BHAGWAN DASSversusSTATE(NCT) OF DELHI

                       [2011] 6 S.C.R. 330


A                       BHAGWAN DASS
                                 v.
                      STATE(NCT) OF DELHI
                (Criminal Appeal No.1117 of 2011)

                          MAY 09, 2011
B
    [MARKANDEY KATJU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]

        Penal Code, 1860: s.304 - Honour killing of daughter-
  Girl having incestuous relatio~ship with her father's cousin -
C Appellant-father annoyed with:such conduct of his daughter
  - Daughter found dead in appellant's house where she had
  come to stay- Death caused by strangulation - Courts below
  convicted the appellant on the basis of circumstantial
  evidence - On appeal, held: All circumstances pointed guilt
D towards the appellant - Prosecution was able to prove its case
  beyond reasonable doubt by establishing all links in the chain
  of circumstances - Appellant had motive and opportunity to
  kill his daughter since he was unhappy with conduct of his
  daughter and felt that she had dishonoured the family
E reputation - Police was not informed about the unnatural
  death of appellant's daughter - Statement of appellant's
  mother that appellant confessed before her that he murdered
  his daughter, but said statement denied before court - The
  statement of the appellant's mother to the police can be taken
F into consideration in view of the proviso to s.162(1), Cr.PC,
  and her subsequent denial in court is not believable because
  she obviously had afterthoughts and wanted to save her son
  (the accused) from punishment - Moreso, Statement of
  appellant to SDM led to recovery of crime weapon -
G Conviction upheld. .
         Evidence.· Circumstantial evidence - Held: A person can
    be convicted on circumstantial evidence provided the links
    in the chain of circumstances connects the accused with the
    crime beyond reasonable doubt - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302.
H                               330
     BHAGWAN DASS v. STATE(NCT) OF DELHI                  331


     Honour killings: Sentence/punishment for honour killing      A
- Held: Honour killings come within the category of rarest of
rare cases deserving death punishment - Such barbaric,
feudal practices are a slur on our nation and should be
stamped out - This is necessary as a deterrent for such
outrageous, uncivilized behaviour - Copy of the judgment          B
directed to be sent to the Registrar Generals/Registrars of all
the High Courts and to all the Chief Secretaries/Home
Secretaries/Director Generals of Police of all States/Union
Territories in the country.

    The prosecution case was that the appellant was               C
very annoyed with his daughter, who had left her
husband and started living in an incestuous relationship
with the appellant's cousin. This infuriated the appellant
as he thought this conduct of his daughter had
dishonoured his family. He killed her by strangulating her        D
with an electric wire. The trial court convicted the
appellant. The High Court affirmed the order of
conviction. The instant appeal was filed challenging the
order of the conviction.
                                                                  E
    Dismissing the appeal, the Court
     HELD: 1.1. It is settled law that a person can be
convicted on circumstantial evidence provided the links
in the chain of circumstances connects the accused with
                                                                  F
the crime beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the
prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt by establishing all the links in the chain
of circumstances. In cases of circumstantial evidence
motive is very important, unlike cases of direct evidence
where it is not so important. In the present case, the            G
prosecution case was that the motive of the appellant in
murdering his daughter was that she was living in
adultery with his cousin. The appellant felt humiliated by
this, and to avenge the family honour he murdered his
own daughter. Thus one of the circumstances which                 H
    332    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            (2011) 6 S.C.R.


A connected the appellant to the crime was the motive of
  the crime. In our country unfortunately 'honour killing'
  has become common place. Many people feel that they
  are dishonoured by the behaviour of the young man/
  woman, who is related to them or belonging to their caste
B because he/she is marrying against their wish or having
  an affair with someone, and hence they take the law into
  their own hands and kill or physically assault such
  person or commit some other atrocities on them. If
  someone is not happy with the behaviour of his daughter
c or other person, who is his relation or of his caste, the
  maximum he can do is to cut off social relations with her/
  him, but he cannot take the law into his own hands by
  committing violence or giving threats of violence. [Paras
  5, 6, 8) [338-D-G; 339-B-E)
D     Vijay Kumar Arora vs. Sta+e (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 2
  SCC 353: 2010 (1) SCR 1069; Aftab Ahmad Ansari vs. State
  of Uttaranchal (2010) 2 SCC 583: 2010 (1) SCR 1027;
  Wakkar and Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011) 3 SCC
  306; Arumugam Servai vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2011 AIR
E 1859; Lata Singh vs. State of UP. & Anr. (2006) 5 SCC 475:
    2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 350 - relied on.

