KARAN SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

                          [2013] 5 S.C.R. 1166


A                           KARAN SINGH
                                   v.
                STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.
               (Criminal Appeal No. 1474 of 2010)
                             MAY 28, 2013
B
         [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, .JJ.]

      Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 - Murder - Conviction by
  courts below - Held: Consistent versions by the material
C witnesses regarding motive for murder - Prosecution case
  also supported by independent witness - There was no
  reason to falsely implicate the accused who was an influential
  person -conviction upheld.

        Investigation :
D
        Tainted investigation - Effect - Held: Tainted
  investigation leads to miscarriage of criminal justice, and thus
  deprives a man of his fundamental rights guaranteed under
  Article 21 of the Constitution :.. Every investigation must be
E judicious, fair transparent and expeditious to ensure
  compliance with the rules of law as required under Articles 19,
  20 and 21 of the Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 -
  Articles, 19, 20 and 21.

F       Tainted investigation - Effect of - On prosecution case
    - Held: Every discrepancy in investigation does not result in
    acquittal unless proved that it was dishonest or guided
    investigation or seriously prejudiced the defence of the
    accused.
G        The appellant accused was prosecuted for killing a
    woman. The prosecution case was that when PW-3 was
    irrigating her agricultural fields alongwith her daughter
    PW-4, she heard cries of her daughter (the deceased).

H                                 1166
       KARAN SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA                 1167


She saw that appellant alongwith co-accused had put a          A
rope around the neck of the deceased and was dragging
her in the field; and that the appellant had certain dispute
with the deceased regarding non-payment of Rs. 47000/
- by the appellant as consideration, for the sale of a
bufallo. Charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and      B
the co-accused was declared proclaimed offender.

    Trial court convicted the appellant-accused under s.
302 IPC, sentenced him to imprisonment for life and
imposed fine of Rs. 25000/- with default clause. High          C
Court upheld the conviction and sentence. Hence, the
present appeal.

    Dismissing the appeal, "the Court

      HELD: 1.1. Consistent versions have been provided        0
by the material witnesses regarding the non-payment of
the sum of Rs.47,000/- as sale consideration for the sale
of a buffalo, by the appellant. This version of events also
fully stands established by the evidence provided by
PW.3 and PW.4. No attempt was made by the defence to           E
falsify the allegation of the non-payment of the sum of
 Rs.47,000/-. It also stands established from the material
on record, that there had been an altercation between the
appellant and the deceased 2-3 days before the incident,
and the appellant had threatened the deceased with dire
consequences. Such version of events stands further            F
fortified, by the evidence of PW.8, who is an independent
witness. None of the witnesses have been properly cross-
examined by the defence. Both the courts though have
expressed their anguish regarding the manner in which
the investigation was conducted, they have convicted           G
the appellant for the offence punishable under Section
302 IPC, and have awarded appropriate sentences.
[Paras 6 to 8] [1175-D, F, G; 1176-B•C]

    1.2. The presence of PWs 3 and 4 in the field cannot       H
   1168    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A be doubted, as it is usual for every agriculturist to carry
  out the task of irrigation, whenever his/her turn for
  irrigation arises. The defence had not asked PWs. 3 and
  4 to furnish any further details regarding the cultivation
  of the land, in relation to the terms and conditions of the
B Batai, and also regarding who's duty it was to irrigate the
  land, and what the source and means of irrigation were.
  [Para 9) [1176-E-F]

      1.3. The courts below rightly held that there was no
  reason for the false implication of the accused, who being
C the Sarpanch of the village was an influential person; that
  PW.8 was an independent witness and there was no
  ground to disregard his testimony; and that Abadi was
  at some distance from the place of occurrence and
  hence, the hue and cry raised by the deceased, and
D subsequently by PW.3, could not have attracted the
  attention of any person. [Para 17) [1181-B-D]

