Ram Avtar Vs. The State (Delhi
Administration) [1985] INSC 171 (8 August 1985)
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA 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]
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]
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 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 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
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 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 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.
Back
