Sunder Singh Vs.
State of Uttaranchal  INSC 749 (16 September 2010)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1164 OF 2005
Sunder Singh ... Appellant Versus State of Uttaranchal ... Respondent
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.
herein challenges the judgment of the High Court affirming the judgment passed
by the Sessions Court.
The Sessions Judge
convicted the appellant/accused Sunder Singh for offences under Sections 302,
307 and 436, Indian Penal Code (IPC). While he was awarded the death sentence
along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to suffer further rigorous
imprisonment for one year, he was given the punishment of seven years along
with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment
for one year separately on the other two counts.
incident in this case had taken place on 30.6.1989 in village Mahargheti,
Patwari Circle Dangoli in the newly formed District Bageshwar (which was part
of District Almora 2 at the time of incident). In this ghastly incident,
Pratap Singh, his wife Nandi Devi, his elder son Balwant Singh (aged about 28
years), another son Prem Singh (aged about 19 years), daughter Kamla (aged
about 16 years) lost their lives while wife of Balwant Singh, namely, Vimla
Devi (PW-1) sustained grievous burn injuries. Five victims who lost their lives
including Balwant Singh were roasted alive and died either on the spot or while
being taken to the hospital or in the hospital. Balwant Singh, however, was
almost beheaded while he also suffered the burn injuries. The prosecution alleged
that this incident took place at about 10 p.m. when all the victims were taking
their dinner in the ground floor room of their house. The appellant/accused
came there with jerry can containing petrol and burning torch and threw the
petrol in the room and after setting fire by torch, he shut the door of the
room. Though Balwant Singh was in flames he managed to come out of the room by
opening the door. However, as soon as he came out of the room, the accused who
was still waiting there gave him a sword blow on the neck because of which he
fell down dead out side the house. The other five family members who sustained
severe burns also died barring Vimla Devi who alone survived. Nandi Devi died
on the way to the Primary Health Centre at Baijnath while Pratap Singh also
died there 3 itself. Kamla and Prem Singh died in the District hospital,
Almora later on, where they were shifted from Baijnath.
Kheem Singh (PW-2) prepared a written report and handed over to the Circle
Patwari, Hyat Singh (PW-13).
In fact Hyat Singh
(PW-13) came almost immediately after the incident and so did the other
witnesses like Chanar Singh (PW-3) and Rewadhar (PW-4). At the time when they
reached the spot almost simultaneously, Pratap Singh was alive, who told these
witnesses that accused Sunder Singh had burned them by throwing petrol from
jerry can and by torching the house thereafter. Even Vimla Devi (PW-1), the
wife of Balwant Singh told Hyat Singh (PW-13) about the incident and also about
the attack on Balwant Singh by the accused. Hyat Singh (PW-13) started the
investigation. He inspected the burnt house and the spot where Balwant Singh's
body was lying. He found that Balwant Singh was dead and had suffered a serious
injury on his neck. The other injured barring Balwant Singh were sent first to
the Primary Health Centre, Baijnath. Nandi Devi, however, died even before
reaching the Primary Health Centre, Baijnath, while Pratap Singh is said to
have died after reaching the Health Centre.
Dr. K.C. Joshi
(PW-12) examined Vimla Devi (PW-1) and noted the injuries suffered by her, so
also Kamla and Prem Singh 4 were examined by him, and he noted their injuries
in the medical certificates (Exhibits Ka-9, Ka-10 and Ka-11).
injured were sent to District Hospital, Almora in view of the seriousness of
their injuries. When the three injured were at District Hospital, Almora, the
dying declarations of Prem Singh and Vimla Devi (PW-1) were recorded on
1.7.1989 by Narender Singh Patel (PW-9), Sub- Divisional Magistrate,
Baramandal, District Almora. Before this, Hyat Singh (PW-13) had completed his
inspection of all the spots and had attached burnt radio, damaged plastic
gallons, burnt breads and cut pieces of can from the scene of offence. He also
found a cover of the sword (described as `Khol') and also a pistol which had
two bullets in it.
He also held the
inquest on the dead body of Balwant Singh and thereafter on the body of Pratap
Singh and Nandi Devi.
These bodies were
sent for post mortem. In the District Hospital, Almora, Prem Singh died on
1.7.1989 itself while Kamla died later on after the treatment. Vimla Devi
(PW-1), however, miraculously survived. The inquests and the post mortem on the
dead bodies of Kamla and Prem Singh were also conducted later on by the
doctors. All the five dead bodies had suffered extensive burn injuries, almost
to the extent of 70% or 80%. Vimla Devi (PW-1), however, miraculously escaped
and survived, though she had also suffered 70% of 5 the burn injuries. After
the preliminary investigation was completed by Hyat Singh (PW-13), the same was
entrusted to C.B.C.I.D. and Inspector K.R. Tamta (PW-14), who completed the
remaining formalities of the investigation. The accused was absconding. He was
found only in July, 2002 after a lapse of 12 years. It was then that the matter
was committed to Sessions on the basis of the chargesheet already filed.
chargesheet was for the offences under Sections 302, 307 and 436, IPC. The
Sessions Judge framed charges.
were examined in support of the charges including Vimla Devi (PW-1) who was the
injured eye witness.
Kheem Singh (PW-2),
who was the author of the First Information Report (FIR), was examined to prove
Chanar Singh (PW-3)
and Rewadhar (PW-4) were the witnesses who reached the spot almost immediately
after the incident.
They were examined as
the panch witnesses. Dan Singh (PW-5) also acted as a panch on the inquest, so
also Daya Krishna (PW-7) and Ramesh Singh Rotella (PW-8) were examined to prove
the inquest panchnamas on the dead bodies. Narender Singh Patel (PW-9),
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Baramandal, District Almora was examined to prove
the dying declarations of Vimla Devi (PW-1) and Prem Singh, which was recorded
by 6 him on 1.7.1989. Dr. N.D. Punetha (PW-6), Dr. H.G.S. Manral (PW-10) and
Dr. Nanda Vallabh Sharma (PW-11) were the doctors conducting the post mortem,
while Dr. K.C. Joshi (PW-12) was the doctor who had examined Vimla Devi (PW-1)
and Prem Singh and had issued medical certificates to them.
