2015 Supreme(SC) 1300
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla and Amitava Roy, JJ.
State of Punjab – Appellant
Versus
Suraj Prakash & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2056 of 2009 And Criminal Appeal No. 366 of 2010
Decided on : 15-12-2015
IMPORTANT POINTS
Circumstances should be such as to form a complete chain ruling out every possible hypothesis of the innocence of the accused person(s).
Being related or partisan per se cannot discredit them or adversely affect the probative worth of their statements on oath.
Headnote:(a) Criminal trial – Circumstantial evidence – Conviction – Circumstances should be such as to form a complete chain ruling out every possible hypothesis of the innocence of the accused person(s) – Instantly evidence establishing culpability of all the accused persons in the charges framed against them – Established incriminating circumstances forming a complete chain of events not permitting any confusion or doubt with regard to involvement of all the accused persons in the crime. (Para 21, 23)
(b) Criminal trial – Related/partisan witness – Being related or partisan per se cannot discredit them or adversely affect the probative worth of their statements on oath. (Para 22)
Facts of the case:
Five accused were tried, convicted and sentenced for offences u/s 302, 419, 404, 201, 120B IPC for murder of one Gurdeep Singh.
The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Finding of the Court:
Appellate Court grossly erred in assessing the evidence on record in acquitting accused Nos. 2 and 3 Suraj and Bhalla Ram.
Result: Criminal Appeal No. 2056 of 2009 filed by the State allowed and Criminal Appeal No. 366 of 2010 filed by Rani dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Amitava Roy J.
The subject matter of challenge in both these appeals is the judgment and order dated 22nd January, 2009 rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal 172-DB of 2006, whereby it has affirmed the conviction and Criminal Appeal No. 2056 of 2009 sentence of accused No.1 Dharminder, accused No. 4 Rani, his mother and accused No.5 Nazar Singh under Section 302, 419, 404, 201, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. While acquitting accused No. 2 Suraj and accused No.3 Bhalla Ram of the charge under Section 302/120B IPC it affirmed their conviction under Sections 419, 404, 201 IPC. Whereas Criminal Appeal No.2056 of 2009 has been preferred by the State against the exoneration of accused No. 2 Suraj and accused No. 3 Bhalla Ram from the charge under Section 302/120B IPC, accused No. 4, Rani is in appeal before this Court against her conviction under the above provisions of law. Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 5 have not preferred any appeal.
2. We have heard Mr. V. Madhukar, learned Additional Advocate General for the State as well as Mr. A.P.S. Deol, learned senior counsel for the accused.
3. The prosecution was set in motion in the wee hours of 23rd June, 2000 when accused No.2 Suraj laid an information with, Mohinder Kumar, the Station House Officer Police Station Kotwali, Bhatinda, while he was along with his team on patrol duty at Sirki Bazaar, near Neemwala Chowk. The informant i.e. accused No. 2 Suraj stated before the Police Officer that he, Dharminder, accused No. 1 and accused No. 3 Bhalla Ram were brothers, youngest of them being Dharminder. He stated that they along with their mother Rani lived in Kartar Basi and that his mother was a Priestess in the Kali Mata Mandir, situated in the same locality. The informant further disclosed that his brother accused No.1 Dharminder was blindly in love with one Ms. Ranju, daughter of a neighbour of theirs and being infatuated by her he used to write her names in his books and kites. According to the informant, this was known to the family but brother Dharminder was so captivated by the girl he loved, that he was uncontrollable in his attachment and feelings. It was further informed that in the previous evening at about 8:00p.m.after his mother had retired from the temple, the entire family took their dinner together and had gone to sleep. It was mentioned as well that Dharminder who was usually late in returning home was not back till then. It was disclosed that at about 1:00a.m. one of the persons who was a resident in the neighbourhood of the temple came and reported to them that dense smoke was coming out from the chowbara of the temple. On receiving this information, the mother of the informant, Rani, had gone to the temple and found that his brother Dharminder Singh was lying dead inside in a burnt condition. It was also seen that there was a writing by him, on the wall with blood, "Ranju, I love you". The informant expressed his conviction that his brother Dharminder being mad with love for the girl, overpowered by the feeling of deprivation first injured himself with a sharp edged iron weapon and then had put himself on fire by sprinkling kerosene oil and had burnt him to death. In specific terms, the informant opined that no one was to be faulted for the death of Dharminder Singh and that it was a case of voluntary self immolation. He expressed his opinion that in the circumstances, no legal action need be taken and that the information was being lodged so as to apprise the police of the incident.
4. As the records reveal, after the above information was recorded, the SHO P.S. Kotwali, Bhatinda, Mohinder Kumar along with his team, after forwarding the statement to the P.S. Kotwali for registration, set out for the spot at about 3:30a.m. In the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. that followed, the investigating officer conducted the inquest over the dead body which was found lying inside the Kali Mata Mandir. The report, Exhibit PC dated 23rd