Back
High Court Of Delhi
DHANPAL DHANNU - Appellant
Versus
SUKHBIR SINGH - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 18 of 1988
Decided On : 12/16/1993
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 AND 201 READ WITH SECTION 34 IPC - MURDER OF WIFE AND DAUGHTER - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - DISCLOSURE STATEMENT - DISCOVERY OF DEAD BODIES - MOTIVE - ABSENTING IMMEDIATELY AFTER OCCURRENCE - HELD: CONVICTION AND SENTENCE OF APPELLANT SS UPHELD; APPELLANT DP ACQUITTED.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the murder of Bimla and her daughter Seema by her husband SS and his maternal uncle DP. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including disclosure statements made by both accused, discovery of the dead bodies in the river Yamuna at the pointing out of SS, recovery of hair from the deceased's hand similar to that of SS, and the fact that both accused absconded immediately after the occurrence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that SS had a motive to commit the murder, that he had made a disclosure statement leading to the discovery of the dead bodies, that hair recovered from the deceased's hand was similar to his, and that he had absconded immediately after the occurrence. The court also found that the evidence against DP was not as strong and that the pointing out of the dead bodies and their recovery could not be attributed to him. Therefore, the court upheld the conviction and sentence of SS and acquitted DP.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that SS had a motive to commit the murder. 2. Whether the disclosure statement made by SS was admissible and led to the discovery of the dead bodies. 3. Whether the hair recovered from the deceased's hand was similar to that of SS. 4. Whether the fact that both accused absconded immediately after the occurrence was a relevant circumstance. 5. Whether the evidence against DP was sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that SS had a motive to commit the murder, as there was evidence of harassment, beatings, and criminal proceedings against him by the deceased and her family. 2. The court held that the disclosure statement made by SS was admissible and led to the discovery of the dead bodies, as it was made voluntarily and was corroborated by independent evidence. 3. The court held that the hair recovered from the deceased's hand was similar to that of SS, as per the report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL). 4. The court held that the fact that both accused absconded immediately after the occurrence was a relevant circumstance, as it showed their consciousness of guilt. 5. The court held that the evidence against DP was not sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as there was no direct evidence linking him to the crime and the pointing out of the dead bodies and their recovery could not be attributed to him.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction and sentence of SS and acquitted DP.
( 1 ) THESE two criminal appeal Nos. 18 and 25 of 1988 have been filed by Dhanpal alias Dhannu and Sukhbir Singh respectively (hereinafter described as DP and SS) against their conviction under Section 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and sentence of four years and also a fine of 2,0001- each under Section 201134 Indian Penal Code or in default of payment of fine further Rigorous Imprisonment of six months each by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.
( 2 ) REFINERY and Patrochemicals Limited and Others Construction Co.) on. 1-2-1989 only stated thet it had "constructed over 300 cubic metre of brick masonry for the packing plant and D. G. Building totalling to 327. 29 cubic metre during the month of June 1985". These certificates, it is submitted, do not come upto the requirements of Para 1. We think that this criticism, based on the differences in wording as between the language of para 1 and the certificates produced by the MCC (Mysore Construction Co.), is too weak to be accepted. It was for the KPC Karnataka Power Corporation Limited) to consider the sufficiency of these certificates. The condition only required that the applicant should supply information to show that he had experience in insulation work and that he could carry out brick work in a month to the extent indicated. It was for the KPC (Karnataka. Power Corporation Ltd.) to assess the value of the certificates furnished in this regard and if the KPC (Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd.) considered there sufficient to warrant the issue of a tender form to the applicant, we do not think we should interfere with their decision. "
( 3 ) THUS, while the requirement for supply tender documents in that case was that the party should have executed a certain magnitude of work, the certificate produced by the party complained against showed that it was executing works of that magnitude. The court said that the criticism, based on the differences in wording as between the language of para I of the eligibility conditions and the certificates produced by the party, was too weak to be accepted. "this authority is clearly distinguishable and docs not help the respondents in the present case.
27. Because of the view which we have taken, only the petitioner would be left in the field. This was subject to comment by Dr. Singhvi who said that in case of tenders basic prejudice is that of exclusion and that over inclusion itself is not prejuditial or arbitrary and that in this case all the tenderers have been included and it is not a case of exclusion, and further that if Bandr goes out there would be monopoly, there being no competition, and it would be at the cost of Ihe public revenue. We find ourselves unable to agree with Dr. Singhvi. In the era of free economy which has been set about yet special advantage has been cunferred upon public sector undertakings and one need not travel beyond that in the days of competitiveness. Here two parties, the petitioner and Bandr, competited, and the petitioner qualified for the award of tender. There appears to be no reason to deny the contract to the petitioner merely on the specious plea that only the petitioner would be left in the field.
2. The charge against them was that in the. night between 5-1-86 and 6-1-86 to 8-1-86, they in furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of Bimla wife of Sukhbir Singh, appellant and her daughter Seema at village Chilla within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kalyan Puri and caused dis-appearance of their dead bodies by throwing them in the river Yamuna with the intention to screen this from legal punisment.
3. The case of the prosecution in breif is that SS was married to the deceased Bimla daughter of Ram Phal PW7 in 1975. DP is the maternal ancle of SS. SS used to beat Bimla for bringing insufficient dowry and on that account PW7 had filed a case against SS in Patia
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