Hyat Singh (PW-13),
the investigating Patwari and Inspector K.R. Tamta (PW-14) were examined as the
accused abjured his guilt. He raised the defence of false implication on
account of the enmity due to land.
Sessions Judge came to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence of Vimla
Devi (PW-1) and the dying declaration of Prem Singh and the other substantive
evidence that it was accused Sunder Singh who had torched the ground floor room
on the fateful day resulting in the victims being roasted alive. It was also
held that the prosecution had proved that the accused had dealt a sword blow on
Balwant Singh almost beheading him and on that count proceeded to convict the
accused and awarded the sentences which have already been mentioned.
the death sentence was ordered there was a death reference made in the High
Court. The accused also filed an appeal challenging his conviction. The High
Court came to 7 the conclusion that the Sessions Judge was right in convicting
the accused. The High Court also endorsed the opinion of the Sessions Judge
that this was a rarest of rare case and, therefore, affirmed the death sentence
awarded to the accused by the Sessions Judge. The judgment affirmed by the High
Court has now fallen for our consideration.
Y.P. Singh who was appointed as Amicus Curiae urged before us that it could not
be said that it was the accused who was the perpetrator of this crime.
According to the learned Counsel, the prosecution was not able to prove the
guilt. He contended that the evidence of Vimla Devi (PW-1) could not be
accepted as there were inherent pitfalls in her evidence. Firstly, she was an
interested witness and secondly, her ability to see at night at 10 O'clock was suspect.
We have been taken through the whole evidence to show that there were
contradictions and material omissions in her evidence. The learned Counsel
further argued that the so-called dying declaration by Prem Singh was also a
suspect document and was not creditworthy. He pointed out that the said dying
declaration of Prem Singh did not have the endorsement of the doctor about Prem
Singh being in fit condition to make a dying declaration.
learned Counsel suggested that this could not be said to be a rarest of rare
case and the High Court has erred in affirming the death sentence.
against this, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State supported
the judgment and contended that the evidence of Vimla Devi (PW-1) was extremely
important and credible and she was herself an injured witness. He pointed out
that being a relative and having lost her near and dear ones she is not likely
to screen the real offender. She had all the opportunity to see and since the
accused was the real uncle of her husband, there was no question of any
mis-identity also. He pointed out that the evidence is extremely natural and
she had not tried to rope in other persons. It was further pointed out that
there was nothing to suspect the dying declaration of Prem Singh. As regards
the absence of the endorsement of the doctor, the learned Counsel suggested
that it cannot be forgotten that the said dying declaration is recorded by an
independent witness. He also pointed out that the victim was fully conscious
and had survived after the dying declaration for substantial time which would
suggest that he was completely conscious at the time when the dying declaration
was recorded. It was further argued by the learned Counsel that 9 this was the
most dastardly act on the part of the accused that he not only set the house to
fire but also closed the door thereby he displayed his foul intention to
eliminate the whole family and he was successful in eliminating the whole
family. Learned Counsel pointed out that two of the victims were extremely
young being 16 years and 19 years old and had not even seen their lives. The
learned Counsel brought to our notice the fact that the accused remained
absconding for 12 long years. His being remaining absconding for 12 years was
also a clear cut circumstance against him. According to the learned Counsel,
therefore, this was a rarest of rare case.
has to be borne in mind in this case that there is no scope of a mistaken
identity for the simple reason that the accused was the real brother of Pratap
Singh. Again, because the house was set to fire there was ample light available
for identifying the accused.
prosecution basically relied on the evidence of Smt. Vimla Devi (PW-1) whose
evidence was examined by us very closely. She is a natural witness and there
can be no dispute about her presence on the spot. She is also an injured
witness as she has herself suffered 70% burns. She was very fortunate to survive.
Learned counsel criticized 10 the evidence by saying that she had obviously
deposed in an unnatural manner by claiming that the accused was carrying three
Jerry cans, opened them one by one and poured petrol.
It was also pointed
out that initially in her statement which was recorded as dying declaration,
she had suggested that the room was set to fire by a match stick. In her cross
examination, however, she refuted that claim. A fantastic theory was introduced
in her cross-examination that her husband died because he dashed against sharp
overall evidence which has been accepted by the Trial Court and the High Court,
we are of the clear opinion that this witness is reliable and the Courts below
committed no error in accepting the evidence of Vimla Devi (PW-1). It cannot be
forgotten that the witness has identified the jerry cans, the sword etc. which
were lying in her courtyard. There were undoubtedly some contradictions and
omissions in her evidence and the dying declaration but in our opinion they
were not substantial enough so as to affect the credibility of her evidence.
She undoubtedly suggested in her Examination-in-Chief that the accused was
carrying jerry cans. She has referred `jerry cans' in plurals- "Uske hath
me petrol va diesel k jerry can thhe".
She then identified
the three jerry cans when the three jerry cans, which were attached, were
produced in the Court.
She also identified
the cover of the sword and also the pistol which was left behind and was found
by Hyat Singh (PW-13). She has then identified all the other material objects
like radio etc. In her Cross-Examination, she again asserted that the accused
had three jerry cans, which she described as gallons. She then described that
the caps of these jerry cans were cut. She could not, however, tell as to the
capacity of the said jerry cans nor could she speak about their colour. She
accepted the suggestion that the accused first threw the petrol from one jerry
can and then from the second and the other. She then asserted that they were
not set to fire with the match box on which she was contradicted with her
previous statement, wherein she had suggested that the accused had set fire by
the match stick.
