2008(8) Supreme 178
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Chattar Singh and Anr. — Appellants
versus
State of Haryana — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 2001
Decided on : 26-08-2008
AIR 1977 SC 1063; AIR 1956 SC 316; AIR 1983 SC 446; AIR 1985 SC 1224; AIR 1987 SC 350; AIR 1989 SC 1890; (1996) 10 SCC 193; AIR 1990 SC 79 – Relied upon.
(b) Criminal Trial – Circumstantial evidence – The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. (Para 11)
(1992) Crl.LJ 1104; AIR 1952 SC 343 – Relied upon.
(c) Criminal Trial – Circumstantial evidence – Conditions precedent for conviction on circumstantial evidence stated. (Para 12)
AIR 1984 SC 1622; (2003)8 SCC 180; (2003)11 SCC 261; Cr. A. No.185/2005 – Relied upon.
(d) Criminal Trial – Circumstantial evidence – Last seen theory – The last-seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible – Even in such a case the courts should look for some corroboration. (Para 15)
(2005)3 SCC 114; (2006)10 SCC 172; (2005)12 SCC 438 – Relied upon.
(e) Criminal trial – Extra judicial confessions – Scope and applicability discussed. (Paras 17 and 18)
Facts of the case :
1. A young girl, namely, Guddi aged about 26 years was married to Chattar Singh, A-1, son of Mange Ram, A-2, in the year 1990. Both the families are agriculturists. A daughter, namely, Poonam (deceased no.2) was born from this wedlock.
2. Dead bodies of Guddi and that of the infant daughter Poonam in the posture that the latter was in the armpit of Guddi were found in a well on the morning of 17.2.1993.
3. Jeet Singh, father of the deceased made an application Ex.PO on 16.2.1993, a day earlier that his daughter was missing. Chattar Singh and Mange Ram accused were produced by Babu Lal, Sarpanch of the village before the Investigating officer and were arrested.
4. The trial Court directed acquittal of five co-accused persons while finding the appellants guilty.
5. The High Court did not find any substance in the appeal and dismissed the same.
Finding of the Court :
Impugned judgments do not suffer from any infirmity.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding the conviction of appellant No.1-Chattar Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘A-1’) for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was also convicted for offence punishable under Section 201 and Section 498A IPC. Different sentences were imposed for the said offences. Appellant-Mange Ram (hereinafter referred to as ‘A-2’) was convicted for offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. The conviction recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, was confirmed by Division Bench of the High Court as also the sentences for both the appellants.
2. Background facts giving rise to the prosecution are as follows:
A young girl, namely, Guddi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) aged about 26 years, belonged to village Nimly in district Bhiwani in Haryana. Her marriage was performed with Chattar Singh, A-1, son of Mange Ram, A-2 of village Sahlawas, in district Rohtak, in the year 1990. Both the families are agriculturists. A daughter, namely, Poonam (deceased no.2) was born from this wedlock. Dead bodies of Guddi and that of the infant daughter Poonam in the posture that the latter was in the armpit of Guddi were found in a well of village Sahalwas on the morning of 17.2.1993. Jeet Singh, father of the deceased made an application Ex.PO on 16.2.1993, a day earlier that his daughter was missing, before SI Ashok Kumar, PW-12, the then Station House Officer, Police Station, Sahlawas and on its basis formal FIR Ex.PN was recorded. On 17.2.1993 he inspected the spot and prepared rough site plan Ex.PCC. He got the dead bodies of the deceased photographed by Varinder Singh, Photographer, PW.14. Ex.PJJ/l to 8 are the photographs and Ex.PJJ/9 to 14 and Ex.PZ/7 and 8 are their negatives. Zile Singh, PW.9, also took photographs Ex.PZ/7 to 12 and the negatives are Ex.PZ/1 to 6. The Investigating Officer prepared inquest reports Ex.PB and PD. He also prepared rough site plan of the place of recovery of dead bodies Ex.PDD. The dead bodies were taken out from the well and were despatched for post mortem. On 28.2.1993, Chattar Singh and Mange Ram accused were produced by Babu Lal, Sarpanch of the village before the Investigating officer who were arrested. On interrogation by the Investigating Officer on 1.3.1993, Chattar Singh accused made a disclosure statement Ex.PFF and in pursuance thereof got recovered Chuni (Scarf) from the specified place which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PFF/1. He also prepared rough site plan Ex.PFF/2 of the place of recovery. However, the statement made by Jeet Singh, PW.3, the father of the deceased contained the allegations that Chattar Singh (husband) and Mange Ram (father-in-law) of the deceased as well as Rajesh and Vijay Singh along with their wives Bimla and Bala respectively who were maltreating his daughter were demanding Rs.50,000/- as a part of dowry and only on fulfilment of that condition the daughter could remain in peace. He allegedly borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from one Badan Singh, PW.8, and paid the amount to the accused persons. He also claimed that he gave various other amounts, valuables and articles on various occasions and it was, therefore, that since this amount was given at least 25 days earlier to the occurrence, after the birth of the child when Guddi had stayed only for a short period prior to the occurrence at the place of her in-laws. So, there was one version of the complainant, father of the deceased, that the dispute which led to the death of the deceased was the demand of dowry. However, during further investigation of the case, it transpired that extra judicial confession was allegedly made by Chattar Singh and Mange Ram accused that they were suspecting illicit relation of the deceased Guddi with some person and that
State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram
State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava
C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P.
State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan
Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P.
Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P.
Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.