Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER:
VIRBHAN SINGH AND ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF U.P.
DATE OF JUDGMENT12/08/1983
BENCH:
ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)
BENCH:
ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
CITATION:
1983 AIR 1002 1983 SCR (3) 600
1983 SCC (4) 197 1983 SCALE (2)91
ACT:
Evidence-Circurmstantial evidence-Several circumstances
supported by medical evidence lead to the only conclusion
that the deceased was murdered in a most brutal and heinous
fashion and then hung by rope by the accused so as to give
an appearance of a case of suicide - Conviction and sentence
for the offence of murder should be confirmed.
HEADNOTE:
For the offence of murder of Smt. Gyani, her husband
Virbhan Singh his mother Smt. Gyani Devi (both appellants
before the Supreme Court) alongwith his father Sileti Singh
were arraigned before life Sessions Judge, Etawah, u/s. 302
read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. According to the
prosecution the motive was the selfish animal nature in the
husband and his parents which has come out in the form of
their determination that the husband should remarry after
doing away with the obstacle in the shape of his existing
wife on the sole ground that she was inauspicious due to the
fact that she did not bear children for four or five years
after the marriage and that even though thereafter she
conceived twice and successfully gave birth to two male
babies, both those babies did not survive beyond a few weeks
or days. The further evidence of the prosecution were that
the accused assaulted the deceased and then hung her with a
rope to give the impression of suicide, did not inform
anyone and kept the body in the room, that an attempt made
by Sileti Singh to remove the body in a lorry failed, that
when P.W.1, the sister of the deceased went along with P.W.4
her brother-in-law to see the deceased on the 14th of
August, 1968, the husband and the mother told a lie that the
deceased had gone out to get medicine, that again on the
15th August, 1968 after P.W,l’s repeated insistence, the
dead body was shown to her in a decomposed condition, that
Sileti Singh only thereafter lodged a report at the police
station Jawaharnagar to the effect that the deceased
committed suicide which version was accepted by the Police
and the Panchas; that on the insistance of P.W.1, the dead
body was sent for postmortem, that the postmortem revealed
(a) five antemortem injuries including the breakage of the
right side hyoid bone under the ligature mark, (b) death
should have taken place between 5.30 P.M. On August 13th,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
1968 and 5.30 A.M: on August 14th, 1968, (c) death was due
to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to liver aud
stomach as well as asphyxia due to hanging and (d) inview of
the antemortem injuries found, there was little possibility
of the deceased hanging herself.
The Sessions Judge found, on a careful and analytical
consideration of the evidence, all the accused guilty,
convicted them under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced the
three of them to life imprisonment. In the appeal filed the
601
High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the
present appellants and acquitted Sileti Singh, the father.
There was no appeal by the State against the acquittal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
^
HELD: 1: 1. The conviction and senctence of the
appellants are perfectly correct and sound, as they are
guilt of the murder of the deceased in a brutal and heinous
fashion.
1: 2. The case no doubt turns purely on circumstantial
evidence. But the circumstances are so telling that the only
conclusion reasonably possible is the one arrived at by the
courts below that the deceased did not commit suicide by
hanging hereself but was done to death by being brutally
assaulted and thereafter hung by the neck with a rope. The
medical evidence clearly goes to prove that it would not
have been possible for the deceased, who had sustained
severe injuries of the type and nature described in the
post-mortem report in the stomach and liver, to hang
herself. The husband, Virbhan Singh and his mother,
Smt.Gyani Devi, were throughout present in the house and no
outsider had come to the house at the relevant time.
