Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7
PETITIONER:
RAM AVTAR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)
DATE OF JUDGMENT08/08/1985
BENCH:
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
BENCH:
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
VARADARAJAN, A. (J)
CITATION:
1985 AIR 1692 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 508
1985 SCC Supl. 410 1985 SCALE (2)285
CITATOR INFO :
F 1992 SC2045 (20)
ACT:
Indian Penal Code 1860 Section 302
Accused charged with killing wife by strangulation
Circumstantial evidence alone available appreciation of -
Court to take cumulative effect of entire evidence.
Criminal Trial
Circumstantial evidence - Chain of continuous
circumstances linked with one another - Necessity of
cumulative effect of entire evidence to be considered.
HEADNOTE:
The prosecution alleged that the appellant had killed
his wife by strangulation. The marriage of the appellant and
the deceased took place about a year before the date of
occurrence. After about six months of the marriage the
relations between the two spouses started becoming strained.
The accused neglected the deceased, abused her, teased her,
waxed her, and even beat her. All these were reported to the
relatives of both sides as result of which a panchayat had
to be called to bring the two parties together which also
was of no avail.
The Sessions Court after considering the evidence WAS of the
opinion that the prosecution case was not proved beyond
reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted the appellant of
the charges framed against him under Section 302 IPC.
The State filed an appeal before the High Court which
reversed the aforesaid decision and came to the conclusion
that the appellant had killed his wife by strangulation.
Dismissing this appellant’s Appeal to this Court
^
HELD: 1. The view taken by the High Court is correct
and there is no reason to interfere with the same. The trial
court has gone wrong, and has made a fundamentally wrong
approach. The
509
judgment of the trial court is not only legally erroneous
but A absolutely perverse. In view of the circumstances of
the case and the admissions of the witnesses, the case
against the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
This is not a case where two views are possible. [516 G,D-E]
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7
2. Circumstantial evidence must be complete and
conclusive before an accused can be convicted thereon. This,
however, does not mean that there is any particular or
special method of proof of circumstantial evidence. One
must, however, guard against the danger of not considering
circumstantial evidence in its proper perspective, e.g.
where there 18 a chain of circumstances linked up with one
another, it is not possible for the court to truncate and
break the chain of circumstances. In other words, where a
series of circumstances are dependent on one another they
should be read as one integrated whole and not considered
separately, otherwise the very concept of proof of
circumstantial evidence would be defeated. [510 G-511 A]
3. Where circumstantial evidence consists of a chain of
continuous circumstances linked up with one another, the
court has to take the cumulative effect of the entire
evidence before acquitting or convicting an accused. 1516 F]
In the instant case, the Sessions Judge had committed
an error. Instead of taking all the circumstance . together
which are undoubtedly circumstantial and closely linked up
with one another, he has completely misdirected himself by
separately dealing with each circumstance thereby making a
wrong approach while appreciating the circumstantial
evidence produced in the case. Some letters written by the
deceased show the callous and cruel nature of the accused
and his treatment. He appears to have been completely
indifferent. The deceased prayed to her parents for taking
her with them immediately. Despite the conduct of the
appellant, the parents-in-law of the deceased were very kind
to her, but the appellant was made of such a stern nature
that he would not listen to anybody. The recovery of certain
broken bangles and one pair of cufflinks show that during
the course of strangulation, the deceased put up stiff
resistance. The medical evidence also supports that the
deceased had died of manual strangulation. A number of
prosecution witnesses PWs 5,6,7,8 & 9 deposed that the
appellant had been ill-treating the deceased and their
relations were extremely strained, and that the relatives of
the two sides tried their best to bring harmony in the
relations of the accused and the deceased. Another
circumstance
510
of great importance is that after the incident, the accused
went to Muzaffar Nagar stayed in his sister’s house came
back the same evening, stayed in a Hotel under a false and
assumed name written in the hotel register in his own hand.