       1.2. As per the post mortem report which was
  conducted at 11.45 am on 16.5.2006 the likely time of
F death of the deceased was 32 hours prior to the post
  mortem. Giving a margin of two hours, plus or minus, it
  would be safe to conclude that the deceased died
  sometime between 2.00 am to 6.00 am on 15.5.2006.
  However, the appellant, in whose house the deceased
G was staying, did not inform the police or anybody else
  for a long time. It was only some unknown person who
  telephonically informed the police at 2.00 pm on 15.5.2006
  that the appellant had murdered his own daughter. This
  omission by the appellant in not informing the police
H about the death of his daughter for about 10 hours was
     BHAGWAN DASS v. STATE(NCT) OF DELHI               333

a totally unnatural conduct on his part. The appellant had    A
admitted that the deceased had stayed in his house on
the night of 14.5.2006/15.5.2006. The appellant's mother
was too old to commit the crime, and there was not even
a suggestion by the defence that his brother may have
committed it. Hence the possibility that someone else,        s
other than the appellant, committed the crime was ruled
out. The deceased had left her husband sometime back
and was said to be living in an adulterous and incestuous
relationship with her uncle (her father's cousin), and this
obviously made the appellant very hostile to her. On          c
receiving the telephonic information at about 2.00 pm
from some unknown person, the police reached the
house of the accused and found the dead body of The
deceased on the floor in the back side room of the house.
The accused and his family members and some
                                                              0
neighbours were there at that time. The accused admitted
that although the deceased had been married about three
years ago, she had left her husband and was living in her
father's house for about one month. Thus there was both
motive and opportunity for the appellant to commit the        E
murder. It came in evidence that the accused appellant
with his family members were making preparation for her
last rites when the police arrived. Had the police not
arrived they would probably have gone ahead and
cremated the deceased even without a post mortem so
as to destroy the evidence of strangulation. [para 8] [339-   F
E-H; 340-A-E]
     1.3. The mother of the appellant stated before the
police that her son (the accused) had told her that he had
killed the deceased. No doubt, a statement to the police G
is ordinarily not admissible in evidence in view of Section
162(1) Cr.PC, but as mentioned in the proviso to Section
162(1) Cr.PC it can be used to contradict the testimony
of a witness. The appellant's mother also appeared as a
witness before the trial court, and in her cross H
    334     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011) 6 S.C.R.

A   examination, she was confronted with her statement to
    the police to whom she had stated that her son (the
    accused) had told her that he had killed the deceased.
    On being so confronted with her statement to the police
    she denied that she had made such statement. The
B   statement of the appellant's mother to the police can be
    taken into consideration in view of the proviso to Section
    162(1) Cr.PC, and her subsequent denial in court is not
    believable because she obviously had afterthoughts and
    wanted to save her son (the accused) from punishment.
C   The statement of the appellant to his mother was an extra
    judicial confession. No doubt this witness was declared
    hostile by the prosecution as she resiled from her earlier
    statement to the police. However, the evidence of a
    hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in
    favour of the prosecution or the accused, but can be
0
    subjected to close scrutiny ;ind the portion of the
    evidence which is consistent with the case of the
    prosecution or defence may be accepted. Thus it is the
    duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff, and
    the maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no
E   application in India. In the instant case, the appellant's
    mother denied her earlier statement from the police
    because she wanted to save her son. Hence her
    statement to the police is accepted and her statement in
    court is rejected. The defence has not shown that the
F   police had any enmity with the appellant, or had some
    other reason to falsely implicate him. This was a clear
    case of murder and the entire circumstances point to the
    guilt of the accused. [Para 8) (340-F-H; 341-A-H; 342-A-
    H; 343-A-C]
G
        Ku/vinder Singh & Anr. vs. State of Haryana 2011 AIR
    1777; State of Rajasthan vs. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180;
  B.A. Umesh vs. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka
  (2011) 3 SCC 85: 2011 (2) SCR 367; Sheikh Zakir vs. State
H of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 911: 1983 (2) SCR 312; Himanshu
     BHAGWAN DASS v. STATE(NCT) OF DELHI                 335

