Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 433 OF 2015
(Arising out of SLP(Crl) No. 4387 OF 2012)
Daulat Ram @ Daulti ... Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana … Respondent
J U D G M E N T
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J .
Heard.
2. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated
6.02.2012, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in
Criminal Appeal No. 546-DB of 2010 whereby the appeal is
dismissed and the conviction and sentence against the appellant
Daulat Ram @ Daulti under Section 302 read with Section 34
and one under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), recorded
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Chetan Kumar
Date: 2015.03.18
15:46:47 IST
Reason:
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, in Sessions Case
No. RBT No. 38 of 2008/2009 is affirmed.
Page No.2 of 11
3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 10.1.2002 PW-1
Himmat Singh approached PW-20, Inspector Amrik Singh of
Police Station Chhainsa and informed him that his elder son Zile
Singh @ Prem Chand (deceased), was missing. The informant
further told to the above officer that Zile Singh had gone on
9.1.2002 on the request of the appellant Daulat Ram, with him.
He further told that PW-2 Mangal Singh, disclosed him that in
the previous night the deceased was seen having liquor with
appellant Daulat Ram, Devanand (son of Mishri Lal), Mahesh @
Bachhu (son of Ramji Lal) and Om Prakash @ Omi (son of
Rewati Parshad) in fodder room (of Omi). The informant (PW-1)
further told the police that when by about 5.00 a.m. on
10.1.2002, Zile Singh did not come back to his home, he
(informant) along with his another son Manoj Kumar went to
fodder room of Omi where they spotted blood stains, and started
searching for the deceased here and there. PW-9, Jugal Kishore,
told him (PW-1) that he had seen appellant Daulat Ram,
Devanand, Mahesh and Om Prakash throwing a dead body into
a dry well near the tubewell. Thereafter, accompanied by PW-9,
Jugal Kishore, Himmat Singh, PW-11, Brahm Dutt, proceeded
towards the tubewell. From the battlement (Munder) they
Page No.3 of 11
peeped into the well and noticed a dead body lying there.
PW-11, Brahm Dutt, got down into the well and saw that the
dead body was that of Zile Singh @ Prem Chand, which was tied
with a blanket. The informant alleged that appellant Daulat
Ram and co-accused Om Prakash, Mahesh and Devanand had
killed Zile Singh after making him drunk.
4. On the basis of above report, FIR (Ex PB) was registered
against all the four accused, namely, Mahesh @ Bachhu, Om
Prakash @ Omi, Devanand and Daulat Ram @ Daulti, at Police
Station Chhainsa, and crime was investigated by PW-20
Inspector Amrik Singh. The dead body of Zile Singh was taken
into possession by the police, sealed and sent for post mortem
examination. PW-13, Dr. P.S. Yadav, conducted post mortem on
10.1.2002 with his team of doctors, namely, Dr. S.K. Mittal and
Dr. Harsh Piplani. The team of medical officers recorded four
ante/post mortem injuries (one ante and three post mortem),
and opined that the deceased has died of shock and hemorrhage
as a result of injury No. 1 sustained due to fire arm. After
interrogating the witnesses and inspecting the spot, charge sheet
was filed against three accused namely, Mahesh @ Bachhu, Om
Prakash @ Omi and Devanand, who were arrested. As against
Page No.4 of 11
appellant Daulat Ram, who could be arrested only in the year
2008, subsequent report/charge sheet was filed under Section
173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. After separate committal of the case of Daulat Ram @
Daulti (appellant), charge was framed against him in respect of
offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and
Section 201 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried.
6. On this, prosecution examined PW-1 Himmat Singh
(informant), PW-2 Mangal Singh, PW-3 A.S.I. Sher Singh, PW-4
Constable Sukhender Singh, PW-5 Shiv Lal, PW-6 A.S.I. Jai Lal,
PW-7 Yashwant Singh (Patwari Halqa), PW-8 Rajbir, PW-9 Jugal
Kishore, PW-10 Bhagwat Dayal, PW-11 Brahm Dutt, PW-12
Narottam (photographer), PW-13 Dr. P.S. Yadav (who conducted
autopsy), PW-14 Inspector Prem Singh, PW-15 HC Sarjeet Singh,
PW-16 HC Suresh Kumar, PW-17 A.S.I. Sukhbir Singh, PW-18
S.I. Raghubir Singh, PW-19 Constable Randhir Singh and
PW-20 Amrik Singh (who investigated the crime).
