DAULAT RAM @ DAULTIversusSTATE OF HARYANA

                  [2015) 2 S.C.R. 1001                  1001


               DAULAT RAM @ DAULTI                        A
                           v.
                 STATE OF HARYANA

           (Criminal Appeal No. 433 of 2015)              B

                   MARCH 17, 2015

    [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]

    Penal code, 1860: s.302 rlw s.34 and s.201 - C
Conviction by courts below based on circumstantial
evidence - Deceased brutally murdered and his dead body
thrown in dry well - Evidence of prosecution witnesses
were not found to be trustworthy - Motive or previous
                                                           0
enmity of the appellant-accused with the deceased was
a/so not proved - Chain of circumstances wa$ not
complete to prove charge of offences ulss.302 and 201
against the appellant - Conviction liable to be set aside.

    Allowing the appeal, the court                        E

     HELD: 1. PW-1, father of the deceased supported
the prosecution case that the dead body of his son
(deceased) was recovered from the dry we.II. PW-2,
proved the fact that he had seen the appellant F
consuming liquor with the deceased and the three co-
accused. He further stated that he informed about the
above last seen evidence to his brother PW-1. In his
cross-examination, he admitted that he was at the
place of his duty between 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. It also G
came on the record that the distance between his
village and his place of work was about 10-12 Kms,
which he used to cover in one-two hours. When asked
                         1001                            H
1002      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015] 2 S.C.R.


 A about the source of light in which he identified the
   appellant and other co-accused, he told that there was
   light of fire. But evidence of this witness did not inspire
   confidence nor appeared to be natural or trust worthy.
   PW-9 another brother of PW-1 stated that from behind
 B a bush he saw appellant and other three accused
   dragging some dead body and throwing the same into
   the well in early hours of 10.1.2002. In his cross-
   examination, this witness stated that he came to know
   that the deceased was missing only at 9.00 a.m. on
 C 10.1.2002. What was not sufficiently explained in his
   statement was that if he actually saw that some dead
   body was being dragged and thrown into the well, why
   he remained silent in the village till he came to know
   that the deceased was missing. The act of throwing
 0
   the dead body into the well is such an incident, which
   a person who had witnessed it, would immediately
   disclose in the village. Evidence of this witness, who
   is also relative of the informant, did not appear to be
 E trust worthy as his presence near tube well cannot be
   said to be natural. Next witness of fact is PW-11,
   nephew of PW-1, who has attempted to corroborate
   that PW-9 told PW-1 about the fact that he had seen
   dragging of the dead body by four persons. Had the
 F incident been taken inside the house or courtyard, it
   could have been said that only the relatives living in
   the house or the next door neighbours had the
   opportunity to see the incident. But in the present
   case, the reasonable doubt cropped up as to why in
 G respect of an incident far away from the house of the
   informant, only informant and his relatives could see
   it. [Paras 13 to 16) [1008-E-H; 1009-A-H; 1010-A-B]

      2. There was nothing on record to suggest that
 H appellant had any enmity with the deceased or that he
   DAULAT RAM@ DAULTI v. STATE OF HARYANA              1003


had any motive to commit the crime. No doubt, motive A
is not required to be proved for commission of a crime
but in a case· of circumstantial evidence, it cannot be
altogether ignored where the other accused with
similar role have been acquitted, from the charges of
murder. The chain of circumstances brought on record B
was not complete to prove charge of offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC against
appellant as such, the conviction and sentence
recorded by the courts below against him is liable to
be set aside. [Paras 17 to 19) [1010-D-G]               C

   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
Appeal No. 433 of 2015.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 06.02.2012 of     o
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in
Criminal Appeal No. 546-DB of 2010.

   S. C. Paul, Resham Singh, Roopa Paul, Satyendra
Kumar for the Appellant.                  •        E

   Amit Kumar, AAG, Vishwa Pratap Singh, Kamal Mohan
Gupta for the Respondsnt.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                        F
    PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. Heard.

    2. This appeal is directed against judgment and order
dated 6.02.2012, passed by the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 546-DB of 2010 whereby G
the appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence
against the appellant Daulat Ram @ Daulti under Section
302 read with Section 34 and one under Section 201 of
Indian Penal Code (IPC), recorded by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Faridabad, in Sessions Case No. RBT H
1004         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 2 S.C.R.