 alias Chin tu vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 2 SCC 36: 2011   A
 (1) SCR 48; Nisar Alli vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh AIR
 1957 SC 366: 1957 SCR 657 - relied on.
    1.4. The cause of death was opined by PW1 in his
post mortem report as death "due to asphyxia as a result
of ante-mortem strangulation by ligature." It was, 8
therefore, evident that this is a case of murder, and not
suicide. The body was not found hanging but lying on
the ground. [Para 8] [343-0-F]
       1.5. The appellant made a statement to the SOM-PW8,      c
 immediately after the incident and signed the same. No
 doubt he claimed in his statement under Section 313
 Cr.PC that nothing was asked by the SOM but he did not
 clarify how his signature appeared on the statement, nor
 did he say that he was forced to sign his statement nor        D
 was the statement challenged in the cross-examination
 of the SOM. The SOM appeared as a witness before the
 trial court and he proved the statement in his evidence.
·There was no cross examination by the appellant
 although opportunity was given. There was no reason to         E
 disbelieve the SOM as there was nothing to show that he
 had any enmity against the accused or had any other
 reason for making a false statement in Court. The
 appellant had given a statement (Ex. PW7/A) to the SOM
 in the presence of PW11 Inspector which led to discovery       F
 of the electric wire by which the crime was committed.
 This disclosure was admissible as evidence under
 Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In his evidence the police
 Inspector stated that at the pointing out of the appellant
 the electric wire with which the accused was alleged to
 have strangulated his daughter was recovered from              G
 under a bed in a room. Both the trial court and High
 Court gave very cogent reasons for convicting the
 appellant, and there was no reason to disagree with their
 verdicts. There was overwhelming circumstantial
 evidence to show that the appellant committed the crime        H
    336     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 6 S.C.R.

A   as he felt that he was dishonoured by his daughter.
    [Paras 12 and 13) [343-E-G; 344-C-F; 345-G-H; 346-A]

         Aftab Ahmad Ansari vs. State (2010) 2 SCC 583: 2010
    (1) SCR 1027; Manu Sharma vs. State (2010) 6 SCC 1: 2010
    (4) SCR 103; State of Rajasthan vs. Teja Ram and Ors. AIR
8
    1999 SC 1776: 1999 (2) SCR 29; Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs.
    State of Maharashtra (2006)1 SCC 681 - relied on.

       2. 'Honour' killings have become commonplace in
  many parts of the country, particularly in Haryana,
C western U.P., and Rajasthan. Often young couples who
  fall in love have to seek shelter in the police lines or
  protection homes, to avoid the wrath of kangaroo courts.
  Honour killings, for whatever reason, come within the
  category of rarest of rare cases deserving death
D punishment. It is time to stamp out these barbaric, feudal
  practices which are a slur on our nation. This is
  necessary as a deterrent for such outrageous, uncivilized
  behaviour. All persons who are planning to perpetrate
  'honour' killin.gs should know that the gallows await
E them. The copy of the judgment is directed to be sent to
  the Registrar Generals/Registrars of all the High Courts
  and to all the Chief Secretaries/Home Secretaries/Director
  Generals of Police of all States/Union Territories in the
  country. [Para 13, 14) (346-C-H]
F                         Case Law Reference:
          2010 (1) SCR 1069        relied on        Para 5
          2010 (1 ) SCR 1027       relied on        Para 5

G         (2011) 3 sec 306         relied on        Para 6
          2011 AIR 1859            relied on        Para 8(i)
          2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 350 relied on         Para 8(i)
          2011 AIR 1777            relied on        Para 8(v)
H
    BHAGWAN DASS v. STATE(NCT) OF DELHI                     337