7. The oral and documentary evidence was put to the
appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
on 18.2.2010, to which he pleaded that the same is incorrect.
Page No.5 of 11
8. After hearing the parties, the trial court (Additional
Sessions Judge, Faridabad), on 20.4.2010, found accused
Daulat Ram (appellant) guilty of charge of offences punishable
under Section 302 read with Section 34 and under Section 201
IPC. After hearing on sentence, on 21.4.2010, the convict was
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and directed to pay a
fine of Rs.25,000/- under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
He was further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five
years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under section 201 IPC. In
default of payment of fine of Rs.25,000/- the convict was
directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two
years, while in default of payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- he was
directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one
year.
9. It is pertinent to mention here that co-accused Mahesh,
Devanand and Om Prakash @ Omi had already been convicted
by the trial court, vide its judgment and order dated
29/31.7.2006 in SC No. 25 of 2002/06.
10. Both sets of convicts filed appeals before the High Court.
Criminal Appeal No. 568-DB of 2006 was filed by accused
Mahesh @ Bachhu, Om Prakash @ Omi and Devanand and
Page No.6 of 11
Criminal Appeal No. 546-DB of 2010 was filed by convict Daulat
Ram @ Daulti. Both the appeals were clubbed and heard
together and decided by common judgment dated 6.2.2012.
Appeal of accused Mahesh, Om Prakash and Devanand was
partly allowed and they were acquitted by the High Court from
the charge of offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC but
their conviction and sentence under Section 201 IPC was not
interfered with. However, the appeal of convict Daulat Ram was
dismissed upholding his conviction and sentences awarded to
him on both the counts. Hence, this appeal by Daulat Ram @
Daulti.
11. Before further discussion, we think it just and proper to
reproduce the ante/post mortem injuries found on the dead
body of Zile Singh (deceased) by PW-13 Dr. P.S. Yadav and his
team mates. The same are reproduced as under: -
“1. A lacerated wound of 3 x 2.5 cm on left side of
the face with the incised margins and blackening
just around the wound. On probing wound was
going downwards and posteriorily and in the
opposite direction. On further examination of
the wound, there was a fluid like feeling and
feeling of clotting of multiple bones of head
pieces. However, the wound was not
communicated exteriorly on the opposite side
with head and neck.
Page No.7 of 11
2. The face and skull of left side was depressed and
on examination and dissection it was just like
bag of bones and there was fracture of skull
bone with posterior cranial fossa.
3. A parchment of like appearance of the skin over
the interior chest wall, the upper part of
abdomen on both sides with some deficiency in
the epigestric region.
4. The chest wall on left side on dissection was
rd
found depressed and there was fracture of 3 to
th
7 rib. At this stage, x-ray of the skull was got
done (No. 247 dated 10.1.2002), which was
taken in custody by the Board members and
signed. The x-ray skull reveals the multiple
radio opaque shadow of 1 millimeter in size and
round in shape with multiple fractures of skull
bone. On dissection of other part of body,
namely, intestine, liver, spleen, kidneys was
found to be normal.”
The autopsy report shows that Zile Singh had died of shock and
hemorrhage, as a result of injury No. 1 (i.e. ante mortem) caused
by fire arm. Rest of the injuries were post mortem injuries in
nature.
12. As such, there is no doubt that it is established on the
record that Zile Singh had died homicidal death. Now, this
Court has to see whether the courts below have rightly found or
not that appellant Daulat Ram has committed murder of Zile
Singh and in order to cause disappearance of evidence threw the
dead body into the well from where it is said to have been
Page No.8 of 11
recovered. As to the commission of murder, it is a case of
circumstantial evidence.
13. PW-1, Himmat Singh, who is father of Zile Singh
(deceased), is the informant. He has supported the prosecution
case and proved the fact that his son went missing from the
evening of 9.1.2002. He also stated that he lodged First
Information Report. He further proved the fact that the dead
body of his son (deceased) was recovered on 10.1.2002 from the
dry well.