This shows the guilty conscience of the accused. another
intrinsic evidence which proves the case against the accused
consists of two letters(Ext. PW 12-A and B) written be the
deceased to her parents wherein the had requested her father
to take her away as her husband was ill-treating her. The
statement of the S.I., PW 18 reveals that from the personal
search of the accused, Rs.5.50 one ticket from Meerut to
Delhi were recovered and that the banian of the accused had
blood stains. [511 B,G, 515 A,C-D, 516 A-B]
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.106
of 1980.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.1.1980 of the Delhi
High Court in Crl. A. No. 137 of 1978.
Ms. Neeraja Mehra and I.K. Wadera for the Appellants.
Anil Dev Singh, R.N. Poddar and G.D. Gupta for the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7
Respondent .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
FAZAL ALI, J. The appellant in this case was convicted
under s. 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life by
the High Court. m e case depends purely on circumstantial
evidence and the trial court after considering the evidence
was of the opinion that the prosecution case was not proved
beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted the
appellant of the charges framed against him. The State filed
an appeal before the High Court which reversed the decision
of the trial court and came to the conclusion that the
appellant had killed his wife by strangulation. Hence, this
appeal before this Court under s. 379 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. 1973.
At the very outset we might mention that circumstantial
evidence must be complete and conclusive before an accused
can be convicted thereon. This, however, does not mean that
there is any particular or special method of proof of
circumstantial evidence. We must, however, guard against the
danger of not considering
circumstantial evidence in its proper perspective, e.g.,
where there is a chain of circumstances linked up with one
another, lt
511
is not possible for the court to truncate and break the
chain of circumstances. In other words where a series of
circumstances are dependent on one another they should be
read as one integrated whole and not considered separately,
otherwise the very concept of proof of circumstantial
evidence would be defeated. The learned Sessions Judge seems
to have fallen into this very error. In the instant case,
instead of taking all the circumstances together, which are
undoubtedly circumstantial and closely linked up with one
another, the learned Sessions Judge has completely
misdirected himself by separately dealing with each
circumstance thereby making a wrong approach while
appreciating the circumstantial evidence produced in the
case.
Let us now recount the circumstances relied upon by the
appellant by giving first a brief summary of the same. The
marriage of the accused and the deceased took place on
December 6, 1975, i.e., hardly a year before the date of the
occurrence. After about six months of the marriage, the
relations between the two spouses started becoming strained.
The evidence clearly shows that the accused neglected the
deceased, abused her, teased her, waxed her and even beat
her. All these things were reported to the relatives of both
sides as a result of which a panchayat had to be called to
bring the two parties together which also was of no avail.
There is further evidence to show that on the night of the
occurrence, i.e., between the night of 16th and 17th
November 1976, the accused was last seen by some of the
witnesses whose evidence we shall refer hereafter. Secondly,
it is also proved that the accused left his house in the
morning of 17th November 1976 and went to Muzaffar Nagar and
stayed at his sister’s house there and came back to Delhi in
the evening of 17th November 1976 but instead of staying in
his own house he stayed in Venus Hotel in Paharganj in Delhi
under a false and assumed name of Vinod Kumar which,
according to the evidence, was written by him while making
the entries in the Hotel register.
Furthermore, it appears that there are some letters
written by the deceased which show the callous and cruel
nature of the accused and his treatment towards her. He
appears to have been completely indifferent towards her and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7
the deceased prayed to her parents for taking her with them
immediately. It is true that despite the conduct of the
appellant, the parents-in-law of the deceased were very kind
to her and tried their best to save the situation but the
appellant was made of such a stern stuff and stubborn nature
that he would not listen to anyone.
512
Moreover, the evidence further shows that certain
broken bangles and one pair of cufflinks were recovered from
the room where the deceased was strangulated. The medical
evidence also supports that the deceased had died of manual
strangulation. There are some other circumstances which show
the role played by the accused and if we take the
circumstances together the irresistible inference is that
the prosecution has completely proved its case.
We might observe there that the circumstances which
have been narrated above are so interlinked in the chain of
circumstantial evidence that lt is difficult to truncate
them and the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have
rejected the circumstances one by one and then acquit the
accused. It is here that the learned Sessions Judge has
committed a serious error of law. If we read the evidence as
an integral whole, the inescapable conclusion is that
excepting the appellant nobody else could have committed the
murder.
