied upon
(g) Indian Evidence Act, 172 – Section 27 – Disclosure leading to recovery of relevent articles is admissible as evidence. (Para 8)
(2010) 2 SCC 583; (2010) 6 SCC 1 – Relied upon
(h) Criminal Trial – Independent witness – In a crime committed within the privacy of house independent witnesses cannot be expected – Lack of independent witness would not be fatal if prosecution case is supported by other cogent and reliable evidence. (Para 8)
AIR 1999 SC 1776; (2006)1 SCC 681 – Relied upon
(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Honour Killing – There is nothing honourable in honour killing – They are nothing but barbaric and brutal murders by bigoted, persons with feudal minds – These come within the category of rarest of rare cases deserving death punishment – Directions issued to all concerned. (Paras 11 to 13)
Facts of the case:
1. This case relates to ‘honour killing’.
2. The appellant was very annoyed with his daughter, who had left her husband Raju and was living in an incestuous relationship with her uncle, Sriniwas. This infuriated the appellant as he thought this conduct of his daughter Seema had dishonoured his family, and hence he strangulated her with an electric wire.
3. The trial court convicted the appellant and this judgment was upheld by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgments are correct.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Markandey Katju, J. —
“Hai maujazan ek kulzum-e-khoon kaash yahi ho Aataa hai abhi dekhiye kya kya mere aage” — Mirza Ghalib
1. This is yet another case of gruesome honour killing, this time by the accused-appellant of his own daughter.
2. Leave granted.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
4. The prosecution case is that the appellant was very annoyed with his daughter, who had left her husband Raju and was living in an incestuous relationship with her uncle, Sriniwas. This infuriated the appellant as he thought this conduct of his daughter Seema had dishonoured his family, and hence he strangulated her with an electric wire. The trial court convicted the appellant and this judgment was upheld by the High Court. Hence this appeal.
5. This is a case of circumstantial evidence, but it is settled law that a person can be convicted on circumstantial evidence provided the links in the chain of circumstances connects the accused with the crime beyond reasonable doubt vide Vijay Kumar Arora vs. State (NCT of Delhi),1 (2010) 2 SCC 353 (para 16.5), Aftab Ahmad Ansari vs. State of Uttaranchal,2 (2010) 2 SCC 583 (vide paragraphs 13 and 14), etc. In this case, we are satisfied that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by establishing all the links in the chain of circumstances.
6. In cases of circumstantial evidence motive is very important, unlike cases of direct evidence where it is not so important vide Wakkar and Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh3 (2011) 3 SCC 306 (para 14). In the present case, the prosecution case was that the motive of the appellant in murdering his daughter was that she was living in adultery with one Sriniwas, who was the son of the maternal aunt of the appellant. The appellant felt humiliated by this, and to avenge the family honour he murdered his own daughter.
7. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the trial court as well as the High Court and we are of the opinion that the said judgments are correct.
8. The circumstances which connect the accused to the crime are:
i) The motive of the crime which has already been mentioned above. In our country unfortunately ‘honour killing’ has become common place, as has been referred to in our judgment in Arumugam Servai vs. State of Tamil Nadu4 Criminal Appeal No.958 of 2011 (@SLP(Crl) No.8084 of 2009) pronounced on 19.4.2011.
Many people feel that they are dishonoured by the behaviour of the young man/woman, who is related to them or belonging to their caste because he/she is marrying against their wish or having an affair with someone, and hence they take the law into their own hands and kill or physically assault such person or commit some other atrocities on them. We have held in Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. & Anr.5 (2006) 5 SCC 475, that this is wholly illegal. If someone is not happy with the behaviour of his daughter or other person, who is his relation or of his caste, the maximum he can do is to cut off social relations with her/him, but he cannot take the law into his own hands by committing violence or giving threats of violence.
ii) As per the post mortem report which was conducted at 11.45 am on 16.5.2006 the likely time of death of Seema was 32 hours prior to the post mortem. Giving a margin of two hours, plus or minus, it would be safe to conclude that Seema died sometime between 2.00 am to 6.00 am on 15.5.2006. However, the appellant, in whose house Seema was staying, did not inform the police or anybody else for a long time. It was only some unknown person who telephonically informed the police at 2.00 pm on 15.5.2006 that the appellant had murdered his own daughter. This omission by the appellant in not informing the police about the death of his daughter for about 10 hours was a totally unnatural conduct on his part.
iii) The appellant had admitted that the deceased Seema had stayed in his house on the night of 14.5.2006/15.5.2006. The appellant’s mother was too old to comm
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