14. PW-2, Mangal, has proved the fact that he had seen
appellant Daulat Ram consuming liquor with the deceased (Zile
Singh) and the three co-accused, namely, Mahesh, Om Prakash
and Devanand. He further stated that he informed about the
above last seen evidence to his brother Himmat Singh. In his
cross-examination, he has admitted that he was at the place of
his duty between 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. It has also come on the
record that the distance between his village Junhera and his
place of work is about 10-12 Kms, which he used to cover in
one-two hours. He further disclosed that the fodder room,
where the appellant was said to have been consuming liquor
with co-accused and the deceased, was at a distance of 6-7 feet
Page No.9 of 11
from the road. When asked about the source of light in which
he identified the appellant and other co-accused, he told that
there was light of fire. But evidence of this witness, who is
brother of informant, does not inspire confidence nor appears to
be natural or trust worthy.
15. PW-9, Jugal Kishore, who is another witness of fact, is also
brother of informant Himmat Singh (PW-1), who has stated that
from behind a bush he saw appellant Daulat Ram and other
three accused dragging some dead body and throwing the same
into the well in early hours of 10.1.2002. In his
cross-examination, this witness states that he came to know
that Zile Singh was missing only at 9.00 a.m. on 10.1.2002.
What is not sufficiently explained in his statement is that if he
actually saw that some dead body was being dragged and
thrown into the well, why he remained silent in the village till he
came to know that Zile Singh was missing. The act of throwing
the dead body into the well is such an incident, which a person
who had witnessed it, would immediately disclose in the village.
Evidence of this witness, who is also relative of the informant,
does not appear to be trust worthy as his presence near tube
well cannot be said to be natural.
Page No.10 of 11
16. Next witness of fact is PW-11, Brahm Dutt, nephew of PW-1
Himmat Singh, who has attempted to corroborate that Jugal
Kishore told Himmat Singh about the fact that he had seen
dragging of the dead body by four persons. Had the incident
been taken inside the house or courtyard, it could have been
said that only the relatives living in the house or the next door
neighbours had the opportunity to see the incident. But in the
present case, the reasonable doubt crops up as to why in respect
of an incident far away from the house of the informant, only
informant and his relatives could see it.
17. No doubt, Zile Singh appears to have been brutally
murdered and his dead body was found in the well, but as to the
role of the appellant Daulat Ram, in our opinion, in the above
facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that complete chain
of circumstances is proved to hold him guilty of commission of
murder of Zile Singh or as to the fact that he caused
disappearance of evidence by throwing the dead body of Zile
Singh into the well. There is nothing on record to suggest that
appellant had any enmity with the deceased or that he had any
motive to commit the crime. No doubt, motive is not required to
be proved for commission of a crime but in a case of
Page No.11 of 11
circumstantial evidence, it cannot be altogether ignored where
the other accused with similar role have been acquitted, from
the charges of murder.
18. The other witnesses got examined on behalf of the
prosecution have given evidence of formal nature which is not
incriminatory against the appellant.
19. For the reasons, as discussed above, we are of the view that
the chain of circumstances brought on record is not complete to
prove charge of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201
IPC against appellant Daulat Ram @ Daulti, as such, the
conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below against
him is liable to be set aside.
20. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and
sentence recorded against accused Daulat Ram under Sections
302 and 201 IPC, is set aside. He is acquitted of the charge.
He shall be set at liberty, if not required in connection with any
other crime.
………………….....…………J.
[Dipak Misra]
.………………….……………J.
[Prafulla C. Pant]
New Delhi;
March 17, 2015
Page No.12 of 11
ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.5 SECTION IIB
(For Judgment)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No.433 of 2015
DAULAT RAM @ DAULATI Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s)
Date : 17/03/2015 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of
Judgment today.
For Appellant(s) Mr. S.C. Paul, Adv.
Ms. Roopa Paul, Adv.
Mr. Resham Singh, Adv.
Mr. Satyendra Kumar, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Amit Kumar, AAG
Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, AOR
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant, pronounced the
judgment of the Bench, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak
Misra and His Lordship.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed
reportable judgment.
(Chetan Kumar)
(H.S. Parashar)
Court Master
Court Master
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)