This was, by far, the
only contradiction which was brought in her Cross-Examination.
strangely, a suggestion was put to her that since the accused threw the petrol
from three jerry cans one after the other, they could run out and catch the
accused. In her further Cross-Examination, however, she admitted that her
statement was properly recorded by Narender Singh Patel (PW- 9), Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Baramandal, District Almora.
She also admitted
that she had stated in her dying 12 declaration that there was one jerry can.
In our opinion, the witness, in her dying declaration dated 1.7.1989, mentioned
about one jerry can as she had seen the accused throwing the petrol from one
jerry can. Very strangely, this contradiction was not got proved from Narender
Singh Patel (PW-9), Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Baramandal, District Almora nor
was it put to him. Unless a contradiction is proved by putting it to the person
who records the original statement, such contradiction is of no consequence.
The only Cross-Examination of Narender Singh Patel (PW-9), Sub-Divisional
Magistrate was to the effect that there was no certification on the dying
declarations to the effect that both the witnesses were in fit condition to
give the statement. When we see again the evidence of Vimla Devi (PW-1), even
she was not specifically questioned about her previous statement nor was she
given an opportunity to explain as to why she had made the statement in her
evidence that there were three jerry cans as in her statement in dying
declaration that there was one jerry can. Unless the witness is specifically
given an opportunity to explain such contradiction, it cannot be taken note of.
The very purpose of putting the contradiction to the witness is to give an
opportunity to him/her to explain a contradictory statement, if any. There can
be no dispute that when a witness making
13 a dying
declaration survives, the said dying declaration does not remain substantive
evidence. However, as held in Ramprasad v. State of Maharashtra [1999 (5) SCC
30] when such dying declaration has been recorded by a Magistrate then it can
be used as a corroboration to the oral evidence of such witness. This Court in
the aforementioned decision of Ram Prasad (cited supra) specifically held that
where such statement is recorded by a Police Officer, its user is barred under
Section 162 Cr.P.C. However, where it is recorded by a Magistrate under Section
164, Cr.P.C. it becomes usable to corroborate the witness as proved under
Section 157 of the Evidence Act. That is precisely the case here. We have very
critically examined the dying declaration and we are of the clear opinion that
the dying declaration was voluntary, truthful and uninfluenced by any other
factor. We have considered the dying declaration vis- `-vis the substantive
evidence given by this witness. The only criticism against this dying
declaration was that the Magistrate had not got it certified by the doctor to
the effect that the witness was in a fit state of mind to make the dying
declaration. That really appears to be the case.
However, it can not be
forgotten that in his evidence, the Magistrate Narender Singh Patel (PW-9) very
specifically asserted that he had obtained the opinion of the doctor.
surprisingly, there was no cross-examination at all on this very vital aspect.
Therefore, the assertion that he had asked the doctor and was convinced that
the injured was in a fit position to make a dying declaration has gone
unchallenged. This witness has very specifically stated that he completed all
the formalities and had taken all the cautions.
we see the Exhibits Ka-30 and 31, which are seizure Panchnamas duly proved by
Rewadhar (PW-4), it is seen that there were three jerry cans found which were
cut from the above, and as such, were open. Out of these three jerry cans, one
was white and the others were black. It is specifically stated in the panchnama
that all the jerry cans were smelling of petrol. In Exhibit Ka-31, the cut
parts of the jerry cans were shown, which were found lying on some distance on
the Western side of the spot of incident.
Therefore, there can
be no dispute that actually the accused had carried the three jerry cans full
of petrol and the witness had seen the accused pouring petrol from one of them.
It can also be that the accused might have utilized the two jerry cans in
sprinkling the petrol on the roof from outside and then opening the door, threw
the petrol from the third jerry can remaining with him. The witness had after
15 all seen the three jerry cans being presented in the Court and had,
therefore, tried to improve upon the story.
However, if the three
burnt jerry cans were actually found by Hyat Singh (PW-13) immediately on the
spot in a semi- burnt condition, the so-called contradiction loses all its
rigor. The witness was very candid when she admitted before the Court that she
had not stated that her husband was cut by the accused and that she had not,
therefore, referred to the pistol in her statement. She was also candid in
saying that she had not seen the accused assaulting her husband.
She then asserted
that the accused assaulted her husband on his neck only once. She also asserted
that besides the accused, she did not see anyone else on the spot. All this
suggests her truthfulness. She did not implicate anybody else than the accused.
Therefore, the fact that the accused was alone and further that Balwant Singh
(deceased), after opening the door, ran out and was thereafter immediately
found cut, leads to the only inference that it was the accused alone who
assaulted Balwant Singh. It has to be kept in mind that at that time, the whole
house was burning.
The witness has
explained that the other people came and extinguished the fire; otherwise the
whole house would have burnt. There was, therefore, enough light for the
witness to see the accused. We, therefore, do not find anything to 16
disbelieve this witness on account of the so-called contradictions. In fact,
the presence of this lady alongwith the other victims on the spot, goes without
challenge. Had she not been present there, she would not have suffered 70%
burns. She thus had the best opportunity to watch everything. It was suggested
that she was an interested witness as the accused had enmity with her
father-in-law Pratap Singh. It must be remembered that she herself had lost all
her kith and kin including her husband and, therefore, she would not be
interested in screening the real accused. We cannot view her evidence as the
evidence of an interested person. In fact, Dr. K.C. Joshi (PW-12), in his first
medical statement (Exhibit Ka-9), has specifically mentioned that she was
conscious when she was examined at the Primary Health Centre, Baijnath. The
certificate describes her condition "patient fully conscious, needs urgent
(probably treatment), referred to Hospital, Almora for management". Therefore,
even at Primary Health Centre, Baijnath, where she was examined at 9.30 A.M. on
the next day, the patient was fully conscious, thereby it cannot be said that
was not able to see and comprehend.
fact, the way this lady was sitting in the room which was 10 cubic long and 5
cubic wide she would have had 17 the best opportunity to see the accused. The
High Court has also taken stock of her inability to tell the colour of the
container, length etc. of the blade of the sword and the omission in her
statement as regards the pistol which was found lying in the courtyard after
the incident. However, the Sessions Judge as well as the High court have chosen
to accept the evidence of the witness who has survived 70 % burns. The High
Court also endorsed view of the Sessions Judge that she was wholly reliable
witness and there was no requirement of corroboration to her evidence from any
other witness. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the dying declaration is
reliable and properly recorded and truthful and corroborates the oral evidence
of Vimla Devi (PW-1).
