KHIM SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

                    [2014] 8 S.C.R. 239


                        KHIM SINGH                             A
                             . v.
                 STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
             (Criminal Appeal No:1986 of 2009)
                       ·JULY 8, 2014
                                                               B
        [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND
               V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.]

       Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder ofmarrifJcJ. woman -
  Circumstantial evidence - Appreciation of - Conviction of C
  appellant-husband by Courts below - Sustainal1iUty - Held:
  Sustainable - Appellant was unhappy with his  wu..·    and this
  resulted in quarrels between them off and on ;. Qi.Jarrel took
  place even in the evening preceding the date of the death -
  On the fateful night, when deceased was killed by means of D
  a Kulhari, except the appellant, nobody was residing in the
  said house - Therefore, deceased could not be killed as a
  result of assault by anybody else other than the appellant -
  Conduct of the appellant in ,the next morning was unnatural -
  He failed to explain as to where he remained on the. fateful E
  night/- The Investigation Officer, (PW-6) clearly stated tha·t at
  the instance of appellant, Kulhari used in the crime was
  recovered - Medical Officei, PW-7, ·in his examination in chief
• stated .that ante mortem injurif(JS on the person of the
  deceased could have been caused by heavy sharp-~dged F ·
  weapon such as Kulhari - PW-4 stated that door of the house
  of appellant was not bolted from inside - This is one of the ..
  incriminating circumstances to conclude that appellant after
  committing the offence opened the door and went out -
  Statements of PW-1-mother of appellant, PW-4- Pradhan and
  PW-2- sister-in-law also suggest that appellant was last seen G
  with the deceased - All the circumstances taken together lead
  to only hypothesis of the· guilt of appellant - Chain of


                             239                                H
    240      SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution
  complete to hold appellant guilty u/s.302 !PC. ·

       The appellant allegedly murdered his wife with an axe
  (kulhari). There was no eye-witness to the occurrence.
B The prosecution case was based on circumstantial
  evidence. The appellant was convicted by the trial court
  under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo
  imprisonment for life. The conviction and sentence was
  affirmed by the High Court.

C      In the instant appeal, the question which arose for
  consideration was whether the circumstances relied
  upon by the prosecution formed a series of events and
  whether the chain of circumstantial evidence was
  complete, which could be sufficient to show involvement
D of the appellant in the commission of murder.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court

         HELD:1. The prosecution in order to bring home the
    guilt of the appellant has relied upon the testimony of PW-
E   1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5. In order to see whether frequent
    quarrels were there between the appellant and his wife,
    the statements of these witnesses are relevant. From the
    testimony of the witnesses, it can be concluded that the
    appellant was unhappy with his wife and this resulted in ·
F   quarrels between them off and on. The quarrel took place
    even in the evening preceding the date of the death. In
    the night intervening 17th and 18th July, 1987 the
    deceased was killed by means of a Kulhari. Except the
    appellant, nobody was residing in the said house.
G   Therefore, the deceased could not be killed as a result
    of assault by anybody else other than the appellant. The
    conduct of the appellant in the morning of 18th July, 1987
    was unnatural. He failed to explain as to where he
    remaineq on the fateful night. [Paras 13, 16, 17] [249-E-F;
H   250-H; 251-A-C]
      KHIM SINGH v. STATE OF UTIRAKHAND                  241


     2. The prosecution successfully proved that there          A
was a quarrel between the appellant and his wife in the
preceding evening. The conduct of the appellant was
unnatural in not disclosing the place where he remained
in the fateful night, making it clear that his statement
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was not believable. From the          B
testimony of the real mother of the appellant, PW-1 as well
as PW-4, Pradhan of the village, it is fully established that
the appellant was very much present in the house on the
fateful night and there was a quarrel between the
appellant and his wife. In the absence of any reason for        c
leaving his house, it can be held that the appellant
remained in his house in that night. [Paras 18, 19) [251-
H; 251-B-D]

     3.. PW-4 clearly stated that none of the residents of
the village had any enmity with the deceased Devi. It is        D
evident from the record that the appellant failed to assign
any reason for the alleged enmity of the villagers and he
could· not utter a single word to that effect in his
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Therefore, there is
no reason to infer that anybody else from the village           E
could have committed the murder of the deceased who
was in the house along with the appell~nt-husband on
the fateful night. The lh,,estigation Offi¢er, (PW-6), was
examined by the prosecution. He clearly stated that at the
instance of the appellant, Kulhari used in the crime was        F
recovered. He was cross-examined, by the defence. In
cross-examination, he clearly denied the suggestion that
the Kulhari (weapon of assault) was not recovered at the
instance of the appellant. The Medical Officer, PW-7 in his
examination in chief stated that ante mortem injury No.1        G
on the person of the deceased could have been caused
by heavy sharp-edged weapon such as Kulhari and
injury No.2 could have been caused by the blunt/rear
side blow of Kulhari or by fall on the stony surface. This
 part of his statement was not questioned in his cross-         H
    242       SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A_ examination. It has come in the statement of Investigation
   Officer (PW.6) that Kulhari recovered on the pointing of
   the appellant was blood-stained and hair was stuck on
   it. He was cross-examined regarding the blood-stained
   portion of the Kulhari and the weight of the Kulhari, etc.
B It is established that blood-stained Kulhari-Ext.Ka-2 was
   seized by the Investigating Officer at the house. of the
   appellant. [Para 22] [252-H; 253-A-F]           ·