According to the opinion of the doctor, the latest point of
time at which the death of the deceased could have taken
place was 5,30 a.m. On 14.8.1968 but even on the evening of
that day when P.W.1, Shrimati Ram Kumari, sister of the
deceased went to their house and enquired for the deceased,
she was told by Virbhan Singh and his mother that the
deceased had gone out with the father-in-law for getting
some medicine. On the next day (15th August, 1968) rumours
spread in the village that the deceased had been done to
death and it was only when P.W. l accompanied by her
brother-in-law, P.W. 4 went to the house of the accused and
insisted on being shown the body that she was finally
allowed to see the dead body of her sister which, by then,
was already in a state of decomposition. Significantly, it
is only subsequent thereto that Sileti Singh went to the
police Station and lodged the report stating that the
deceased had committed suicide by hanging. The conduct of
the appellants is consistent only with their active
involvement in the commission of the crime. It has come out
in the evidence that on the evening of the 14th August 1968
at about 7.30 or 8.00 p.m. Sileti Singh had made attempts to
remove clandestinely the dead body from the locality for
which purpose he had met Brahma Nand (P.W. 3), a truck
owner, and unsuccessfully tried to hire his truck to
transport the dead body.
[605 G-H, 606 A-E]
Observations (i) If society should be ridden of this
growing evil, it is imperative that whenever dastardly
crimes of this nature are detected and the offence brought
home to the accused, the courts must deal with the offender
most ruthlessly and impose deterrent punishment. [602 E]
(ii) Most strangely, in spite of the body being in a
fairly advanced state of decomposition, thereby clearly
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
indicating that the death had taken place a long time prior
to the report given by Sileti Singh, which should have
normally aroused serious suspicion in the mind of any
reasonable person about the
602
version of suicide given by him, the Sub-Inspector and the
panchas were inclined to record the cause of death as
suicide by hanging and close the case without any further
investigation. [603 H-604 A]
(iii) Though the reasons stated by the High Court in
acquitting Sileti Singh by giving the benefit of doubt are
not sound and convincing since the State has not preferred
an appeal, his acquittal will stand. [606 F-G]
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
154 of 1974.
From the Judgment and order dated the 25th September,
1973 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1
809 of 1969.
R.R Garg, V. J. Francis and Nikhil Chandra for the
appellants.
Dalveer Bhandari. H. M. Singh and Ranbir Singh Yadav
for the respondent.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by:
BALAKRISHNA ERADI J. It is an unfortunate and
disturbing phenomenon that has recently arisen in many parts
of our country that instances of bride killing are
alarmingly on the increase. If society should be ridden of
this growing evil, it is imperative that whenever dastardly
crimes of this nature are detected and the offence brought
home to the accused, the courts must deal with the offender
most ruthlessly and impose deterrent punishment. The case
before us is one of its kind. While, in the vast majority of
such cases, the harassment and killing of the bride is
traceable to the abominable and pernicious practice of
demanding and extracting dowry and the failure on the part
of the bride’s parents to adequately satisfy the greedy
demands of the husband’s people, the reason for the torture
and murder of the innocent wife in the present case was that
she was considered an "inauspicious" girl. That was for the
reason that she did not bear children for four or five years
after the marriage and even though thereafter, she conceived
twice and successively gave birth to two male babies, both
those babies did not survive beyond a few weeks or days.
Having branded the young wife as inauspicious, the selfish
animal nature in the husband and his parents came out in the
form of their determination that the husband should remarry
after doing away with the obstacle in the shape of his
existing wife. That led the husband and his mother to commit
the dastardly murder Of the young wife in a most gruesome
fashion .
603
Sileti Singh, his wife, Smt. Gyani Devi, and his son,
Virbhan Singh, were arraigned before the Sessions Judge,
Etawah, charged with the murder of Smt. Gyani, the wife of
Virbhan Singh, in furtherance of the common intention of all
of them, by intentionally causing death by beating the
deceased and then hanging her with a rope. The deceased was
married to Virbhan Singh about 9 years prior to the time of
the occurrence. She did not give birth to any child for
about five to six years after marriage. According to the
prosecution case, the husband of the deceased and his
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
parents used to harass her and beat her on this account and
they used to say that they would get the second marriage
performed for Virbhan Singh. In or about the seventh year
after the marriage, the deceased gave birth to a male child
but that child survived only for about 9 or 10 months.