       1.4. Other theories introduced by the defence are
  liable to be rejected. Their stating that the deceased had
E been a woman of easy virtue, her having illicit
  relationships with a large number of persons; humiliation
  of her mother (PW.3) etc. cannot adversely affect the case
  of the prosecution. The theory of political rivalry between
  certain persons and the appellant, at whose behest PW.3
F and PW.4 had levelled the allegation of such a heinous
  crime, also do not inspire confidence. [Para 8, 10) [1176-
  C; 1176-H; 1177-A]
       2.1.The investigation into a criminal offence must be
  free from any objectionable features or infirmities which
G may give rise to an apprehension in the mind of the
  complainant or the accused, that investigation was not
  fair and may have been carried out with some ulterior
  motive. The Investigating Officer must not indulge in any
  kind of mischief, or cause harassment either to the
H complainant or to the accused. His conduct must be
        KARAN SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA                 1169


entirely impartial and must dispel any suspicion regarding      A
the genuineness of the investigation. The Investigating
Officer, "is not merely present to strengthen the case of
the prosecution with evidence that will enable the court
to record a conviction, but to bring out the real
unvarnished version of the truth." Ethical conduct on the       B
part of the investigating agency is absolutely essential,
and there must be no scope for any allegation of ma/a
fides or bias. [Para 12] [1177-C-F]
     Ram Bihari Yadav vs. State of Bihar & Ors. AIR 1998 SC
1850: 1998 (2) SCR 1097; Amar Singh vs. Ba/winder Singh         C
& Ors. AIR 2003 SC 1164: 2003 (1) SCR 754; Ram Bali vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2004 SC 2329: 2004 (1) Suppl.
SCR 195 - relied on.
      2.2. Words like 'personal liberty' contained in Article   0
 21 of the Constitution provide for the widest amplitude,
 covering all kinds of rights particularly, the right to
 personal liberty of the citizens of lndi.a, and a person
 cannot be deprived of the same without following the
 procedure prescribed by law. In this way, the                  E
 investigating agencies are the guardians of the liberty of
 innocent citizens. Therefore, a duty is cast upon the
 Investigating Officer to ensure that an innocent person
 should not suffer from unnecessary harassment of false
 implication, however, at the same time, an accused
 person must not be given undue leverage. An                    F
 investigation cannot be interfered with or influenced even
 by the courts. Therefore, the investigating agency must
 avoid entirely any kind of extraneous influence, and
 investigation must be carried out with equal alacrity and
 fairness irrespective of the status of the accused or the      G
·complainant, as a tainted investigation definitely leads to
the miscarriage of criminal justice, and thus deprives a
 man of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article
 21 of the Constitution. Thus, every investigation must be
 judicious, fair, transparent and expeditious to ensure         H
    1170    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 5 S.C.R.

A compliance with the rules of law, as is required under
  Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution. [Para 12] [1177-
  C-F]

        Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2010) 12 SCC 254:
    2010 (10) SCR 651 - relied on.
8
       2.3. Omissions made on the part of the Investigating
  Officer, where the prosecution succeeds in proving its
  case beyond any reasonable doubt by way of adducing
  evidence, particularly that of eye-witnesses and other
C witnesses, would not be fatal to the case of the
  prosecution, for the reason that every discrepancy
  present in the investigation does not weigh upon the
  court to the extent that it -necessarily results in the
  acquittal of accused, unless it is proved that the
D investigation was held in such. manner that it is dubbed
  as "a dishonest or guided investigation", which will
  exonerate the accused. Thus, unless lapses made on the
  part of Investigating authorities are such, so as to cast a
  reasonable doubt on the case of the prosecution, or
E seriously prejudice the defence of the accused, the court
  would not set aside the conviction of the accused merely
  on the ground of tainted investigation. [Para 14] [1178-F-
  H; 1179-B-C]

