RAM NIWAS vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 25 OF 2012 RAM NIWAS        ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA    ...RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T B.R. GAVAI, J. 1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by th the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh dated 16 March   2009,   thereby   dismissing   the   appeal   filed   by   the accused/appellant­Ram Niwas, which was filed challenging the th th judgment and order dated 11 /12  January 2005 passed by the learned   Sessions   Judge,   Sonepat,   thereby   convicting   the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to a fine of 1 Rs.5,000/­,   in   default   of   payment   of   fine   to   further   undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 302 IPC and to suffer imprisonment for three years and to a fine of Rs.2,000/­ in   default   of   payment   of   fine   to   further   undergo   rigorous imprisonment for one year.  Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.   2. The prosecution case, in brief, is thus: 2.1 Deceased   Dalip   Singh,   Bhim   Singh   (P.W.10),   and   the complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) are brothers.  Pale, son of Bhim Singh (P.W.10), was married to Sunita, daughter of Chander Singh and the sister of the  accused/appellant­ Ram Niwas.  After the death of Pale, his wife Sunita along with her minor son went to her parental house in village Rewli.   Deceased Dalip Singh, Bhim Singh (P.W.10), and complainant­Deep   Chand   (P.W.9)   wanted   Sunita   to   be married to Rampal son of deceased Dalip Singh.  As such, th on 7  March 2003, all three of them had gone to the house of   Chander   Singh,   father   of   the   accused/appellant­Ram 2 Niwas   with   the   proposal   of   remarriage   of   Sunita   with Rampal son of deceased Dalip Singh.  2.2 It is the prosecution case that all three of them reached village   Rewli   and   went   to   the   house   of   Chander   Singh, father of the accused/appellant­Ram Niwas at around 5.00 th p.m. on 7   March 2003. At around 7.30 p.m., deceased Dalip   Singh   and   accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   started taking liquor and at that time the proposal of marrying Sunita   with   Rampal   was   mentioned.     On   such  mention being made, accused/appellant­Ram Niwas got angry and started   abusing   deceased   Dalip   Singh.     However, complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10) intervened and pacified the accused/appellant­Ram Niwas. Thereafter, both of them after having their meals went to the first floor to sleep. th 2.3 On the morning of 8   March 2003, at around 6.30 a.m., when   the   complainant­Deep   Chand   (P.W.9)   and   Bhim Singh (P.W.10) went to the drawing room of Chander Singh, 3 deceased   Dalip   Singh   was   not   seen   there.     They   asked about the whereabouts of deceased Dalip Singh from the accused/appellant­Ram Niwas, who told them that he had gone for answering the call of nature.  Both of them waited for deceased Dalip Singh for about half an hour, but he did not   return.   Therefore,   they   again   asked   the accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   about   the   whereabouts  of deceased   Dalip   Singh,   but   they   did   not   receive   any satisfactory reply. 2.4 It   is   further   the   prosecution   case   that   after   the complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10) came   to  the   courtyard,   they   felt  the   smell  of   the  burnt human body.  The complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) again enquired   from   the   accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   about deceased   Dalip   Singh.   Then   the   accused/appellant­Ram Niwas   became   nervous   and   replied   that   when   deceased Dalip Singh had proposed to marry Sunita with his son Rampal then he had pressed the throat of deceased Dalip 4 Singh and strangulated him to death.  In order to destroy the evidence, the dead­body of the deceased Dalip Singh was burnt, but the same could not be burnt completely. The dead body of deceased Dalip Singh was concealed in Paraal (Paddy Fodder).   Thereafter, the complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10) after removing the Paddy   straw   found   the   partially   burnt   dead   body   of deceased Dalip Singh wrapped in a piece of Plastic palli. Thereafter, the complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh   (P.W.10)   expressed   their   resentment   towards   the accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas,   and   on   hearing   their resentment, the accused/appellant­Ram Niwas fled away from the spot.   The complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim   Singh   (P.W.10)   went   to   their   village   Bhawar   and returned back with other family members to village Rewli in the evening.   2.5 The complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) lodged a report with the   Police   station   at   4.45   p.m.     On   the   basis   of   the 5 statement of the complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9), a First Information Report (“FIR” for short) came to be registered at 5.00 p.m. 2.6 Upon completion of the investigation, a charge­sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sonepat.   Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, it came to be committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat.  2.7 Charges   came   to   be   framed   for   the   offences   punishable under   Sections   302   and   201   of   the   IPC.     The accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   pleaded   not   guilty   and claimed to be tried.     At the conclusion of the trial, the learned   Sessions   Judge,   Sonepat   passed   orders   of conviction and sentence, as aforesaid.  Being aggrieved, the accused/appellant­Ram Niwas preferred an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.  The same came to be dismissed.  Hence the present appeal.   6 3. We have heard Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned Advocate­on­ Record   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   accused/appellant­Ram Niwas and Mr. Birendra Kumar Choudhary, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana.   4. Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned counsel, submitted that from the perusal of the postmortem report, it is clear that it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the dead­body on which the postmortem was conducted was of deceased Dalip Singh.  He submitted that Dr. Sanjeev Malhotra (P.W.5) has admitted that the   face   of   the   dead­body   of   which   he   had   carried   the postmortem was not recognizable.  He therefore submitted that in the absence of the prosecution proving that the dead­body was of deceased Dalip Singh, the conviction was not sustainable. He further submitted that the evidence of the complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10), which is relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat as well as the High Court, is totally unreliable. He submitted that the conduct of the said witnesses is totally unnatural.   He submitted that from their 7 evidence, it is seen that after they had seen the dead­body, they went all the way to their village Bhawar and returned back in the evening.   He submitted that when the Police Station was at a distance of about one and a half kilometers from the place of the incident,   their   conduct   in   not   going   to   the   Police   Station immediately and informing about the incident creates a serious doubt about the prosecution case.  He therefore submits that the accused/appellant­Ram Niwas is entitled to be acquitted of all the charges charged with.   5. Mr.   Birendra   Kumar   Choudhary,   learned   AAG,   on   the contrary, submitted that both the courts below, upon correct appreciation   of   evidence,   have   concurrently   found   the accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   to   be   guilty   of   the   offences charged with.   He submitted that the accused/appellant­Ram Niwas   has   made   an   extra­judicial   confession   before   the complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10).  He submitted that the said extra­judicial confession is corroborated by   the   recovery   of   ‘ash’   concealed   in   a   plastic   cover   on   the 8 memorandum   of   the   accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“Evidence Act” for short).   He therefore submitted that no case is made out for interference with the findings of fact, recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat as well as by the High Court.  6. To   examine   the   correctness   of   the   findings   of   the   High Court, it will be apposite to scrutinize the evidence on record. 7. Dr. Sanjeev Malhotra (P.W.5) has conducted postmortem examination of the dead­body of deceased.  In his evidence, he stated that the dead­body was lying naked.  It was showing deep burns   all   over   the   body.     It   was   also   emitting   the   smell   of kerosene.   The hair and scalp were missing.   Eye balls, eye­ lashes, and both ears were burnt out.   Both lips and the nose were also burnt.  He has categorically stated in his examination­ in­chief that the face of the dead­body could not be recognized. He has also stated in his examination­in­chief that both feet were   missing.   Dr.   Sanjeev   Malhotra   (P.W.5),   in   his   cross­ examination, has given a clear admission to the following effect: 9 “It   is   correct   that   the   body   was   not recognizable.  ………..” 8. The   complainant­Deep   Chand   (P.W.9),   in   his   evidence, th states that on 7  March 2003, he along with his two brothers, namely,   Bhim   Singh  (P.W.10)  and   deceased   Dalip   Singh  had gone to village Rewli.  He states that all the three brothers had gone to village Rewli to ask for Sunita’s hand in re­marriage for Rampal,   son   of   his   brother   deceased   Dalip   Singh.       After reaching   the   village   Rewli   at   around   5.00   p.m.,   they   met Chander Singh and his son accused/appellant­Ram Niwas.  He further   states   that   after   some   time,   accused/appellant­Ram Niwas brought a bottle of liquor and he along with his father Chander Singh and his brother deceased Dalip Singh started taking liquor.   He further states that upon the deceased Dalip Singh proposing the re­marriage of Sunita with his son Rampal, there was a minor altercation between them.  He states that he and Bhim Singh (P.W.10) persuaded both sides to not fight. After taking their meals, the accused/appellant­Ram Niwas told him and Bhim Singh (P.W.10) to go to the first floor to sleep, since 10 the   accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   and   deceased   Dalip   Singh wanted to have some talk.   