With this preface, we now proceed to deal with the
chain of circumstances relied upon by the High Court in
reversing the judgment of the trial court and convicting the
accused. To begin with, as we have said, within one year of
her marriage the deceased died during the night of 16th and
17th November 1976. A number of prosecution witnesses (PWs
5,6,7,8 and 9) whose evidence has been fully considered by
the High Court deposed that the appellant had been ill-
treating the deceased and their relations were extremely
strained. This is buttressed by the further circumstance
that a panchayat had been called to resolve the differences
between the two spouses. In this connection, the prosecution
witnesses have spoken thus:-
The accused had always been maltreating Madhu and
used to say that he will not like to keep Madhu
with him. After about 6 months of the marriage a
Panchayat was held in Bakhtamal Dharamshala, Delhi
for bringing about conciliation. Before the
panchayat the father of the accused had assured
that he will ask the accused to behave better. But
there was no change in the attitude of the accused
towards the deceased and the accused was bent upon
leaving the girl."
(PW 5, Ramesh Chand)
About 5 or six months prior to the murder of
Madhu, her father had complained to me that the
accused used
513
to beat her and wanted to leave her. After 2 or 3
days A of that, a panchayat was held in Bagtamal
Dharamshala, Kucha Pati Ram........ Before the
Panchayat, father of the accused had assured that
he will make him under stand and see that the
accused behaved properly in future with Madhu.
(PW 6, Ram Kishan Dalaya)
Accused used to beat Madhu and we were receiving
many complaints in this respect. Myself, Ramesh
Chand, Ganga Prasad and Madan Lal had been coming
to Delhi and requesting the accused not to do so.
However, the behaviour of the accused towards
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7
Madhu did not change.
(PW 7, Chhanu Lal)
She was married to Ram Avtar(accused) present in
the court. Madan Lal had started saying after
about 20 or 25 days after the marriage that the
deceased was being beaten and ill-treated by the
accused..... A panchayat was organised. Radhey Lal
was also called and he attended the panchayat.
( PW 8, Ram Pal Singh)
There were strained relations between them for a
long time.
(PW 9, Gulab Chand)
Right from the beginning, accused had been ill-
treating my daughter. She had been writing letters
to me from which I had come to know that she was
not happy and so I came to Delhi...I beseeched the
accused and with folded hands requested him to
behave better with my daughter in the presence of
his father. Both of them had assured that nothing
will happen in future.
(PW 12, Madan Lal)
I had gone to attend its conference at Lucknow
from G 5th to 7th Oct. 1976. There, Chhanu Lal,
elder brother of Madan Lal had complained to me
that Ram Avtar accused was ill-treating Madhu and
that I should look into this matter....Then I told
him that in that case Chhanu Lal would not have
complained to me. Then he assured me that he will
ask the accused to behave properly and there will
be no complaint in future.
(PW 13, Sohan Lal Verma)
514
The above extracts from the evidence of various
prosecution witnesses show that the relatives of the two
sides tried their best to bring harmony in the relations of
the accused and the deceased and the father of the accused
had been promised that his son will behave in future in a
proper manner. One outstanding feature of this case is that
while the deceased was fully satisfied with the treatment
received by her from her parents-in-law, yet so adamant was
the accused that he would hardly listen or pay any heed to
the advice of his parents.
Another circumstance which almost conclusively proves
the case of the prosecution is the evidence of PW 1, Shri
Krishan Avtar, according to which, the accused was seen by
him on the fateful night between 9 or 9.30 p.m. in his house
and in this connection he says thus:
When I returned at about 9 or 9.30 p.m. I saw the
accused in his house. He was alone in the house at
that time. The room of the accused is situated on
the ground floor while mine is situated on the
first floor...... When I saw him he was coming
down stairs from the first floor and entered his
room on the ground floor................... Then I
entered the room of the accused where he and his
wife used to sleep together and saw the dead body
of Madhu."