      4. Homicidal death of the appellant's wife is
  corroborated by the conduct of the appellant in the
C morning of 18th July, 1987. PW-5 stated that when the
  appellant was found in the morning, he was asked about
  his whereabouts in the night and he was not able to
  explain it. Even PW-2 wife of the brother of. the appellant,
  stated that appellant was outside the house in the
D morning wandering here and there. Although appellant
  was raising hue and cry that his wife was killed, he never
  bothered to contact the Pradhan or the Patwarr
  concerned to lodge a report in the matter. However,
  statement of the appellant that he was not present at the
E house in the night s,eems to be unbelievable considerint        1




  the positive and credible testimony of PW-1 and .other,
  witnesses. (Para 23] [253-F-H; 254-A]                  -

       5. PW-4 stated th'!t door of the house of the appellant
F was not bolted from inside. This is one of the
  incriminating circumstances which can be taken into
  consideration to conclude that the appellant after
  committing offence opened the door and went out. [Para
  24] [i54-B]

G       6. The statements of PW-1-mother of appellant, PW-
    4- Pradhan and PW~2- sister-in-law also suggest that the
    appellant was last seen with the deceased. [Para 25] (254-
    C]
H         7. The narration of chain of circumstantial eviderice
       KHIM SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND                   243


  -relied upon by the prosecution in the present case lead         A
   to the inference that the appellant is guilty for the offence
   of murder of his wife as all the circumstances taken
   together lead to only hypothesis of the guilt of the
 , accused-appellant. The chain of circumstantial evidence
1
   relied upon by the prosecution is complete to hold the          B
   appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section
   302 IPC. It is held that the accused-appellant was rightly
   convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC for life
   imprisonment by the Sessions Judge as affirmed by the
   High Court. [Para 26) [254-D-F]                                 c
     CRIMINAL APP ELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
 No. 1986 of 2009

      From the Judgment and Order dated 24.08.2005 in CRLA
 No. 1165 of 1988 & CRLA No. 1388 of 2001 of the High Court        D
 of Uttaranchal at Nainital.

      Feroze Ahmad, R.S. Sharma for the Appellant.

       Mukesh Verma, Pankaj K. Singh, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia
 for the Respondent.                                               E

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. This appeal
 is directed against the judgment dated 24th August, 2005          F
 passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal(now Uttarakhand) at
 Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.1388 of 2001 (Old No.-Criminal
 Appeal No.1165 of 1988). By the impugned judgment the High
 Court upheld the judgment and order of conviction dated 30th
 March, 1988, passed by the Sessions Judge, Almora in
 Sessions Trial No.54 of 1987, State vs. Khim Singh, whereby       G
 the accused-appellant was convicted for the offence punishable
 under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo
 imprisonment for life.

      2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal as         H
    244     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A emerging from the material on record, are that the accused
  Khim Singh was residing with his wife Himuli Devi in his
  residential house at village Simgari. He has a son, named
  Mohan Singh, who was also residing with them, but sometimes,
  he resided with his grandmother, who resides in the adjacent
B house of Laccham Singh, brother .of accused-Khim singh.
  Earlier accused-Khim Singh was in service outside his village,
  but for the last 4-5 years he had come back and was working
  as labourer. His wife, Himuli Devi, was a short- tempered
  woman and she often quarrelled with Khim Singh. It was
c suspected in the village that she was a woman of loose
  character and on account of this, accused-Khim Singh was also
  not in good terms with her. Often they used to be quarrelled with
  each other. On 17th July, 1987, also in the evening, they had a
  quarrel. Early in the morning of 18th July, 1987, one Bahadur
D Singh (since deceased), a resident of the village, while passing
  in front of the house of the accused-Khim Singh found that the
  door. was closed and there was none outside. He opened the
  door and went .inside the house and found Himuli Devi lying
  dead. He raised an alarm, on which, the m'other of the accused
  also came there. He called the Sabhapati of the village, Bachi
E Singh also. They all saw that Himuli Devi was lying inside the
  room, having injuries on her body and she was dead.