    2003 (2 ) Suppl. SCR 445 relied on              Para 8(v)       A

    2011 (2) SCR 367              relied on         Para 8(v)

    1983 (2) SCR 312              relied on         Para 8(v)

    2011 (1) SCR 48               relied on         Para 8(v)
                                                                    B
    1957 SCR 657                  relied on         Para 8(v)

    2010 (1) SCR 1027             relied on         Para 8(viii)

    2010 (4 ) SCR 103             relied on         Para 8(viii)
                                                                    c
    1999 (2) SCR 29               relied on         Para 8(viii)

    (2006)1 sec 681               relied on         Para 8(viii)

    CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1117 of 2011.                                                   D
    From the Judgment & Order dated 2.6.2010 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 551 of
2010.

    Gaurav Agrawal for the Appellant                                E
    J.S. Attri, Saurabh Ajay Gupta (Anil Katiyar) for the
Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                    F
    MARKANDEY KATJU, J.

    "Hai maujazan ek kulzum-e-khoon kaash yahi ho

    Aataa hai abhi dekhiye kya kya mere aage"
                                                                    G
                                               -   Mirza Ghalib

     1. This is yet another case of gruesome honour killing, this
time by the accused-appellant of his own daughter.
                                                                    H
    338      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 6 S.C.F<.


A         2. Leave granted.

         3. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the
    record.

       4. The prosecution case is that the appellant was very
B annoyed with his daughter, who had left her husband Raju and
  was living in an incestuous relationship with her uncle, Sriniwas.
  This infuriated the appellant as he thought this conduct of his
  daughter Seema had dishonoured his family, and hence he
  strangulated her with an electric wire. The trial court convicted
C the appellant and this judgment was upheld by the High Court.
  Hence this appeal.

        5. This is a case of circumstantial evidence, but it is
  settled law that a person can be convicted on circumstantial
0 evidence provided the links in the chain of circumstances I
  connects the accused with the crime beyond reasonable doubt
  vide Vijay Kumar Arora vs. State (NCT of De/hij, (2010) 2
  SCC 353 (para 16.5), Aftab Ahmad Ansari vs. State of
  Uttaranchal, (2010) 2 SCC 583 (vide paragraphs 13 and 14),
E etc. In this case, we are satisfied that the prosecution has been
  able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by establishing
  all the links in the chain of circumstances.

       6. In cases of circumstantial evidence motive is very
  important, unlike cases of direct evidence where it is not so
F important vide Wakkar and Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
  (2011) 3 SCC 306 (para 14). In the present case, the
  prosecution case was that the motive of the appellant in
  murdering his daughter was that she was living in adultery with
  one Sriniwas, who was the son of the maternal aunt of the
G appellant. The appellant felt humiliated by this, and to avenge
  the family honour he murdered his own daughter.
       7. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the trial
  court as well as the High Court and we are of the opinion that
H the said judgments are correct.
     BHAGWAN DASS v. STATE(NCT) OF DELHI                      339
           [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
    . 8. The circumstances which connect the accused to the          A
crime are:

    (i) The motive of the crime which has already been
mentioned above. In our country unfortunately 'honour killing' has
become common place, as has been referred to in our                  B
judgment in Arumugam Servai vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Criminal Appeal No.958 of 2011 (@SLP(Crl) No.8084 of 2009)
pronounced on 19.4.2011.