PW 1 further testifies to the articles found from the
scene of occurrence
"Ex.P8 is the pair of cufflink....Ex.P-14 are the
broken pieces of bangles collected from the floor
of the room. F
PW 2, Nathi Lal, another independent witness, says that
at about 12.30 in the night while he was coming from Lal
Darwaza to his house, he saw the accused passing that side
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7
and the accused told him that he had told the chowkidar that
he (appellant) was going away and the door of his house was
open. Another witness (PW 3) though declared hostile, yet so
far as the relations between the spouses are concerned,
categorically states that the relations between the spouses
were extremely strained.
Another circumstance which is of great importance and
which seems to have been ignored by the learned Sessions
Judge is that after returning from Muzaffar Nagar in the
evening of 17th November 1976, the accused instead of
staying in his house, stayed in
515
Venus Hotel in Paharganj, New Delhi under a false and
assumed name of Vinod Kumar and made the entries in the
Hotel register in his own hand. m is shows the guilty
conscience of the accused. This is proved by Ex.PW 14/A
where it has been stated thus:
The aforesaid register contains one entry against
serial No.518 dated 18.11.76 recorded at 1.00 a.m.
relating to Vinod Kumar, Indian 23/3, Sarafa
Bazar, Muzaffar Nagar, for business Muzaffar
Nagar, stated to have been made and initialled by
accused Ram Avtar S/o Radhey Lal, r/o 2721,
Chhatta Girdhar Lal, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita
Ram, Delhi.
Another intrinsic evidence which proves the case
against the accused consists of two letters (Ext.PW-12A and
12B) written by the deceased to her parents wherein she had
requested her father to take her away as her husband was
ill-treating her. In these letters she had written thus:
You (father) take me away from here....... (He) is
not on speaking terms with me.
(Ext. PW 12A)
There is always a quarrel in the house about me.
Papa and Mummy have been trying to make him
understand. (He) does not eat and drink anything
from my hand and even does not speak to me.
Whenever, I come across him, he scolds me. Today,
he gave me beating and was about to turn me out of
the house but Mummy and Pappa pacified him..... He
further said ’I do not want to see the face of
this mean girl. Furthermore that whatever
Khurjawallas have done in my interest is good
(Taunt). He says that when I become a widow then
at least they (parents) will come to take me
away....... He says that even if God comes, he
will not agree and will not keep me with him at
any cost..... You treat this letter as a telegram
and please reach here immediately. I keep weeping
here day and night and Mummy also continuous
weeping. He would not keep me with him at any cost
and I also do not want to live here any
more......... I am weeping while writing this
letter. Dear Pappa, please come as early as
possible.
(Ex. PW 12-B)
In addition to Ext. PW 12-A and 12-B, one more letter
was found from the house where the murder took place but
which she could not post.
516
In his statement PW 18, Kanshi Ram, S.I., stated that
from the personal search of the accused, Rs. 5.50 one
ticket from Meerut to Delhi were recovered and the accused
was also made to put off his shirt and banian, and that he
(PW 18) took into police custody the banian of the accused
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7
which had blood stains on the front side.
The last piece of evidence which is also important and
which has been completely glossed over by the trial court is
the recovery of broken bangles and a pair of cufflinks which
show that during the course of strangulation the deceased
must have put in stiff resistance.
In view of the circumstances discussed above, it cannot
be said that the case against the accused has not been
proved. It is not possible for us to consider the various
chains of circumstances, mentioned above, in isolation by
divorcing them from the other circumstances which are
closely interlinked with them. This is where the trial court
has gone wrong and has made a fundamentally wrong approach.
Having regard to the circumstances mentioned above, we are
clearly of the opinion that the judgment of the trial court
is not only legally erroneous but also absolutely perverse.
In view of the circumstances and the admissions of the
witnesses extracted, the case against the accused is proved
beyond reasonable doubt and this is not a case where two
views are reasonably Possible.
Before concluding we might observe that where
circumstantial evidence consists of a chain of continuous
circumstances linked up with one another, the court has to
take the cumulative effect of the entire evidence led by the
prosecution before acquitting or convicting an accused.
For the reasons given above, we find ourselves in
complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court and
we see no reason to interfere with the same. The appeal is
accordingly dismissed. In case the appellant is on bail, he
shall now surrender and be taken into custody and sent to
prison to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.
N.V.K. Appeal dismissed.
517