There- - after, the ill-treatment of the deceased at the
hands of the husband and his parents is said to have
commenced again. A few months prior to the occurrence, the
deceased gave birth to another male child but that baby too
died within 6 or 7 days of its birth This precipitated
matters and the deceased is said to have been branded as an
"inauspicious" woman, who could no longer be retained in the
family. According to the prosecution, she used to make
complaints of severe harassment by the accused to her
sister, Shrimati Ram Kumari (P.W.1), who too was married to
a person in the same village-Nangla Incha. On 14th August
1968 at about 5.00 p,m., Shrimati Ram Kumari had gone to the
house of the deceased with an intent to meet her but she was
told by the husband, Virbhan Singh and his mother that the
deceased had gone with the father-in law to obtain some
medicine. The next morning, P.W 1 heard a general rumour in
the village that her sister had been killed. There upon, she
called her husband’s younger brother, Krishna Gopal (P.W.4)
and again went to the house of the accused along with him.
She found Virbhan Singh and his mother, Smt. Gyani Devi, in
the house and she asked them to show her the dead body of
the deceased. At first they refused but on a hue and cry
being raised by her, they showed her the dead body lying in
a roon in a swollen condition, emitting a foul smell. On
15th August 1968, at about 9.30 a.m. Sileti Singh lodged a
report at the Police Station Jaswantnagar to the effect that
the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself with a
rope. Sub-Inspector Netrapal Singh (P.W. 11) went to the
place of occurrence and held an inquest on the dead body
with the assistance t of panchas. Most strangely, in spite
of the body being in a fairly advanced state of
decomposition, thereby clearly indicating that the death had
taken place a long time prior to the report given by Sileti
604
Singh, which should have normally aroused serious suspicion
in the mind of any reasonable person about the version of
suicide given by him, the Sub-Inspector and the panchas were
inclined to record the cause of death as suicide by hanging
and close the case without any further investigation.
However, Ram Kumari (P.W.1) and her brother-in-law, Krishn a
Gopal (P.W.4), strongly protested and demanded that the body
should be sent for post-mortem and due to their persistence,
the request was acceded to. The post-mortem examination was
conducted by Dr. Lakhotia on 15-8-1968 at 5.30 p m. In the
opinion of the doctor, the death had taken place between one
and a half to two days prior to the time of his examination,
i.e. between 5.30 p.m. On 13-8-1968 and 5.30 a.m. On 14-8-
1968. The post-mortem report disclosed that there were the
following ante mortem injuries on the person of the
deceased.
1. Ligature mark 8" x 1/2" on the neck in the
upper part between larynx and chin, in front
and on sides just below the chin. On
dissection the margins were found congested.
It was directed upwards obliquely following
the lower jaw and was almost behind. Its base
was pale, hard and leathery.
2. Abrasion 1-1/2" x1/2" on the neck lower part
left side.
3. Contusion covering whole of the upper eye lid
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
of left eye. Conjunctive was congested.
4. Contusion covering the whole of upper eye lid
of right eye. Conjunctive was congested.
5. Contusion 4" x 4" on the chest left side
upper part below the clavicle.
Under the ligature mark greater curve of
hyoid bone was broken on the right side.
There was congestion around the big vessels
of the neck.
The lower ribs of the deceased from 8th to 10th on the left
side were found broken. The abdomen was distended and
discoloration was present in the flanks. Peritoneum was
deeply congested. The abdominal cavity was full of blood
weighing about 1-1/2 Ibs. There
605
was a big tear 6" long in the stomach. The abdominal walls
were congested. There was a lacerated wound 3"x 1/2" on the
front of left lobe of the liver. Both kidneys were congested
and decomposing. Both sides of her heart were empty. Larynx
was congested deeply. Both lungs were deeply congested and
deeply decomposing. The large vessels were congested in the
neck on both sides. In the opinion of the doctor, the death
was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to
liver and stomach as well as asphyxia due to hanging. The
doctor, on being examined as a witness, stated categorically
that in view of the injuries mentioned in post-mortem
report, there was little possibility of the deceased hanging
herself.