 A No. 38 of 2008/2009 is affirmed.

            3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 10.1.2002 PW-
       1 Himmat Singh approached PW-20, Inspector Amrik
       Singh of Police Station Chhainsa and informed him that his
 B     elder son Zile Singh @ Prem Chand (deceased), was
       missing. The informant further told to the above officer that
       Zile Singh had gone on 9.1.2002 on the request of the
       appellant Daulat Ram, with him. He further told that PW-
       2 Mangal Singh, disclosed him that in the previous night
 C     the deceased was seen having liquor with appellant Daulat
       Ram, Devanand (son of Mishri Lal), Mahesh @ Bachhu
       (son of Ramji Lal) and Om Prakash @ Omi (son of Rewati
       Parshad) in fodder room (of Omi). The informant (PW-1)
       further told the police that when by about 5.00 a.m. on
 D     10.1.2002, Zile Singh did not come back to his home, he
       (informant) along with his another son Manoj Kumar went
       to fodder room of Omi where they spotted blood stains,
       and started searching for the deceased here and there.
       PW-9, Jugal Kishore, told him (PW-1) that he had seen
 E     appellant Daulat Ram, Devanand, Mahesh and Om
       Prakash throwing a dead body into a dry well near the
       tubewell. Thereafter, accompanied by PW-9, Jugal Kishore,
       Himmat Singh, PW-11, Brahm Dutt, proceeded towards the
 F     tubewell. From the battlement (Munder) they peeped into
       the well and noticed a dead body lying there. PW-11,
       Brahm Dutt, got down into the well and saw that the dead
       body was that of Zile Singh @ Prem Chand, which was
       tied with a blanket. The informant alleged that appellant
 G     Daulat Ram and co-accused Om Prakash, Mahesh and
       Devanand had killed Zile Singh after making him drunk.

        4. On the basis of above report, FIR (Ex PB) was
   registered against all the four accused, namely, Mahesh @
 H Bachhu, Om Prakash@ Omi, Devanand and Daulat Ram
   DAULAT RAM@ DAULTI v. STATE OF HARYANA                 1005
            [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

@ Daulti, at Police Station Chhainsa, and crime was           A
investigated by PW-20 Inspector Amrik Singh. The dead
body of Zile Singh was taken into possession by the police,
sealed and sent for post mortem examination. PW-13, Dr.
P.S. Yadav, conducted post mortem on 10.1.2002 with his
team of doctors, namely, Dr. S. K. Mittal and Dr. Harsh       B
Piplani. The team of medical officers recorded four ante/
post mortem injuries (one ante and three post mortem),
and opined that the deceased has died of shock and
hemorrhage as a result of injury No. 1 sustained due to
fire arm. After interrogating the witnesses and inspecting    C
the spot, charge sheet was filed against three accused
namely, Mahesh @ Bachhu, Om Prakash @ Omi and
Devanand, who were arrested. As against appellant Daulat
Ram, who could be arrested only in the year 2008,             D
subsequent report/charge sheet was filed under Section
173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

     5. After separate committal of the case of Daulat Ram
@ Daulti (appellant), charge was framed against him in
respect of offences punishable under Section 302 read with E
Section 34 and Section 201 IPC, to which he pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.

     6. On this, prosecution examined PW-1 Himmat Singh
(informant), PW-2 Mangal Singh, PW-3 A.S.I. Sher Singh, F
PW-4 Constable Sukhender Singh, PW-5 Shiv Lal, PW-6
A.S.I. Jai Lal, PW-7 Yashwant Singh (Patwari Halqa), PW-
8 Rajbir, PW-9 Jugal Kishore, PW-10 Bhagwat Dayal, PW-
11 Brahm Dutt, PW-12 Narottam (photographer), PW-13
Dr. P.S. Yadav (who conducted autopsy), PW-14 Inspector G
Prem Singh, PW-15 HC Sarjeet Singh, PW-16 HC Suresh
Kumar, PW-17 A.S.I. Sukhbir Singh, PW-18 S.I. Raghubir
Singh, PW-19 Constable Randhir Singh and PW-20 Amrik
Singh (who investigated the crime).
                                                         H
1006        SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2015] 2 S.C.R.