That is a very strong
circumstance in favour of the prosecution.
takes us to the other material circumstance and that is the dying declaration
of Prem Singh. This dying declaration was recorded on 01.07.1989 i.e. on the
next day at 3.45 p.m. in the District Hospital, Almora by Narender Singh Patel
(PW-9). The said dying declaration is Exhibit Ka-6. In fact this was a witness
who had recorded the dying declaration of Vimla Devi (PW-1) also. In his
evidence, Narender Singh Patel (PW-9) asserted that before recording 18 the
dying declaration of Prem Singh, he had sought the opinion of the doctor about
the witness being in fit state of mind to make a dying declaration. He also
asserted that the witness was not in any kind of mental pressure nor was he
depressed and was fully conscious and in possession of the mental faculties.
The witness also asserted that before recording the dying declaration he had
taken all the precautions and the dying declaration was written in the language
of the witness himself. There is practically no Cross Examination of this
witness. The only thing that was brought out was that he did not obtain the
endorsement certification by the Doctor that they were in a position to make a
statement. We have seen the dying declaration itself. It is true that the dying
declaration is not endorsed by the doctor but for the same comments for dying
declaration of Vimla Devi (PW-1) we would accept the dying declaration of Prem
Singh which would become substantive evidence.
his dying declaration, Prem Singh had specifically alleged that while he along
with other members of his family like father, mother, sister-in-law, elder
brother and younger sister were having food, at that time accused Sunder Singh
who was his uncle was coming towards his house with a 19 torch and he was
carrying a jerry can (named as `gallons' by witness) and he poured the petrol
and closed the door.
After throwing the
torch he closed the door resulting in the room catching fire. He then said that
his elder brother Balwant Singh pushed the door though his body had also caught
fire. He then asserted that Sunder Singh cut him with some sharp weapon. He
also explains that they could not go out because the whole room had caught
fire. The witness further stated in his dying declaration that the other
villagers came. However, he could not recognize them as he had suffered burn
injuries. He was specific that Sunder Singh alone had come to set the house on
fire. This declaration was recorded on 1.7.1989 at 3.45 p.m. as is recorded in
the dying declaration itself. The dying declaration bears the thumb impression
on both the pages.
When this dying
declaration is considered in the light of the evidence of Narender Singh Patel
(PW-9), it is established that the dying declaration was not only voluntary but
it was the correct depiction of the facts of which took place. There is no
reason for us to reject the dying declaration again solely for the reason that
there was no endorsement of the doctor on the dying declaration regarding the
fit condition of the injured to make the statement. We have already, while
discussing the dying 20 declaration of Vimla Devi (PW-1), held that the
Magistrate, Narender Singh Patel (PW-9) had specifically asserted that he had
got himself satisfied by asking the doctor that the injured witness were in a
fit mental and physical condition to make a statement.
Singh did not specifically name Vimla Devi (PW-1) having made oral dying declaration
to him but asserted that the injured victims had told him about Sunder Singh's
involvement. We would use this circumstance only as corroboration to Vimla
Devi's evidence. It is true that Vimla Devi (PW-1) had specifically not stated
that she made a statement to Hyat Singh. However, we are of the clear opinion
that the evidence of Vimla Devi (PW-1) as corroborated by dying declaration
(Exhibit Ka-5) was totally acceptable and was rightly relied upon by the Trial
and the appellate Court.
can be no dispute that the dying declaration can be made a basis of conviction.
There again can be no dispute that for basing the conviction on the dying
declaration, the dying declaration must pass all the tests of voluntariness,
the fit condition of mind of the maker of the dying declaration and the witness
not being influenced by any other factors and the truthfulness of the 21
declaration. The law is settled by this Court in the 710]. There, of course,
the Court has discussed implication of the doctor's statement. The Court has
further considered the subject in Shanmugham @ Kulandaivelu v. State of Tamil
Nadu [(2002) 10 SCC 4] as also in P.V. Radhakrishnan v. State of Karnataka
[(2003) 6 SCC 443]. We hasten to add that we do not want to understate the importance
of the evidence of doctors. However, there could be cases where though there is
no certification by the doctor, still the dying declaration can be accepted and
in our opinion present is such a case. In Laxman's case (cited supra), the
court had observed in paragraph 3:
therefore, the Court in order to satisfy whether the deceased was in a fit
mental condition to make the dying declaration look up to the medical opinion.
But where the eye witnesses state that the deceased was in a fit and conscious
state to make the declaration, the medical opinion will not prevail, nor can it
be said that since there is no certification of the doctor as to the fitness of
the mind of the declarant, the dying declaration is not acceptable."
decision was by the Constitution Bench of this Court and has taken stock of all
the earlier decisions. It has been through out followed by this Court in the
later cases. After examining all the circumstances, particularly, 22 the
evidence of the Magistrate, we are of the clear opinion that the dying
declarations of Vimla Devi and Prem Singh do pass the test of credibility. Of
course, the dying declaration of Vimla Devi cannot be substantive evidence and
it can only be corroborative evidence of oral testimony since she survived.