      Many people feel that they are dishonoured by the
behaviour of the young man/woman, who is related to them or C
belonging to their caste because he/she is marrying against
their wish or having an affair with someone, and hence they take
the law into their own hands and kill or physically assault such
person or commit some other atrocities on them. We have held
in Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (2006) 5 SCC 475, that D
this is wholly illegal.·lf someone is not happy with the behaviour
of his daughter or other person, who is his relation. or of his
caste, the maximum he can do is to cut off social relations with
her/him, but he cannot take the law into his own hands by
committing violence or giving threats of violence.                 E
     (ii) As per the post mortem report which was conducted
at 11.45 am on 16.5.2006 the likely time of death of Seema
was 32 hours prior to the post mortem. Giving a margin of two
hours, plus or minus, it would be safe to conclude that Seema
                                                                     F
died sometime between 2.00 am to 6.00 am on 15.5.2006.
However, the appellant, in whose house Seema was staying,
did not inform the police or anybody else for a long time. It was
only some unknown person who telephonically informed the
police at 2.00 pm on 15.5.2006 that the appellant had murdered       G
his own daughter. This omission by the appellant in not
informing the police about the death of his daughter for about
10 hours was a totally unnatural conduct on his part.
    (iii) The appellant had admitted that the deceased Seema
had stayed in his house on the night of 14.5.2006/15.5.2006.         H
     340     SUPREME COURT REPORTS .                 (2011] 6 S.C.R.


A The appellant's mother was too old to commit the crime, and
 - there is not even a suggestion by the defence that his brother
   may have committed it. Hence we can safely rule out the
   possibility that someone else, other than the appellant,
   committed the crime.          ·        ·           '
B
         Seema had left her husband sometime back and was said
    to be living in an adulterous and incestuous relationship with
    her uncle (her father's cousin): and this obviously made the
    appelfant very hostile to her.               ·     ·

C    • On receiving the telephonic information at about 2.00 pm
  from some unknown person, the police reached the house of
  the accused and found the dead body of Seema on the floor
  in the back side room of the house. The accused and his family
  members and some neighbours were there at that time. The
D accused admitted that although Seema had been married
  about three years ago, she had left her husband and was Jiving
  in her father's house for about one month. Thus there was both
  motiv~ and opportunity for the appellant to commit the murder.

E          (iv) It has come in evidence that the accused appellant with
    · his family members were making preparation for her last rites
      when the police arrived. Had the police not arrived they would
      probably have gone ahead and cremated Seema even without
      a post mortem so as to destroy the evidence of strangulation.
                       ,_                                      '-

F      (v) The mother of the accused, Sm!. Dhillo Devi stated
  before the police that her son (the accused) had told her that
  he had killed Seema. No doubt a statement to the police is
  ordinarily not admissible in evidence in view of Section 162(1)
  Cr.PC, but as mentioned in the proviso to Section 162(1) Cr.PC
G it can be used to contradict the testimony of a witness. Smt.
  Dhillo Devi also.appeared as a witness before'the trial i:ourt;.
  and in her cross examination, she was· confronted with her .
  statement to the police to whom she. had stated that her. sori .·
  (the accused) had told her that he had killed Seema. On tieing
H so confronted with her sfateirient to the police s~e denied that .
     BHAGWAN DASS v. STATE(NCT) OF DELHI                   341
           [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
she had made such statement.                                      A
                       .
      9. We are of the opinion that the statement of Smt. Dhillo
Devi to the police can be taken into consideration in view of
the proviso to Section 162(1) Cr.PC, and her subsequent denial
in court is not believable because she obviously had
                                                                  8
afterthoughts and wanted to save her son (the accused) from
punishment. In fact in her statement to the police she had stated
that the dead body of Seema was removed from the bed and
placed on the floor. When she was confronted with this
statement in the court she denied that she had made such
statement before the police. We are of the opinion that her C
statement to the police can be taken into consideration in view
of the proviso of Section 162(1) Cr.PC.

     10. In our opinion the statement of the accused to his
mother Smt. Dhillo Devi is an extra judicial confession. In a very D
recent case this Court in Kulvinder Singh & Anr. vs. State of
Haryana Criminal Appeal No.916 of 2005 'decided on
11.4.2011 referred to the earlier decision of this Court in State
ofRajasthan vs. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180, where it was
held (vide para 10) :                                              E
     "An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true_ and made
     in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The
    confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The
     value of the evidence as to confession, like any other
    evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to F
    whom it has been made. The value of the evidence as to
    the confession depends on the reliability of the witness who
    gives the evidence. It is not open to any court to start with
    a presumption that extra-judicial confession is a weak type
    of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the G
    circumstances, the time when the confession was made
    and the credibility of the witnesses who speak to such a
    confession. Such a confession can be relied upon and
    conviction can be founded thereon if the eVidence about ·
    the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who H
    342       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2011] 6 S.C.R.