        2.4. There is adequate evidence on record to show
F that PW.9, who had conducted the investigation at its
  initial stage, had not acted in accordance with law and
  had favoured the appellant. It was for this reason that the
  police authorities upon a complaint made, changed the
  Investigating Officer, who then conducted the
G investigation properly. In spite of the fact that certain
  serious findings have been recorded by the Trial Court,
  as well as by the High Court regarding the unfair
  investigation conducted by the SHO of the Police Station,
  but for the reasons best known to the administration, no
H action was taken against him. The Chief Secretal'.,Y.Of th9
              -                  -              .•   -   -   __ . : _ , , _   ·~i
       KARAN SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA              1171


State of Haryana is requested to examine the case, and      A
proceed in accordance with law. [Paras 11 and 19] [1177-
B; 1181..,G-H; 1182-A-B]

    Sonali Mukherjee vs. Union of India (2010) 15 SCC 25:
2009 (14) SCR 858; Mohd. lmran Khan vs. State Government B
(NCT of Delhi) (2011) 10 sec 192: 2011 (15) SCR 1030;
Sheo Shankar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr. AIR
2011 SC 1403: 2011 (4) SCR 312; Gajoo vs. State of
Uttarakhand (2012) 9 SCC 532: 2012 (7) SCR 1033;
Shyamal Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal AIR 2012 SC 3539:
2012 (10) SCR 95; Hirata/ Pandey and Ors. vs. State of U.P. C
AIR 2012 SC 2541: 2012 (3) SCR 1066 - relied on.

   Dayal Singh and Ors. vs. State of Uttaranchal (2012) 8
SCC 263: 2012(10) SCR 157 - referred to.
                                                            D
                    Case Law Reference:
    2010 (10) SCR 651         relied on          Para 12
    1998 (2) SCR 1097         relied on          Para 13
    2003 (1) SCR 754          relied on         Para 13     E
    2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 195 relied on            Para 13
    2009 (14) SCR 858         relied on         Para 14
    2011 (15) SCR 1030        relied on          Para 14    f
    2011 (4) SCR 312          relied on         Para 14
    2012 (7) SCR 1033         relied on         Para 14
    2012 (10) SCR 95           relied on         Para 14
                                                            G
    2012 (3) SCR 1066         reJied on          Para 14
    2012 (10) SCR 157         referred to        Para 15
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1474 of 2010.      ·                                    H
    1172    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013) 5 S.C.R.


A       From the Judgment and Order dated 06.02.2009 of the
    High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal
    Appeal No. 226-DB of 2007.

         Neeraj Kumar Jain, Rishi Malhotra, Devashish Bharuka for
    the Appellant.
8
          Manjit Singh, AAG, Ramesh Kumar, Kamal Mohan Gupta
    for the Respondents.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c      DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been
  preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated
  6.2.2009 in Criminal Appeal No.226-DB of 2007, passed by
  the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, by way of
  which the High Court has affirmed the judgment and order
D dated 8.2.2007, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
  Bhiwani in Sessions Trial No.110 of 8.9.2005, by way of which
  and whereunder the Trial Court has convicted the appellant
  under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter
  referred to as the 'IPC'), and sentenced him to undergo
E imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-. In default
  of payment of such fine, he would further suffer RI for a period
  of 3 years.

         2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal as
F   per the prosecution are that:-

       A. In the intervening night between 6-7.1.2005, Maya Devi
  (PW.3), mother of Raj, deceased was irrigating her agricultural
  fields alongwith her daughter Birma (PW.4). On hearing the
G cries of her daughter Raj, Maya Devi and Birma reached th~
  spot and saw that one Kalia had caught hold of Raj and Karan
  Singh, the appellant had put a rope around her neck and was
  dragging her deeper into the fields. Maya Devi (PW.3) raised
  cc:m~erable hue and cry but attracted no help, and Raj died
  on the spot as a result of the throttling. In the morning, Maya
        KARAN SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA                   1173
             [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

Devi (PW.3) went to the place of occurrence alongwith her son     A
Hariom (a simpleton). There were marks of dragging in the
wheat field. A contusion mark on the neck of deceased was
also clearly visible.