However, the evidence of Prem Singh does become substantive evidence and in our
opinion, wholly reliable. We, therefore, hold that the Trial Court and the
appellate Court have committed no error in relying on that dying declaration.
is immediate disclosure of the name of the accused in the FIR. This report was
in the same night at 3.30 a.m. where it is specifically stated that at 10
O'clock Sunder Singh had set the house on fire when the family members of Prem
Singh were having food. It is also asserted therein that even Balwant Singh's
neck was cut by him. The FIR is not substantive evidence. However, it
corroborates the assertion of Kheem Singh that Hyat Singh came on the spot and
had enquired into the matter. Therefore, the name of the accused was reported
almost immediately without any waste of time.
Singh (PW-2) asserted that he was told by injured Pratap Singh that Sunder
Singh had set the house on 23 fire and he had injured. This assertion on the part
of Chanar Singh has not been challenged in the cross- examination at all. In
fact Chanar Singh is the brother of the accused. It is true that in
cross-examination he admitted that he had not seen Sunder Singh setting the
house on fire nor did he see him assaulting Balwant Singh with a sword. Even
this witness was told by Vimla Devi that it was Sunder Singh who had set the
house on fire. His evidence, therefore, corroborates the evidence of Vimla
Devi. It is relevant as a previous statement made to other witness and usable
as such. Similarly, Rewadhar (PW-3) also asserted that Pratap Singh had told
him that when they were having their food at that time Sunder Singh had poured
the petrol and had put the house on fire. Even this assertion in the examination-in-chief
was not challenged in the cross- examination. The only challenge in the cross
examination was that he had himself not seen the incident. The evidence of this
witness also thus went unchallenged. Very unfortunately, though the Panchnamas
on which these two witnesses have put their signatures were put to the accused.
However, this fact of
oral dying declaration by Pratap Singh to both of them was not put to the
accused. It is really a matter of concern that even the trial Judge did not
frame the question in Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination specifically 24 putting
the names of these two witnesses. Thereby a very important circumstance is
lost. We have not allowed ourselves to be influenced by these two oral dying
declarations. However, we are mentioning these facts only with a view to
caution the Trial Courts to be extremely careful about the questions to be put
to the accused persons in examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Record must
show that meticulous care is taken to put all the incriminating circumstances
to the accused. It is found that the Trial Courts sometimes are extremely
casual about this aspect and fail to put all the incriminating circumstances to
the accused. We would expect the Trial Courts to be extremely careful in this
behalf. It is only with this idea that we are mentioning these facts.
the fact remains that even ignoring these oral dying declaration allegedly made
by Pratap Singh to the two witnesses, namely, Chanar Singh (PW- 3) and Rewadhar
(PW-4) the prosecution still is successful in proving its case on the basis of
the oral evidence of Vimla Devi and the dying declaration by Prem Singh.
evidence of four doctors was led. It is obvious from the evidence that only two
victims when they were alive, namely, Vimla Devi (PW-1) and Prem Singh were 25
examined by Dr. K.C. Joshi (PW-12). The other doctors were namely Dr. N.D.
Punetha (PW-6) who conducted the post-mortem on Balwant Singh's dead body. He
has specifically proved the injury No.1 on the neck of Balwant Singh which was
bone deep. He also described that all the body was burnt. He also confirmed the
opinion that the injury No.1 on the neck could have been possible by a sharp
weapon like a sword. He also conducted the post-mortem of Smt. Nandi Devi who had
died almost immediately after she was burnt. He opined that she had died of the
burn injuries. Both these post-mortem reports have been proved as Exhibits Ka-2
and Ka-3 respectively. He also conducted the post-mortem of Pratap Singh on
02.07.1989 and opined that the deceased had died on account of the shock of the
burn injuries. He proved the post-mortem report at Exhibit Ka-5. Dr.H.G.S.
Manral was examined as PW-10. He conducted the post-mortem of body of Prem
Singh. He opined that Prem Singh had suffered 90% of second and third degree
burns. The whole body was blackened and the black soots were found in the
respiratory track up to his lungs. He also opined that Prem Singh had died on
account of the burn injuries and shock. Dr. Nanda Ballabh Sharma was examined
as PW-11. He conducted the post-mortem on 13.10.1989 on the body of Kamla.
Thus, Kamla had survived for almost three and a half months. However, 26
ultimately she succumbed on 12.10.1989. According to this witness, the deceased
had died after substantially long period after she was burnt on account of the
shock, paucity of blood and on account of extensive weakness on account of
burns. Thus, it is clear that all the deceased persons had died on account of
the burn injuries. Dr. K.C. Joshi who was examined as PW-12, had medially
examined Vimla Devi and Prem Singh on 1.7.1989. He had described as many as
five burn injuries on the body of Vimla Devi. He had also examined Kamla Devi
and noted her burn injuries as also Prem Singh for his burn injuries. All the
three witnesses were alive when he examined them. He proved the injury reports
at Ka-9, Ka-10 and Ka-11, respectively. Nothing has been brought in the
cross-examination of these doctors excepting the suggestion to practically all
of them that if there was an accidental fall of a can containing oil or petrol
in the hearth, there could be a possibility of the witnesses receiving burn
injuries. We have already pointed out that such possibility was merely an
imagination and there is no material whatsoever to see any such possibility.
This is all the more true considering that Balwant Singh was given a blow by a
sword resulting in his instantaneous death. The defence thus could not get any
advantage from the medical evidence.
takes us to the quality of investigation. We must say that the investigation in
this case was not up to the mark. In the distant hilly areas in the State of
Uttarakhand, the investigation is conducted by village Police through a Patwari
who is the lowest officer in the revenue department. Much more could have been
done in this case. For example, the investigation officer could have recorded
the dying declaration of Pratap Singh, Nandi Devi, Kamla, Vimla Devi and Prem
Singh. They were alive when the investigating officer allegedly reached the
spot as per his own evidence. That was not done. We also fail to understand as
to why K.R. Tamta (PW-14), the investigating officer did not even bother to get
the dying declaration of Kamla recorded. Even Hyat Singh (PW-13) could have got
the said dying declaration recorded. Even that was not done.