The sessions Judge found, on a careful and analytical
consideration of the evidence, that the death of the
deceased was caused as a result of the injuries inflicted on
her by the accused, followed by asphyxiation resulting from
the deceased having been hung by her neck by the accused. He
found all the accused guility of the offence of murder,
convicted them u/s 302 I.P.C. and sentenced the three of P
them to undergo imprisonment for life. In the appeal filed
by the three accused, the High Court confirmed the finding
that the case was not one of suicide but one of calculated
murder, the hanging by rope being part of the process of the
deceased being put to death by her assailants. The High
Court, however, took the view that the presence of Sileti
Singh at the time of the commission of offence was not
established beyond doubt and hence it acquitted him giving
him the benefit of doubt. The conviction of Virbhan Singh
and his mother, Smt. Gyani Devi, uls 302 I.P.C. was
confirmed by the High Court. This appeal has been preferred
by the afore-mentioned two accused.
We find no merit at all in the appeal. Since we are in
complete agreement with the findings entered by the Sessions
Judge and the High Court regarding the cause of the death of
the deceased and the manner in which she was done to death,
it is unnecessary for us to burden this judgment with a
repetition of the details of the evidence. The case no doubt
turns purely on circumstantial evidence. But the
circumstances are so telling that the only conclusion
reasonably possible is the one arrived at by the courts
below that the deceased did not commit suicide by hanging
herself but was done to death by being brutually assaulted
and thereafter hung by the neck with
606
a rope. The medical evidence clearly goes to prove that it
would not have been possible for the deceased, who had
sustained severe injuries of the type and nature described
in the post-mortem report in the stomach and liver, to hang
herself. The husband, Virbhan Singh and his mother, Smt.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6
Gyani Devi, were throughout present in the house and no
outsider had come to the house at the relevant time.
According to the opinion of the doctors the latest point of
time at which the death of the deceased could have taken
place was 5.30 a.m. on 14-8-1968 but even on the evening of
that day when P.W. 1, Shrimati Ram Kumari, sister of the
deceased went to their house and enquired for the deceased,
she was told by Virbhan Singh and his mother that the
deceased had gone out with the father-in-law for getting
some medicine. On the next day (15th August 1968) rumours
spread in the village that the deceased had been done to
death and it was only when P.W.l accompanied by her brother-
in-law, P.W 4 went to the house of the accused and insisted
on being shown the body that she was finally allowed to see
the dead body of her sister which, by then, was already in a
state of decomposition. Significantly, it is only subsequent
thereto that Sileti Singh went to the Police Station and
lodged the report stating that the deceased had commit ted
suicide by hanging. The conduct of the appellants is
consistent only with their active involvement in the
commission of the crime. It has come out in the evidence
that on the evening of the 14th August 1968 at about 7.30 or
8.00 p.m. Sileti Singh had made attempts to remove
clandestinely the dead body from the locality for which
purpose he had met Brahma Nand (P.W.3), a truck owner, and
unsuccessfully tried to hire his truek to transport the dead
body
On a scrutiny of the evidence, we age fully satisfied
that the conclusion recorded by the learned Sessions Judge
and by the High Court, that the appellants are guilty of the
murder of the deceased in a most brutal and heinous fashion,
is perfectly correct and sound. We may observe that the
reasons stated by the High Court in acquitting Sileti Singh,
by giving him the benefit of doubt, have not appealed to us
as sound and convincing but since the State has not
preferred an appeal, his acquittal will stand.
In the result, the conviction and sentence are
confirmed in respect of Virbhan Singh and Smt. Gyani Devi
and this appeal is dismissed. The appellants will forthwith
surrender to their bail bonds and will be taken into the
custody to serve out their sentence.
S.R, Appeal dismissed.
607