 A         7. The oral and documentary evidence was put to the
       appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
       Procedure on 18.2.2010, to which he pleaded that the
       same is incorrect.

 B     8. After hearing the parties, the trial court (Additional
   Sessions Judge, Faridabad), on 20.4.2010, found accused
   Daufat Ram (appellant) guilty of charge of offences
   punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and
   under Section 201 IPC. After hearing on sentence, on
 C 21.4.2010, the convict was sentenced to rigorous
   imprisonment for fife and directed to pay a fine of
   Rs.25,000/- under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
   He was further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five
   years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under section 201
 D IPC. In default of payment of fine of Rs.25,000/- the
   convict was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
   a period of two years, while in default of payment of fine
   of Rs.5,000/- he was directed to undergo rigorous
   imprisonment for a period of one year.
 E
           9. ft is pertinent to mention here that co-accused
       Mahesh, Devanand and Om Prakash @ Omi had already
       been convicted by the trial court, vide its judgment and
       order dated 29/31.7.2006 in SC No. 25 of 2002/06.
 F
        10. Both sets of convicts fifed appeals before the High
   Court. Criminal Appeal No. 568-DB of 2006 was filed by
   accused Mahesh @ Bachhu, Om Prakash @ Omi and
   Devanand and Criminal Appeal No. 546-DB of 2010 was
 G filed by convict Daulat Ram @ Daulti. Both the appeals
   were clubbed and heard together and decided by common
   judgment dated 6.2.2012. Appeal of accused Mahesh, Om
   Prakash and Devanand was partly allowed and they were
   acquitted by the High Court from the charge of offence
 H punishable under Section 302/34 IPC but their conviction
       DAULAT RAM@ DAULTI v. STATE OF HARYANA                 1007
                [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

and sentence under Section 201 IPC was not interfered           A
with. However, the appeal of convict Daulat Ram was
dismissed upholding his conviction and sentences awarded
to him on both the counts. Hence, this appeal by Daulat
Ram @ Daulti.
                                                                B
     11. Before further discussion, we think it just and
proper to reproduce the ante/post mortem injuries found
on the dead body of Zile Singh (deceased) by PW-13 Dr.
P.S. Yadav and his team mates. The same are reproduced
as under: -                                              C

 "1.      A lacerated wound of 3 x 2.5 cm on left side of the
         face with the incised margins and blackening just
         around the wound. On probing wound was going
         downwards and posteriorily and in the opposite        o
         direction. On further examination of the ·wound,
         there was a fluid like feeling and feeling of clotting
         of multiple bones of head pieces. However, the
         wound was not communicated exteriorly on the
         opposite side with head and neck.                      E

 2._     The face and skull of left side was depressed and
         on examination and dissection it was just like bag
         of bones and there was fracture of skull bone with
         posterior cranial fossa.                              F
· 3.     A parchment of like appearance of the skin over the
         interior chest wall, the upper part of abdomen on
         both sides vJith some deficiency in the epigestric
         region.                                             G
 4.      The chest wall on left side on dissection was found
        depressed and there was fracture of 3ro to 7in rib. At
        this stage, x-ray of the skull was got done (No. 247
        dated 10.1.2002), which was taken in custody by the H
1008         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 2 S.C.R.


 A           Board members and signed. The x-ray skull reveals
             the multiple radio opaque shadow of 1 millimeter in
             size and round in shape with multiple fractures of
             skull bone. On dissection of other part of body,
             namely, intestine, liver, spleen, kidneys was found to
 B           be normal."

       The autopsy report shows that Zile Singh had died of
   shock and hemorrhage, as a result of injury No. 1 (i.e. ante
   mortem) caused by fire arm. Best of the injuries were post
 C mortem injuries in nature.

             12. As such, there is no doubt that it is established on
       the record that Zile Singh had died homicidal death. Now,
       this Court has to see whether the courts below have rightly
 o     found or not that appellant Daulat Ram has committed
       murder of Zile Singh and in order to cause disappearance
       of evidence threw the dead body into the well from where
       it is said to have been recovered. As to the commission
       of murder, it is a case of circumstantial evidence.
 E
       13. PW-1, Hirnrnat Singh, who is father of Zile Singh
   (deceased), is the informant. He has supported the
   prosecution case and proved the fact that his son went
   missing from the evening of 9.1.2002. He also stated that
 F he lodged First Information Report. He further proved the
   fact that the dead body of his son (deceased) was
   recovered on 10.1.2002 from the dry well.