We again fail to
understand as to why the FSL report was not obtained and filed. The trial was
started only after the arrest of the accused after 12 years. All this suggests
that the investigation was conducted in a very casual and careless manner. Same
is the story of prosecution. We have already commented on proper questions not
being put to the accused. It is obvious that the prosecuting agency did not
even bother to look into the questions before they were asked to the accused in
his Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination.
28 Merely because
this heinous offence took place in the remote corner of District Bageshwar
which - at the time when the offence took place was Almora District - it did
not mean that the investigating agency could do some slipshod investigation and
thereafter the prosecution could be allowed to be equally casual as it appears
to have been in conducting the prosecution. This also speaks about the duty of
the Trial Court Judge who cannot be a mere spectator to what goes on in the
name of the trial. The Trial Judge has to control the trial by active
application of mind. A time has come when the village police system prevalent
in the State of Uttaranchal in respect of distant areas would have to be
changed and the distant villagers would have to be given the protection and
services of the regular police. It is really strange that the four Districts
which are in the plains have had advantage of the police system while in the
remaining Districts, the distant part of those Districts should be deprived of
a police system. Such deprivation undoubtedly results in affecting the law and
order situation, the detection of crimes and the protection of the poor
villagers. In fact effective policing is the need of the whole society, urban
as also rural. However, all these factors have not prejudiced the accused. Even
with these factors, the prosecution has fully proved the heinous 29 offence
committed by him. This Court has time and again held that incompetent
investigation should not result in the accused getting any unfair advantage. We
reiterate the same principle.
overall situation the evidence led by the prosecution through Vimla Devi which
has been corroborated by her dying declaration as also the dying declaration
(Exhibit Ka-6) of Prem Singh and the other circumstances proved on record
through the evidence of Panchas and the Panchnamas. It must be said that it was
the accused and accused alone whose guilt has been proved beyond all reasonable
doubts. We, therefore, endorse the judgments of the Trial Court and the High
Court and confirm their findings on conviction.
takes us to the sentencing part. Both the Trial Court and the High Court have
confirmed the death sentence.
It was urged by the
learned Amicus Curiae that this could not be the case which can be described as
the rarest of rare case. It was urged that long standing enmity has resulted in
the accused committing this offence. It was also urged that merely because the
accused set the house on fire, it cannot be said that it was his intention to
commit murder of all inmates as the accused might not have been able to 30
foresee the horrible results that were likely to follow from his act of setting
the house on fire and, therefore, at the most it could be described as
indiscretion on the part of the accused. The learned Amicus Curiae further
urged that this incident had taken place in the year 1989 and to send the
accused to gallows after 21 years of the incident would be inhuman. Further it
was pointed out that the first judgment of the Trial Court came in the year
2004 and for six years thereafter, the accused is under the shadow of death
and, therefore, it would not be proper to confirm his death sentence.
against this, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State pointed out
that this act of burning the house and as a result of roasting of six persons
alive appears to have been committed by the accused with cool mind and in a
cold blooded manner. The learned counsel was at pains to point out that there
was no immediate provocation by any of the deceased persons which could drive
the accused to take such a horrible step. Learned counsel pointed out that
secondly, the accused came with full preparation to eliminate as many persons
as possible as he had come with the sword and also a pistol. The counsel
invited our attention to the fact that the pistol was found lying in the 31
courtyard which had two bullets. He further pointed out that as many as three
jerry cans were also found in the same condition and it was obvious that the
accused had used the petrol to bathe the house with petrol. Otherwise, the room
which was 10 cubic long and 5 cubic wide could not be burnt so extensively. The
learned counsel further pointed out that thirdly, after pouring the petrol and
setting the house on fire by a torch, the accused closed the door which fact
was proved by the evidence of Vimla Devi which was corroborated by her dying
declaration and also the dying declaration of Prem Singh. According to the
learned counsel when the whole room was aflame, to close the door was a
definite pointer towards the evil intention of the accused who must have seen
the six family members burning. As if all this was not sufficient, according to
the leaned counsel forthly, as Balwant Singh was able to open the door and run
out, though he himself was in flames at that time, the accused almost beheaded
attention was invited to the injury No.1 proved in the post-mortem report of
Balwant Singh (Ka-2). The learned counsel then urged that as a result of his
assault Balwant Singh died on the spot while the remaining five members of the
same family were extensively burnt though Vimla Devi 32 miraculously escaped
death though she had suffered 70 % burns. The learned counsel further invited
our attention to the fact that all those who died had suffered extensive burns
which suggests the quantity of petrol used by the accused. According to the
counsel, therefore, the quantity of petrol used from three jerry cans was
itself another definite pointer to the evil intention of the accused. As
regards the lapse of 21 years, the learned Counsel pointed out that showing
scant respect to law the accused absconded and remained absconding for 12
years. Unfortunately, it has not come in the evidence of Hyat Singh or K.R.
Tamta as to how or in what manner the accused was apprehended, nor has it been
put to the accused in his examination that he was absconding for 12 years.
However, the learned counsel further submitted that the accused was undoubtedly
apprehended only when he was found to have been arrested for offences under
Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC registered in police station Karnprayag. He was
in Pursadhi jail of Chamoli District. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that it
was because the accused himself remained absconding for good long almost 12
years, that the time of 21 years has elapsed.