Thereafter, they went to sleep on the first floor.   9. Complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) further states that in the morning   when   they   had   gone   to   the   drawing   room   of   the accused/appellant­Ram Niwas at around 6.30 a.m. and asked about   their   brother   the   deceased   Dalip   Singh,   the accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   told   them   that   deceased   Dalip Singh had gone to ease himself.  After waiting for about half an hour,  when  deceased  Dalip Singh did  not return,  they  again enquired   from   the   accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   about   the deceased   Dalip   Singh.     Thereafter,   accused/appellant­Ram Niwas told them that he had murdered deceased Dalip Singh. On being enquired about the dead­body of deceased Dalip Singh, accused/appellant­Ram Niwas told them that he had kept the dead­body concealed in the paraal (paddy fodder).  They also felt the foul smell of burning.   They went there and saw the dead­ body of deceased Dalip Singh, wrapped in a plastic palli and 11 lying   in   a   heap   of   paraal   and   also   in   a   burnt   condition. Thereafter, he and Bhim Singh (P.W.10) ran away from there since   they   had   an   apprehension   that   accused/appellant­Ram Niwas  might  kill  them  also.    He   states   that   they,   thereafter, straightway went to their village Bhawar and on the same day after taking 4­5 persons from the village, he came to Murthal Adda and at the turning of Engineering College, they met the Police and informed about the incident.   10. In his cross­examination, complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) admitted that parents of Sunita had come to his village Bhawar at the time of Chhamahi and Barsi ceremonies of Pale.  He has further admitted that they did not talk with the parents of Sunita regarding   the   re­marriage   of   Sunita   with   Rampal   on   those occasions.  He has further admitted that according to customs in their   society,   the   remarriage   of   a   widow   or   Karewa   is   to   be solemnized on the occasion of Chhamahi and Barsi.   It will be relevant to refer to the following admissions in the evidence of the complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9): 12 “After seeing the dead body we not raise any alarm   and   none   came   at   the   spot   in   our presence. Sunita was also 'present in village Revli   on   that   day.   We   did   not   tell   even   to Sunita or any body else in the village. We went to our village Bhawar through a jeep and bus. Police station Murthal is situated at a distance of one and ∙half ∙kilometer from village Revli. We did not inform the police of P.S. Murthal. We reached in our village at about 9:00 A.M. We   came   back   in   a   jeep.   Subhash,   Ganga, Prem,   Raju,   Sher   Singh,   Pappu   etc.   had accompanied us to village Revli. We did not inform any police station which falls on the way   back   to   village   Revli.   However,   police station Baroda, Gohana, Mohana, sonepat and Murthal falls on the way.” 11. It   could   thus   clearly   be   seen   from   the   evidence   of   the complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) that after seeing the dead­body of deceased Dalip Singh, they did not raise any alarm.  He has clearly   admitted   in   his   deposition   that   there   are   residential houses   on   one   side   of   the   house   of   accused/appellant­Ram Niwas.     He   further   admitted   that   they   reached   their   village Bhawar at around 9.00 a.m.  They waited till 2.30/3.00 p.m. to inform the Police.  He has further admitted that between village Rewli and his village Bhawar, Police Station Baroda, Gohana, 13 Mohana, Sonepat, and Murthal are on the way.   They did not give intimation to any of these Police Stations either on their way to village Bhawar or while returning to Murthal.   12. The evidence of Bhim Singh (P.W.10) is to the similar effect. 13. Apart from the ocular testimony of the complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10), the only incriminating circumstance, on which the prosecution relies is the recovery of ‘ash’   and   ‘plastic   can’   on   the   memorandum   of   the accused/appellant­Ram Niwas under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.  14. It   could   clearly   be   seen   that   even   according   to   the complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10), after they saw the dead­body of the deceased Dalip Singh in paraal (paddy fodder), they did not inform anyone in the village.   No doubt that how a person responds to a situation is differ from a person to person.  However, the conduct of the said witnesses in not informing anybody in the village Rewli and thereafter going to their   village   Bhawar   in   the   morning,   returning   back   in   the 14 afternoon and not informing five Police Stations, which were in between village Bhawar and village Rewli cast a serious doubt with regard to the truthfulness of their version.   It is further difficult to believe the testimony of these witnesses that in the night, the deceased Dalip Singh was done to death, set on fire in a paraal (paddy fodder) and they did not come to know about the same till the accused/appellant­Ram Niwas told them about the same next morning.   