     B. Maya Devi (PW.3) went to the police station to file a
                                                                  8
report. On her way there, she met some polite officials and she
informed them about the incident, based on which, an FIR was
registered on 7.1.2005, under Sections 302/34 IPC at the
Police Station, Sadar Charkhi Dadri.

     C. The dead body of Raj was sent for post-mortem. Dr.        C
U.S. Dasodia (PW.7), conducted the post-mortem on the body
of the deceased and found a ligature mark on her neck. He has
opined that she died due to asphyxia, caused by strangulation
which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of
nature. The time gap between her injuries and death was only      D
a few minutes, and between her death and post-mortem, less
than 24 hours.

      Do The police recorded the statements of various persons
including Maya Devi (PW.3), Birma (PW.4) anlongwith other         E
people. After completing the investigation, a chargesheet was
filed against the appellant. The co-accused Kalia, could not be
apprehended and was declared as a proclaimed offender.

     E The case of the prosecution is that Karan Singh, the
appellant, had a certain dispute with deceased Raj regarding      F
the non-payment of ~ues to her to the extent of Rs.47,000/-, as
consideration for the sale of a buffalo by the deceased Raj.
Since the appellant had not paid the said mo"ney~Jhere was a
quarrel between them on 3-4.1.2005 as regards the same,
wherein appellant had threatened to kill her. In furtherance      G
thereof, Raj was murdered by the appellant.

    F. The prosecotion examined several witnesses including
Maya Devi (PW."3), Birma {PW.4) and Omkar Singh (PW.8).
The statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under         H
    1174     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A   Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
    referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.') After the conclusion of the trial, the
    learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, convicted and sentenced the
    appellant, as has been referred to hereinabove.

         Hence, this appeal.
B
       3. Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel
  appearing for the appellant has submitted, that the investigation
  in the instant case, was tainted. The statement under Section
  161 Cr.P.C. had been recorded after several months of the
C incident. Raj, deceased was a woman who had gotten
  separated from her husband for the reason that she had been
  a woman of easy virtue, and had also been living separately
  from her mother and sister. The specific case of Maya Devi
  (PW.3), mother of deceased was, that she had gone alongwith
D her daughter to irrigate the fields, though in her cross-
  examination she has admitted that the agricultural land had
  been given to one Khazan, upon sharing of the agricultural
  produce (Batai). Birma (PW.4), the sister of the deceased has
  deposed that they did not cultivate the land themselves.
E
         The Trial Court did not believe the version of events as
    provided by Maya Devi (PW.3) and Birma (PW.4), but treated
    the case as one of circumstantial evidence. The entire case of
    the prosecution is improbable. Thus, the appeal deserves to
    be allowed.
F
       4. On the contrary, Shri Manjit Singh, AAG, appearing for
  the State of Haryana, has opposed the appeal contending that
  the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact. The
  defence had not put any question in the cross-examination
G either to Maya Devi (PW.3) or Birma (PW.4), regarding the non-
  payment of the sum of Rs.47,000/- as consideration for the sale
  of a buffalo by the deceased Raj to Karan Singh, appellant,
  despite the fact that there was ample evidence on record to
  show that there had been an altercation regarding the non-
H
        KARAN SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA                       1175
              [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

payment of the said amount on 3.1.2005, between the                    A
deceased and the appellant. The appellant had threatened to
kill her. Moreover, this statement stood corroborated by the
deposition of Omkar Singh (PW.8). In the event that there had
been some impropriety in the course of the investigation, the
same had been only at the behest of the appellant and that too,        B
entirely in his favour and certainly not in the favour of the
prosecution. The appellant has made a disclosure statement
about concealing t.he rope that had been used in the crime, but
the Investigating Officer has not made any effort to recover the
same. Thus, the 1lppeal is liable to be rejected.                      c
     5. We have considered the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

      6. Consistent versions have been provided by the material
witnes~es regarding the non-payment of the sum of Rs.47,000/           D
- as sale consideration for the sale of a buffalo, by the appellant.
This version of events also fully stands established by the
evidence proviC:led by Maya Devi (PW.3) and Birma (PW.4).
In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the defence did
not.ask anyquestion to test the veracity of the said statement,        E
either to Maya Devi (PW.3) or to Birma (PW.4). Mere denial
stating that the same is incorrect by the appellant, is not
sufficient and there is no reason to disbelieve the said portion
of the case of the prosecution. It also stands established from
the material on record, that there had been an altercation             F
between the appellant and the deceased 2-3 days before th.e
incident, and the appellant had threatened the deceased with
dire consequences. Such version of events stands further
fortified, by the evidence of Omkar Singh (PW.8).