Learned counsel then
pointed out that the accused cannot take advantage of his own wrong of remaining
absconding for 12 years. Lastly, learned Counsel urged that because of 33 this
cruel and inhuman act as many as six persons of the same family were burnt and
five of them died resulting in the family of Pratap Singh completely being
wiped out excepting for his daughter-in-law Vimla Devi who has to spend rest of
her life with extensive burn injuries. The learned government pleader,
therefore, urged that considering the balance-sheet of circumstances for and
against the accused, the Court should confirm the death sentence.
these rival contentions, we would have to take stock of few rulings of this
law is now well settled in the decision in Bachan held that the death penalty
can be inflicted only in the gravest of the grave cases. It was also held that
such death penalty can be imposed only when the life imprisonment appears to be
inadequate punishment. Again it was cautioned that while imposing the death
sentence, there must be balance between circumstances regarding the accused and
the mitigating circumstances and that there has to be overall consideration of
the circumstances regarding the accused as also the offence. Some aggravating
circumstances were also culled out, they being:- 34 (a) where the murder has
been committed after previous planning and involves extreme brutality; or (b)
where the murder involves exceptional depravity.
circumstances which were mentioned in that judgment were:- (a) That the offence
was committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance;
(b) The age of the
accused. If the accused is young or old, he shall not be sentenced to death;
(c) The probability
that the accused would not commit criminal acts of violence as would constitute
a continuing threat to society;
(d) The probability
that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated. The State shall by evidence
prove that the accused does not satisfy the conditions (c) and (d) above;
(e) That in the facts
and circumstances of the case, the accused believed that he was morally
justified in committing the offence;
(f) That the accused
acted under the duress or domination of another person; and (g) That the
condition of the accused showed that he was mentally defective and that the
said defect impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.
35 The law was
further settled in the decision in Machhi this Court insisted upon the
mitigating circumstances being balanced against the aggravating circumstances.
The aggravating circumstances were described as under:- (a) When the murder is
in extremely brutal manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of
(b) When the murder
of a large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality is
(c) When the murder
of an innocent child, a helpless woman is committed.
The matter was
further considered in Devender Pal wherein, after examining both the
aforementioned cases, it was held that when a murder is committed in an
extremely brutal manner, or for a motive which suggests total depravity and
meanness or where the murder is by hired assassin for money or reward, or a
cold blooded murder for gains, the death sentence is justified. Similar such
Govt. of NCT of Delhi [JT 2010 (8) SC 372]. Relying on all these cases, this
Court, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 127-130 of on 30.8.2010, confirmed the death
sentence. That was a 36 case where the accused persons, while demonstrating
against the arrest of their leader, started damaging public transport vehicles.
Some girl students of a University were travelling in a bus. The three accused
persons attacked the bus and sprinkled petrol in the bus full of girl and boy
students and set it on fire with the students still inside the bus. As a
result, the inmates started escaping; however, three of the girls could not
escape and were roasted alive. The unprovoked attack on the bus and the burning
of the bus by sprinkling petrol on the bus, and the death of three students as
a result of such burning was viewed by this Court as a barbaric and inhuman act
of the highest degree. The offence was viewed as brutal, diabolical, grotesque
and cruel, shocking the collective conscience of society. It was on that
account that the death sentence was confirmed. Several comments have also been
made by this Court on the inaction shown by the general public and the police
who remained passive and did not try to help the unfortunate victims.
[1996 (2) SCC 175],
relying on the decision in Dhananjoy this Court confirmed the death sentence,
where the murder 37 by the accused of his wife in the advanced stage of
pregnancy and of his three minor children was viewed as rarest of the rare
cases. The Court observed that the accused has not even spared his mother, who
very rightly tried to prevent him, and the accused assaulted her with the same
axe with which he killed his wife and minor children. The accused was described
as blood-thirsty (cited supra), the murder was of a helpless girl who was raped
and then murdered. That was viewed as the rarest of Anr. [1999 (8) SCC 325], it
was held that the High Court was not right in avoiding the death sentence on
the ground that the convict was languishing in death cell for more than 3
years. In that case, the accused had committed murder of 5 persons including an
old man of 75 years, a woman aged 32 years, two boys aged 12 years and a girl
aged 15 years when they were asleep only to wreak vengeance on the part of the
accused. The High Court considered the act on the part of the accused in
denuding the lower part of the body of the girl. This Court observed that the
High Court had misdirected itself in refusing to confirm the death sentence on
account of the so-called 3 years of languishing in death cell. For this
proposition, the Court 38 [1988 (4) SCC 574], where it was held that the delay
in executing the sentence was of no consequence.
which was a case
dependant upon a dying declaration, the allegation was that the accused had
stabbed all the three persons of a family so that he and his brother could
enjoy the entire property and money. The repeated stabbing of the deceased was
viewed as the act for which the accused could be legitimately awarded death sentence.
The incident therein had occurred on 22.1.1996 while the Sessions Judge had
awarded the death sentence on 27.9.2004. The High Court had confirmed the death
sentence on 13.1.2006 while this Court affirmed this sentence by its judgment
dated 9.8.2010. This Court, after taking the stock of the aggravating
circumstances and mitigating circumstances, as supra), came to the conclusion
that though Atbir was a young person of 25 years of age and had already spent
10 years in jail, that was not a mitigating circumstance in his favour. The
three murders were held to be extremely brutal and diabolical, committed with
deliberate design in 39 order to inherit the entire property of Jaswant Singh
of Jharkhand [AIR 2004 SC 394], which was a case of human sacrifice of a 9
years old child, this Court found the accused guilty on the basis of
While culling out the
aggravating circumstances, this Court named five circumstances on the basis of
the earlier case the said circumstances are as follows:-
1. When the murder is
committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly
manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community.
2. When the crime is
enormous in proportion. For instance when multiple murders, say of all or
almost all the members of a family or a large number of persons of a particular
caste, community or locality, are committed.
In this case, the
Court recorded that the murder was a dastardly murder by sacrificing a hapless
and helpless child of another for personal gain and to promote his fortunes by
pretending to appease the deity or was a brutal act which is amplified by the
grotesque and revolting manner in which it was committed. This case was even
40 relied upon by the High Court while confirming the death sentence.
