SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(SC) 472

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Madan B. Lokur, S.A. Bobde, JJ.
State of Rajasthan – APPELLANT
Vs.
Thakur Singh – RESPONDENT
[Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 2005]
Decided On : 30-06-2014

IMPORTANT POINT
When the accused does not explain special circumstances specially known to him, it is
strong circumstance pointing to his guilt.

Headnote:Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Facts within special knowledge of accused – no explained by him – Will be strong circumstance pointing to his guilt – Instantly accused bolting himself, wife and one year old daughter – Wife found dead – Nobody else entered the room – It was for him to explain the circumstances of death of his wife – Not doing so in statement u/s 313 CrPC – Section 106 attracted – High Court overlooking this aspect – Judgment perverse. (Para 22, 23, 27, 28)

       1956 SCR 199; (2006) 10 SCC 681; (1992) 3 SCC 106; (2007) 10 SCC 445; (2009) 9 SCC 495; (2013) 14 SCC 420; (2000) 8 SCC 382 – Relied upon

       (2009) 11 SCC 334 – Distinguished

       Facts of the case:

       According to the first information report (FIR) lodged by Himmat Singh (PW-2), the

        respondent/accused

       Thakur Singh was married to Dhapu Kunwar and they had a daughter aged about one year. Thakur Singh was working as a labourer or lorry driver in Ahmadabad. Since he was not feeling well, he was brought to the family home in Hingwania in Rajasthan on 25th February, 1999 where he stayed the whole day.

       On 28th February, 1999 Thakur Singh took his wife Dhapu Kunwar and their daughter inside a room and bolted it from within.

       Throughout the day Thakur Singh had locked himself up in a room along with Dhapu Kunwar and their daughter. Later in the evening, after Himmat Singh returned with Shyam Singh, they removed the 'kelu' from above the house and it was then discovered that Thakur Singh had killed Dhapu Kunwar. The door of the house was broken open and Thakur Singh was caught and tied by his brothers and other relatives.

       At about 6.15 p.m. on the same day, that is 28th February, 1999 Himmat Singh lodged an FIR. There is a positive assertion in the FIR that Thakur Singh had killed Dhapu Kunwar.

       The Trial Judge held, on the basis of the evidence on record, that no one except Thakur Singh could have caused the death of Dhapu Kunwar. It convicted and sentenced the respondent.

       High Court acquitted the respondent.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment is perverse.

       Result:

       Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The question for consideration is whether the facts and circumstances of the case require the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and if so, whether the respondent/accused is guilty of the murder of his wife Dhapu Kunwar. In our opinion, both questions need to be answered in the affirmative and the High Court rendered a decision, perverse in law, in acquitting Thakur Singh and reversing the decision of the Trial Court.

The Facts

2. According to the first information report (FIR) lodged by Himmat Singh (PW-2), the

respondent/accused Thakur Singh was married to Dhapu Kunwar and they had a daughter aged about one year. Thakur Singh was working as a labourer or lorry driver in Ahmadabad. Since he was not feeling well, he was brought to the family home in Hingwania in Rajasthan on 25th February, 1999 where he stayed the whole day.

3. On 26th February, 1999 Thakur Singh's brother Bagh Singh (PW-3) was sent to fetch his brother-in-law Gotu Singh (brother of Dhapu Kunwar) who then came to Hingwania. He seems to have stayed overnight and on 27th February, 1999 Gotu Singh and Thakur Singh were together for most of the day. In the evening at about 4.30 p.m. on 27th February, 1999 Gotu Singh went to Gundli and stayed there overnight. He came back to Hingwania the next morning (28th February, 1999) at about 7.45 a.m.

4. However, before Gotu Singh arrived in Hingwania on 28th February, 1999 Thakur Singh took his wife Dhapu Kunwar and their daughter inside a room and bolted it from within. Thereafter, Himmat Singh and Gotu Singh went from Hingwania by bus to Chanderiya to meet Thakur Singh's elder brother Shyam Singh (PW-1). While Gotu Singh did not return to Hingwania, Himmat Singh returned along with Shyam Singh. This was at about 4.30 p.m.

5. Throughout the day Thakur Singh had locked himself up in a room along with Dhapu Kunwar and their daughter. Other ladies in the house, namely, the wife of Bhag Singh, (Chanda Kunwar PW-18) wife of Pratap Singh (PW-6) and (Pushpa Kunwar PW-20) wife of Ram Singh (PW-7) tried to persuade Thakur Singh to open the door of the room but he did not do so. Later in the evening, after Himmat Singh returned with Shyam Singh, they removed the 'kelu' from above the house and it was then discovered that Thakur Singh had killed Dhapu Kunwar. The door of the house was broken open and Thakur Singh was caught and tied by his brothers and other relatives.

6. At about 6.15 p.m. on the same day, that is 28th February, 1999 Himmat Singh lodged an FIR in the police station giving the facts mentioned above. There is a positive assertion in the FIR that Thakur Singh had killed Dhapu Kunwar. Soon after the FIR was registered, the investigating officer Kuber Singh (PW-23) arrived at the place of the occurrence and took charge of the investigations and arrested Thakur Singh on the basis of the allegations made in the FIR. Proceedings in the Trial Court

7. On completion of investigations, Kuber Singh filed a charge sheet against Thakur Singh alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Upper District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Chittorgarh who heard the case being Sessions Case No.90/2001 convicted Thakur Singh and found him guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1000/-.

8. The Trial Judge found that the prosecution had examined as many as 25 witnesses. Subsequently, on the request of the Public Prosecutor another witness was called making a total of 26 prosecution witnesses. Of these, 14 were the immediate relatives of Thakur Singh and all of them turned hostile.

9. The Trial Court found that some basic facts were nevertheless brought on record. These basic facts were that Dhapu Kunwar was the wife of Thakur Singh; she was lying dead in the room occupied by her and Thakur Singh, and Dr. Khem Chand Saini (PW-15) deposed that Dhapu Ku



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top