     7. Omkar Singh (PW.8) is an independent witness who               G
has deposed that on the fateful day, he had gone to bring some
vegetables from a shop. The accused-appellant had then come
there from the side of the Harijan Basti, asking where Raj
(prostitute) had gone, and had stated that he would kill her
                                                                       H
    1176     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [20131 s ·s.c.R.


A   within 2-3 days. The accused-appellant had been having illicit
    relations with the deceased, and at the said time, the accused
    had been under the influence of alcohol.

       8. None of these witnesses have been properly cross-
B examined by the defence. Both the courts though have
  expressed their anguish regarding the manner in which the
  investigation was conducted, they have convicted the appellant
  for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, and have
  awarded appropriate sentences. A large number of other
C theories were introduced by the defence stating that the
  deceased had been a woman of easy virtue, and that it was
  for this reason that her husband had divorced her, she had
  settled in the village and had been iiving in a separate house,
  away from her mother's house, and that even here, she had
D been having illicit relationships with a large number of persons,
  etc. In relation to the same, a Panchayat was also conducted,
  and Maya Devi (PW.3) etc. had been humiliated. Be that as it
  may, this kind of theory could not adversely affect the case of
  the prosecution.

E       . 9. So far as the issue of cultivating the said land is
    concerned, the defence had not asked PWs.3 and 4 to furnish
    any further details regarding the cultivation of the land, in relation
    to the terms and conditions of the Batai, and also regarding
    who's duty it was to irrigate the land, and what the source and
F   means of irrigation were, as they have claimed to be in the
    agriculture fields at mid night for purpose of irrigating the same.
    Their presence cannot be doubted, as it is usual for every
    agriculturist to carry out the task of irrigation, whenever his/her
    turn for irrigation arises.
G        10. As the defence has not put any further question in the
    course of the cross-examination of Maya Devi (PW.3) and
    Birma (PW.4) in this regard, we are not in a position to grant
    the benefit of any of these issues to the appellant. The theory
    of political rivalry between certain persons and the appellant,
H
          KARAN SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA                     1177
               [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

  at whose behest Maya Devi (PW.3) and Birma (PW.4) had                A
  levelled the allegation of such a heinous crime, do not inspire
  confidence. The same are thus liable to be rejected.

        11. There is adequate evidence on record to show that
  Rajesh Kumar, SI (PW.9), who had conducted the investigation
                                                                       8
  at its initial stage, had not acted in accordance with law and
  had favoured the appellant. It was for this reason that the police
  authorities upon a complaint made, changed the Investigating
  Officer, who then conducted the investigation properly.