2003 SC 4187], this
Court specifically held in Para 19 that there could be no fixed or rigid
formula or standard for invoking extreme penalty of death sentence. This was a
case where this Court took notice of the decision in 646], where this Court had
held that the focus had shifted from crime to criminal and the special reasons
necessary for imposing death penalty must relate not to the crime as such but
to the criminal. The Court, however, noted that (cited supra) later on. The
Court also referred to various (11) SCC 720], which was a case of triple
murder, where the Court had refused to pass the death sentence, (ii) Kumudi of
rape and murder of a young girl aged 14 years and where this Court had refused
to confirm the death sentence on the ground that the death of the girl must not
had been 41 Haryana [1999 (3) SCC 19], which was a case where a BSF Jawan had
murdered as many as 7 persons. This was also a case where the Court refused to
confirm the death sentence on the ground that the bitterness in the mind of the
accused had increased to a boiling point and the agony suffered by the accused
and his family members at the hands of the other party, and for not getting
protection from the police officers concerned and the total inaction on their
part inspite of repeated written prayers, had goaded or compelled the accused
to take law in his own hands. Two other cases where the death sentence was not
confirmed were However, this Court then took notice of the facts and noted that
the accused in that case had fired at the marriage party as he knew that there
was going to be a marriage on the next day in the house of the complainant. The
accused had fired at the time when the feast was going on and 13 persons were
killed on the spot and 8 persons were seriously injured. Out of all those 13
persons, one was 7 years' child. This Court, under the circumstances, refused
to convert the death sentence into the sentence for life.
34. There are three
other cases which we must mention. In where one of us was a party (V.S.
Sirpurkar, J.), there was a murder of a helpless lady and a child by a person
who was already suffering death sentence. However, that act was not found to be
a pre-meditated act. It was found that the accused had acted on account of the
previous enmity and since he thought that his livelihood was being attacked by
the husband of the deceased, though in an incorrect manner.
It was found that he
had not come armed to the scene of offence. It was also found that though he
was not justified in eking out his livelihood by selling liquor, but the fact
of the matter was that he and his family was surviving only on that, and the
effort on the part of the husband of the deceased to stop the activity of the
accused was sufficient to nurture deep hatred in his mind on account of which
the accused acted. Such is not the case Maharashtra etc. [2010 (1) SCC 775],
again where one of us (V.S. Sirpurkar, J.) was a party, this Court refused to
confirm the death sentence, where the accused was guilty of committing multiple
murders (4 in number). However, considering the fact that the sister of the
accused was married to the deceased out of a love affair, which 43 marriage
was not approved at all by the family of the accused being an inter-caste
marriage and further they being neighbours and the accused having to suffer the
ignominy because of the so-called marriage on day to day basis, this Court took
the view that this was not a case where the death sentence was to be awarded.
The Court considered the psychology of the accused, the taunts that he had
suffered on account of his sister's marriage with a person of different
community and further the fact that the situation had gone out of his hand as
his sister was on the family way. The Court, therefore, viewed that this could
not be the rarest of the rare cases. Lastly, in Swamy [AIR 2008 SC 3040],
though there was one of the most cold- blooded murder for gains, the Court
recorded that considering the absolute irrevocability of the death penalty,
sentencing accused to death would not be proper.
We do not find
anything in this decision, which will be helpful to the accused in the present
35. Considering all
these cases, on the backdrop of the facts, which have taken place and provided
in this case, it must be said that this is one of the rarest of the rare cases.
Here is a case where the whole family is wiped out.
44 Five persons have
lost their life while the sixth person, a helpless lady, who has now been left
to be the only member of the family, has to live her life with 70% burn
The murder was
committed in a cruel, grotesque and diabolical manner. When all the members of
the family were having their food, the accused poured petrol in the room and
set it to fire and went to the extent of closing the door also. He closed the
door as established by Vimla Devi (PW-1) and Prem Singh in the dying
declaration. This was the most fouled act, by which the accused actually
intended to burn all the persons inside the room and precisely that had
happened. Barring Vimla Devi (PW-1), everybody in that room was burnt with the
exception of Balwant Singh, who somehow, was able to open the room and come
out. Even he was not spared and almost beheaded by the accused. It was clear
that the accused had done this with pre-meditated and cold-blooded mind, as he
had taken the trouble of carrying petrol to his own cousin's house. As if all
this was not sufficient, he was also carrying a sword, and probably prepared
himself to fire on the complainant party, as a pistol with two bullets in it
was also found on the spot.
The accused shown
extreme depravity of mind in causing a sword blow on the neck of Balwant Singh,
who himself was burnt and was trying to escape. A murder by burning, by 45
itself, would be a very cruel act. The agony caused to the dying witnesses
because of their burn injuries would be enormous. Again, when it is seen that
there was no immediate provocation to the accused and all this only was on
account of the enmity going on in respect of the family lands, the enormousness
of the crime is increased by many folds. The accused showed scant respect for
the law by remaining absconding for about 12 years and only because of that he
could not be brought to books. It is only his accidental arrest and being
lodged in other jail that the prosecuting agency was able to prosecute him. Out
of the five persons who lost their life, Kamla was barely 16 years old while
Prem Singh was 19 years old only. Their life was nipped in bud. Both the ladies
who lost their life, as also the other three persons who lost their life were
without any arms and were helpless. They could not have even saved themselves
and did succumb to the burn injuries.
The balance sheet of
the aggravating circumstances thus exceeds the mitigating circumstances. In
fact, there is no mitigating circumstance in this case. The age is not on the
side of the accused. We cannot appreciate the argument that it was only a rash
act on the part of the accused without an intention to commit the murder. That
does not appear to be the case at all. Pouring of the petrol extensively would
rule out the intention on the part of the accused only to burn the house.
Again, his act of closing the door after setting the house to fire, would speak
completely against him. Insofar as the other circumstance of the accused
remaining under the shadow of death sentence right from 2004 is concerned, we
do not think that that circumstance, by itself, is sufficient to mitigate his
horrible crime as the time factor is identical with the
36. Considering the
overall circumstances, we are of the opinion that the death sentence was
rightly awarded by the Trial Court and was rightly confirmed by the High Court.
We find no reasons to
interfere in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.