       14. PW-2, Mangal, has proved the fact that he had
G seen appellant Daulat Ram consuming liquor with the
  deceased (Zile Singh) and the three co-accused, namely,
  Mahesh, Orn Prakash and Devanand. He further stated
  that he informed about the above last seen evidence to his
  brother Hirnrnat Singh. In his cross-examination, he has
H admitted that he was at the place of his duty between 8.00
   DAULAT RAM@ DAULTI v. STATE OF HARYANA                1009
            [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

a.m. to 8.00 p.m. It has also come on the record that the A
distance between his village Junhera and his place of work
is about 10-12 Kms, which he used to cover in one-two
hours. He further disclosed that the fodder room, where the
appellant was said to have been consuming liquor with co-
accused and the deceased, was at a distance of 6-7 feet B
from the road. When asked about the source of light in
which he identified the appellant and other co-accused, he
told that there was light of fire. But evidence of this
witness, who is brother of informant, does not inspire
confidence nor appears to be natural or trust worthy.       C

     15. PW-9, Jugal Kishore, who is another witness of
fact, is also brother of informant Himmat Singh (PW-1),
who has stated that from behind a bush he saw appellant
Daulat Ram and other three accused dragging some dead D ·
body and throwing the same into the well in early hours
of 10.1.2002. In his cross-examination, this witness states
that he came to know that Zile Singh was missing only at
9.00 a.m. on 10.1.2002. What is not sufficiently explained
in his statement is that if he actually saw that some dead E
body was being dragged and thrown into the well, why he
remained silent in the village till he came to know that Zile
Singh was missing. The act of throwing the dead body into
the well is such an incident, which a person who had F
witnessed it, would immediately disclose in the village.
Evidence of this witness, who is also relative of the
informant, does not appear to be trust worthy as his
presence near tube well cannot be said to be natural.

     16. Next witness cf fact is PW-11, Brahm Dutt, G
nephew of PW-1 Himmat Singh, who has attempted to .
corroborate that Jugal Kishore told Himmat Singh about the
fact that he had seen dragging of the dead body by four
persons. Had the incident been taken inside the house or H
1010      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2015] 2 S.C.R.


 A courtyard, it could have been said that only the relatives
   living in the house or the next door neighbours had the
   opportunity to see the incident. But in the present case,
   the reasonable doubt crops up as to why in respect of an
   incident far away from the house of the informant, only
 B informant and his relatives could see it.

        17. No doubt, Zile Singh appears to have been brutally
   murdered and his dead body was found in the well, but as
   to the role of the appellant Daulat Ram, in our opinion, in
 C the above facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that
   complete chain of circumstances is proved to hold him
   guilty of commission of murder of Zile Singh or as to the
   fact that he caused disappearance of evidence by throwing
   the dead body of Zile Singh into the well. There is nothing
 D on record to suggest that appellant had any enmity with
   the deceased or that he had any motive to commit the
   crime. No doubt, motive is not required to be proved for
   commission of a crime but in a case of circumstantial
   evidence, it cannot be altogether ignored where the other
 E accused with similar role have been acquitted, from the
   charges of murder.

        18. The other witnesses got examined on behalf of the
   prosecution have given evidence of formal nature which is
 F not incriminatory against the appellant.

        19. For the reasons, ~s discussed above, we are of
   the view that the chain of circumstances brought on record
   is not complete to prove charge of offences punishable
 G under Sections 302 and 201 IPC against appellant Daulat
   Ram @ Daulti, as such, the conviction and sentence
   recorded by the courts below against him is liable to be
   set aside.

 H      20. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The conviction
   DAULAT RAM@ DAULTI v. STATE OF HARYANA                    1011
            [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

and sentence recorded against accused Daulat Ram under A
Sections 302 and 201 IPC, is set aside. He is acquitted
of the charge. He shall be set at liberty, if not required in
connection with any other crime.

Devika Gujral                              Appeal allowed.     B