         12. The investigation into a criminal offence must be free C
   from any objectionable features or infirmities which may give
, rise to an apprehension in the mind of the complainant or the
   accused, that investigation was not fair and may have been
   carried out with some ulterior motive. The Investigating Officer
   must not indulge in any kind of mischief, or cause harassment D
   either to the complainant or to the accused. His conduct must
   be entirely impartial and must dispel any suspicion regarding
   the genuineness of the investigation. The Investigating Officer,
   "is not merely present to strengthen the case of the prosecution
   with evidence that will enable the court to record a conviction, E
   but to bring out the real unvarnished version of the truth." Ethical
   conduct on the part of the investigating agency is absolutely
   essential, and there must be no scope for any allegation of mala
   fides or bias. Words like 'personal liberty' contained in Article
   21 of the Constitution of India provide for the widest amplitude, F
   covering all kinds of rights particularly, the right to personal
    liberty of the citizens of India, and a person cannot be deprived
   of the same without following the procedure prescribed by law.
    In this way, the investigating agencies are the guardians of the
   liberty of innocent citizens. Therefore, a duty is cast upon the
    Investigating Officer to ensure that an innocent person should G
   not suffer from unnecessarily harassment of false implication,
   however, at the same time, an accused person must not be
 , given undueJ~verage. An investigation cannot be interfered with
   or influenced even by the courts. Therefore, the investigating
                                                                       H
    1178     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A   agency must avoid entirely any kind of extraneous influence, and
    investigation must be carried out with equal alacrity and fairness
    irrespective of the status of the accused or the complainant, as
    a tainted investigation definitely leads to the miscarriage of
    criminal justice, and thus deprives a man of his fundamental
B   rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus,
    every investigation must be judicious, fair, transparent and
    expeditious to ensure compliance with the rules of law, as is
    required under Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution. (Vide:
    Babubhai v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 254).
c      13. In Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1998
  SC 1850, this Court observed, that if primacy is given to a
  designed or negligent investigation, or to the omissions or
  lapses created as a result of a faulty investigation, the faith and
  confidence of the people would be shaken not only in the law
D enforcing agency, but also in the administration of justice.

        A similar view has been re-iterated by this Court in Amar
    Singh v. Ba/winder Singh & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 1164.

E        Furthermore, in Ram Bali v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR
    2004 SC 2329, it was held by this Court that the court must
    ensure that the defective investigation purposely carried out by
    the Investigating Officer, does not affect the credibility of the
    version of events given by the prosecution.

F      14. Omissions made on the part of the Investigating Officer,
  where the prosecution succeeds in proving its case beyond any
  reasonable doubt by way of adducing evidence, particularly that
  of eye-witnesses and other witnesses, would not be fatal to the
  case of the prosecution, for the reason that every discrepancy
G present in the investigation does not weigh upon the court to
  the extent that it necessarily results in the acquittal of accused,
  unless it is proved that the investigation was held in such
  manner that it is dubbed as "a dishonest or guided
  investigation", which will exonerate the accused. (See: Sonali
H
        KARAN SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA                      1179
              [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

Mukherjee v. Union of India, (2010) 15 SCC 25; Mohd. Imran            A
Khan v. State Government (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC
192; Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., AIR
2011 SC 1403; Gajoo v. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 9 SCC
532; Shyama/ Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2012 SC
3539; and Hirata/ Pandey & Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 2012            B
SC 2541).

     Thus, unless lapses made on the part of Investigating
authorities are such, so as to cast a reasonable doubt on the
case of the prosecution, or seriously prejudice the defence of
the accused, the court would not set aside the conviction of the      C
accused merely on the ground of tainted investigation.

      15. This Court in Dayal Singh & Ors. v. State of
Uttaranchal, (2012) 8 sec 263, has laid down certain norms
for taking stern action against an Investigating Officer, guilty of   o
dereliction of duty or misconduct in conducting investigation,
and held -that the State is bound to initiate disciplinary
proceedings against such officers even ignoring the law of
limitation, and even if such officer has retired.

      16. In the instant case, the Trial Court and the High Court     E
have elaborately examined the grievances raised by the
complainant regarding the tainted investigation carried on by
the first Investigating Officer, Shri Rajesh Kumar, and the High
Court has commented on the same as under:
                                                                      F
    "It is well established on record that SI Rajesh Kumar had
    not conducted the investigation properly and he was
    favourably inclined to the appellant and therefore, spoiled
    the case. Detailed reasons have been recorded by learned
    trial court in paragraph 19 of its judgment manifesting that      G
    the appellant had influence over the police. We agree with
    the said reasoning of the trial court which is also apparent
    from the contentions advanced by learned State counsel,
    as noticed hereinabove. There were marks of dragging the
    deceased as mentioned in the inquest report, but still SI         H
    1180   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2013] 5 S.C.R.