A         appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the
          accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out
          which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of
          attributing an untruthful statement to the accused, the words
          spoken to by the witness are clear, unambiguous and
B         unmistakably convey that the accused is the perpetrator
          of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which
          may militate against it. After subjecting the evidence of the
          witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility,
          the extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be
c         the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of credibility."
        In the above decision it was also held that a conviction can
    be based on circumstantial evidence.

       11. Similarly, in 8.A. Umesh vs. Registrar General, High
D Court of Kamataka, (2011) 3 SCC 85 the Court relied on the
  extra judicial confession of the accused.

       No doubt Smt. Dhillo Devi was declared hostile by the
  prosecution as she resiled from her earlier statement to the
E police. However, as observed in Statt: vs. Ram Prasad Mishra
  & Anr. :                                     ,

                 "The evidence of a hostile witness would not be
          totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the
          accused, but can be subjected to close scrutiny and the
F         portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case
          of the prosecution or defence may be accepted."
        Similarly in Sheikh Zakir vs. State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC
    911 this Court held :
G         "It is not quite strange that some witnesses do turn hostile
          but that by itself would not prevent a court from finding an
          accused guilty if there is otherwise acceptable evidence
          in support of the conviction."

H         In Himanshu alias Chintu vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011)
     BHAGWAN DASS v. STATE(NCT) OF DELHI                       343
           [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]

2 SCC 36 this Court held that the dependable part of the               A
evidence of a hostile witness can be relied on.

     Thus it is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from
the chaff, and the maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has
no application in India vide Nisar Alli vs. The State of Uttar 8
Pradesh AIR 1957 SC 366. In the present case we are of the
opinion that Smt. Dhillo Devi denied her earlier statement from
the police because she wanted to save her son. Hence we
accept her statement to the police and reject her statement in
court. The defence has not shown that the police had any C
enmity with the accused, or had some other reason to falsely
implicate him.

    12. We are of the opinion that this was a clear case of
murder and the entire circumstances point to the guilt of the
accused.                                                      D

     (vi) The cause of death was opined by Dr. Pravindra
Singh-PW1 in his post mortem report as death "due to asphyxia
as a result of ante-mortem strangulation by ligature." It is evident
that this is a case of murder, and not suicide. The body was           E
not found hanging but lying on the ground.

     (vii) The accused made a statement to the SOM, Shri S.S.
Parihar-PW8, immediately after the incident and has signed the
same. No doubt he claimed in his statement under Section 313
Cr.PC that nothing was asked by the SOM but he did not clarify F
how his signature appeared on the statement, nor did he say
that he was forced to sign his statement nor was the statement
challenged in the cross examination of the SOM. The SOM
appeared as a witness before the trial court and he has proved
the statement in his evidence. There was no cross examination G
by the accused although opportunity was given.

    In his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC the accused
    was asked:

    "Q.8 It is in evidence against you that you were interrogated      H
    344       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 6 S.C.R.

A         and arrested vide memo Ex PW11/C and your personal
          search was conducted vide memo Ex PW11 /D and you
          made disclosure statement EXPW7/A and in pursuance
          thereto you pointed out the site plan of incident and got
          recovered an electric wire Ex P1 which was seized by 10
B         after sealing the same vide memo ExPW7/B. What do you
          have to say?

          The reply he gave was as follows :

          "Ans. I was wrongly arrested and falsely implicated in this
C         case. I never made any disclosure statement. I did not get
          any wire recovered nor I was ever taken again to my house."