In the evidence of these witnesses, it has clearly come out that there are houses surrounding the house of the   accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas.     The   prosecution   version appears improbable that such an incident took place in an area surrounded by houses.  The prosecution has also not examined any independent witness residing nearby so as to lend credence to the prosecution’s version.   15. The prosecution relies on the extra­judicial confession made by the accused/appellant­Ram Niwas to these witnesses. This 1 Court in the case of   , S. Arul Raja vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1 (2010) 8 SCC 233 15 after   considering   the   earlier   judgments   of   this   Court,   has observed thus: “ 48.  The   concept   of   an   extra­judicial confession   is   primarily   a   judicial   creation, and   must   be   used   with   restraint.   Such   a confession   must   be   used   only   in   limited circumstances,   and   should   also   be corroborated   by   way   of   abundant   caution. This   Court   in  Ram   Singh  v.  Sonia  [(2007)   3 SCC 1 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] has held that an extra­judicial confession while in police custody cannot be allowed. Moreover, when there is a case hanging on an extra­judicial confession,   corroborated   only   by circumstantial   evidence,   then   the   courts must treat the  same  with utmost caution. This   principle   has   been   affirmed   by   this Court   in  Ediga   Anamma  v.  State   of  [(1974) 4 SCC 443 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 479] A.P. and  State   of   Maharashtra  v.  Kondiba Tukaram Shirke  [(1976) 3 SCC 775 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 514] . It is significant to observe that A­1 has subsequently sought to retract this   statement   upon   his   arrival   in   Tamil Nadu.” 16. We therefore find that it will not be safe to base conviction solely on the basis of the alleged extra­judicial confession made by the appellant to these witnesses.   16 17. The   only   other   circumstance   on   which   the   prosecution relies   is   the   seizure   of   ‘ash’   kept   in   the   plastic   bag   on   the memorandum   of   the   accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.     Satish Kumar (P.W.11), the Investigating Officer (I.O.), in his deposition has clearly admitted that the disclosure statement made by the accused/appellant­ Ram Niwas was made in the lock­up of the police station.  He has further   admitted   that   though   independent   witnesses   were available, inasmuch as the Police Station is in the heart of the city, he had not called any independent witness as ‘Panch’ of the said memorandum.   As such, the reliance on the said seizure also is of no help to the prosecution case.   It is further to be noted that Dr. Sanjeev Malhotra (P.W.5), in his evidence, has admitted that it was difficult to recognize the face of the dead­ body.  From the postmortem, it is also not established that the death was homicidal.   The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence.  The 18. law   with   regard   to   conviction   on   the   basis   of   circumstantial 17 evidence has very well been crystalized in the judgment of this Court in the case of  Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of 2 , wherein this Court held thus: Maharashtra

2 (1984) 4 SCC 116 18

19

19. This Court has held that there has to be a chain of evidence so  complete   so   as   not   to   leave   any   reasonable   ground   for  a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and 20 must  show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.  It has been held that the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.  This Court has held   that   the   circumstances   should   exclude   every   possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.    It has been held that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ guilty before a Court can convict.  20. It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt.  An accused  cannot be  convicted  on  the  ground   of  suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.   21. In the present case, we find that the prosecution has utterly failed   to   establish   the   chain   of   events   which   can   be   said   to exclusively lead to the one and only conclusion, i.e., the guilt of the   accused.     In   that   view   of   the   matter,   we   find   that   the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge and that of the High Court are not sustainable.   21 22. The appeal is therefore allowed.  The judgment and order of th th conviction and sentence dated 11 /12   January 2005 of the learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat and the judgment and order of th the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 16 March 2009, dismissing the appeal of the accused/appellant­ Ram Niwas are quashed and set aside.  The accused/appellant­ Ram Niwas is acquitted of all the charges charged with. The bail bonds shall stand discharged.   Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.   23. …….........................J.        [B.R. GAVAI] ………………....…….........................J. [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA] NEW DELHI; AUGUST 11, 2022 22