A      Rajesh Kumar did not depict the said marks in the rough
       site plan Ex.P-25 prepared by him. He also did not avail
       of the services of dog squad or crime team of the Forensic
       Science Laboratory. Shutter of shop, where the deceased
       used to reside, had also been broken, but the Investigating-
B      Officer did not care to get the same photographed nor
       mentioned the same anywhere in the investigation
       proceedings. Therefore, the complainant cannot be made
       to suffer for the lapse of the Investigating Officer.......The
       complainant is a widow having seven daughters and only
c      one son, who is also simpleton. The deceased was also
       a divorcee and was living alone in the house (shop) in the
       fields in her parental village ....... The complainant Maya
       Devi, who is mother of the deceased, is a widow and
       illiterate rustic villager, whereas the deceased was
       divorcee. On the other hand, the appellant is an influential
D
       person and was Sarpanch at the time of occurrence. The
       complainant named the appellant and his co-accused
       Kalia in the FIR itself. However, distorted version was
       recorded in the FIR and when the complainant party
       received copy of FIR on 26.1.2005 (as stated by Birma
E      Devi PW.4), they learnt of the same and then they
       approached the Superintendent of Police (SP), who also
       did not take any action because the appellant, along with
       Member Legislative Assembly, had met the SP.
       Thereafter, with change of SP, the complainant party again
F      approached the new SP and it was only thereafter that on
       18.2.2005, correct statements of Maya Devi and Birma
       Devi were recorded. The appellant was so much influential
       that even thereafter, he was not arrested for more than four
       months and in fact, SI Rajesh Kumar did not arrest him and
G      the next Investigating Officer ASI Raghbir Singh arrested
       the appellant on 24.6.2005. The appellant had been named
       in the FIR on 7.1.2005, but still SI Rajesh Kumar did not
       even join him in investigation and did not interrog~te him,
       what to talk of arresting him. The statements of Maya Devi
H
       KARAN SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA                   1181
             [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

    and Birma Devi, therefore, cannot be discarded in view A
    of the manner in which SI Rajesh Kumar was conducting
    the investigation from the very beginning."

    17. After considering the entire evidence on record, the
High Court has concurred with the findings recorded by the Trial
                                                                 8
Court as under:

    (i} There is no reason for the false implication of the
    appellant, who being the Sarpanch of the village was an
    influential person.
                                                                c
   ·(ii) Omkar Singh (PW.8) was an independent witness and
    there was no ground to disregard his testimony.

    (iii) Abadi was at some distance from the place of
    occurrence. Therefore, the hue and cry raised by Raj-
    deceased, and subsequently by Maya Devi (PW.3), could D
    not have attracted the attention of any person.

     (iv) No attempt was made by the defence to falsify the
     allegation of the non payment of the sum of Rs.47,000/-,
     as consideration for the sale of a buffalo by the deceased E
     to the appellant.

    18. In view of the above, we do not find any force in the
appeal, which lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.

     19. Before parting with the case, we feel it necessary to F
bring the matter to the notice of the administration of the State
of Haryana that in spite of the fact that certain serious findings
have been recorded by the Trial Court, as well as by the High
Court regarding the unfair investigation conducted by Shri
Rajesh Kumar, who was the SHO of the Police Station, Sadar G
Dadri on 7.1.2005, but for the reasons best known to the
administration, no action was taken against him. We have no
words to express our anguish, and fail to understand under what
circumstances the State authorities have adopted such an
indifferent attitude where a helpless divorcee has been H
    1182     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 5 S.C.R.


A   murdered, and her widowed mother has been crying and·
    running from pillar to post to secure justice, but the
    administration did not feel it necessary to wake up from its deep
    slumber. We request the learned Chief Secretary of the State
    of Haryana to examine the case, and proceed in accordance
B   with law. A copy of the judgment be sent by the registry directly
    to the Chief Secretary, Haryana.

    K.K.T.                                      Appeal dismissed.