         13. We see no reason to disbelieve the SDM as there is
    nothing to show that he had any enmity against the accused or
0   had any other reason for making a false statement in Court.
        (viii) The accused had given a statement (Ex. PW7/A) to
   the SDM in the presence of PW11 Inspector Nand Kumar which
   led to discovery of the electric wire by which the crime was
   committed. We are of the opinion that this disclosure was
E admissible as evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act
   vide Aftab Ahmad Ansari vs. State, (2010) 2 SCC 583 (para
   40), Manu Sharma vs. State, (2010) 6 SCC 1 (paragraphs 234
   to 238). In his evidence the police Inspector Nand Kumar stated
 , that at the pointing out of the accused the electric wire with ,
P which the accused is alleged to have strangulated his daughter
   ws recovered from under a bed in a room.
      It has been contended by the learned counsel for the
  appellant that there was no- independent witness in the case. ·
G However, as held by this Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Teja
  Ram and Ors. AIR 1999 SC 1776:
          "The over-insistence on witnesses having no relation with
          the victims often results in criminal justice going awry.
          When any incident happens in a dwelling house, the most
H         natural witnesses would be the inmates of that house. It is
    BHAGWAN DASS v. STATE(NCT) OF DELHI                  345
          [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.]
    unpragmatic to ignore such natural witnesses and insist on A
    outsiders who would not have even seen anything. If the
    court has discerned from the evidence or even from the
    investigation records that some other independent person
    has witnessed any event connecting the incident in
    question, then there is a justification for making adverse s
    comments against non-examination of such a person as
    a prosecution witness. Otherwise, merely on surmises the
    court should not castigate the prosecution for not
    examining other persons of the locality as prosecution
    witnesses. The prosecution can be expected to examine c
    only those who bave witnessed the events and not those
    who have not seen it though the neighbourhood may be
    replete with other residents also."

   Similarly, in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of
Maharashtra (2006)1 SCC 681 this Court observed:    D

    "These crimes are generally committed in complete
    secrecy inside the house and it becomes very difficult for
    the prosecutio11 to lead evidence. No member of the
    family, even if he is a witness of the crime, would come     E
    forward to depose against another family member. The
    neighbours, whose evidence may be of some assistance,
    are generally reluctant to depose in court as they want to
    keep aloof and do not want to antagonize a neighbourliood
    family. The parents or other family members of the bride F
    being away from the scene of commission of crime are
    not in a position to give direct evidence which may
    inculpate the real accused except regarding the demand
    of money or dowry and harassment caused to the bride.
    But, it does not mean that a crime committed in secrecy G
    or inside the house should go unpunished."           ··
                                         (emphasis supplied)
     In our opinion both the trial court and High Court have given
very cogent reasons for convicting the appellant, and we see H
    346      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2011] 6 S.C.R.


A   no reason to disagree with their verdicts. There is
    overwhelming circumstantial evidence to show that the accused
    committed the crime as he felt that he was dishonoured by his
    daughter.
      For the reason given above we find no force in this appeal
B and it is dismissed.
         Before parting with this case we would like to state that
    'honour' killings have become commonplace in many parts of
    the country, particularly in Haryana, western U.P., and
c   Rajasthan. Often young couples who fall in love have to seek
    shelter in the police lines or protection homes, to avoid the
    wrath of kangaroo courts. We have held in Lata Singh's case
    (supra) that there is nothing 'honourable' in 'honour' killings, and
    they are nothing but barbaric and brutal murders by bigoted,
0   persons with feudal minds.
       14. In our opinion honour killings, for whatever reason,
  come within the category of rarest of rare cases deserving
  death punishment. It is time to stamp out these barbaric, feudal
  practices which are a slur on our nation. This is necessary as
E a deterrent for such outrageous, uncivilized behaviour. All
  persons who are planning to perpetrate 'honour' killings should
  know that the gallows await them.
        Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Registrar
F Generals/Registrars of all the High Courts who shall circulate
  the same to all ,Judges of the Courts. The Registrar General/
  Registrars of the High Courts will also circulate copies of the
  same to all the Sessions Judges/Additional Sessions Judges
  in the State/Union Territories. Copies of the judgment shall also
  be sent to all the Chief Secretaries/Home Secretaries/Director
G Generals of Police of all States/Union Territories in the country.
  The Home Secretaries and Director Generals of Police will
  circulate the same to all S.S.Ps/S.Ps in the States/Union
  Territories for information.

H D.G.                                           Appeal dismissed ..