1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1117 OF 2011

@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.1208 OF 2011

Bhagwan Dass

..

Appellant

-versus-

State (NCT) of Delhi ..

Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Markandey Katju, J.

“Hai maujazan ek kulzum-e-khoon kaash yahi ho

Aataa hai abhi dekhiye kya kya mere aage”

-- Mirza Ghalib

2

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

3

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), (2010) 2 SCC 353

(para 16.5), Aftab Ahmad Ansari vs. State of Uttaranchal,

(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 Pradesh (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.

4

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 Nadu 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

5

Singh vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (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 wa