       3. The Sabhapati of the village, Bachi Singh, prepared a
  written report, Ext.Ka-1. It was sent to the Patwari of the
F Kshetra through one Kishan Singh. In the said report, Sabhapati
  mentioned that it was accused-Khim Singh who killed his wife
  Himuli Devi and requested the Patwari to come and investigate
  the matter,. The written report was received by the Patwari,
  Narain Sfhgh, at 11.30 a.m. on 18th July, 1987 and on that basis
G he prepared the FIR, Ext.Ka-3. He came to the house of Bachi
  Singh and recorded his statement. Accompanied by Bachi
  Singh, he went to the house of the accused, where Himuli Devi
  was found lying dead inside the house. The dead body was
  taken into custody and the inquest report, Ext.Ka-4, was
H prepared and the dead body was sealed. The letter with a
       KHIM SINGH v. STATE OF UTIARAKHAND                     245
        [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
  request for postmortem, Ext.Ka-5, was also prepared. The            A
  blood stained clothes were taken into custody from the dead
  body and Fard, Ext.Ka-6 was prepared. From the place where
  the dead body was lying, blood stained and plain earth were
  also taken and sealed and a Fard, Ext.Ka-7, was prepared.
  The scene of occurrence was also reflected in site plan Ext.Ka-     B
  8. The accused-Khim Singh, who was present there, was
  arrested and a Fard, Ext.Ka-9, was prepared. At the instance
  of the accused, a blood-stained Kulhari (axe) was found inside
  the house and a Fard, Ext.Ka-2, was prepared. The sealed
  articles were handed over to the peon and Fard, Ext.Ka-10 was       c
  prepared. The statements of Manuli Devi (PW-1) and Khimuli
  Devi (PW-2) were recorded. In between 19th and 22th July,
  1987 the statements of other witnesses, including Joga Singh
  (PW-5) were recorded. The sealed articles were sent for
1 chemical examination. The investigation was completed and the       D
  chargesheet dated 22nd August, 1988, Ext.Ka-14, was
  submitted against the accused.

       4. The dead body was sent for postmortem which was
  conducted by Dr. N.D. Punetha, on 19th July, 1987, at 11.30
  a.m. at Bagesnwar. He found the following ante mortem injuries      E
  on the dead body:

      "1. Incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm bone deep present on the
      left side of mastoid region of the head. Margins were
      lacerated and well defined.                                     F
      2.    Contusion 5 cm x 3 cm present on the occipital
      region of the head. Semi digested food material was
      coming out from thy mouth."

      5. On internal examination, the bone under the two injuries     G
  was found to be fractured. Clotted blood was also found
  beneath these injuries. In the stomach, a small quantity of semi-
  digested food material was found. There were gases in the
  small and large intestines. This death, in the opinion of the
  Medical Officer resulted from shock and haemorrhage, caused         H
    246      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014]·8 S.C.R.


A by the two injuries, found on the d_ead 'body, which were
  sufficient for death in orainary course of nature. The postmortem
  report, Ext.Ka-15, was prepared: The time since death was
  about one day and in the opinion of the doctor, this death could
  have occurred in the night of 17th/18th.July, 1987. He has also
B given an opinion that the injuries were caused with some heavy .
  sharp edged weapon like Kulhari.

       6. The Patwari-Simgari, after completing necessary
  formalities, submitted a charge sheet d~ted 22nd August,
  1987, against the accused, Ext.Ka-14, to the Court of CJM,
C Almora. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court
  of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Judge,
  Almora for trial of the accused. The Sessions Judge charged
  the accused under Section 302 IPC, who pleaded not guilty to
  the charge and claimed to be tried.
D
       7. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
  prosecution, in oral evidence, examined as many as seven
        •
  witnesses, namely, Manuli Devi (PW-1)"mother-in-law of the
  deceased; Khimuli Devi (PW-2)-sister-in-law of the
E deceased(gotani), Mohan Singh(PW-3)-minor son of the
  deceased with the accused, Bachi Singh(PW-4), Joga
  Singh(PW-5)- a neighbour; Narain Singh-Patwari (PW-6) and
  Dr. N.D. Punetha(PW.7) who conducted the postmortem on the
  dead b<idy of the deceased. Prosecution also tendered in
F evidence affidavit of Bhagwat Singh, peon of PatWari, dated
  5th January, 1988. All the documents referred to above were
  filed by the prosecution. The Trial Court on appreciation of
  evidence, both oral and documentary, based on circumstantial
  evidence held the accused-Khim Singh guilty of the offence
G punishable under Section 302 IPC.

         8. Mr. Feroz Ahmed, amicus curiae appearing on behalf
    of the accused assailed the judgment mainly on the ground that
    there is no complete chain of circumstantial evidence to bring
    home the guilt of the accused. It was contended that the
H
      KHIM SINGH v. STATE OF UTIARAKHAND                     247
       [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
appellant cannot be convicted merely on suspicion in absence         A
of any eye-witness. It was also contended that the relatives like
mother-in-law (PW-1 ), sister-in-law (PW-2) and even the
neighbours Bachi Singh (PW-4) and Joga Singh (PW-5) were
declared hostile and hence there was no sufficient evidence to
prove the accused guilty.                                            B

      9. In this case, there was no eye-witness of the occurrence.
The case was based on the circumstantial evidence. Manuli
Devi (PW-1), the mother of the accused in her testimony, stated
that there was quarrel between the accused and his wife, Himuli
Devi.in the evening of 17th July, 1987, on the festival of Harela.   C
On the next morning, i.e. 18th July, 1987, one Bahadur Singh
found the door of the house of the accused closed and when
he pushed the door, he found Himuli Devi lying dead inside the
house. Bahadur Singh called Bachi Singh (PW-4), the
Sabhapati. Thereafter, the Patwari also came on the spot.            D
However, she stated that after the dispute between accused-
Khim Singh and Himuli Devi she had not seen accused-Khim
Singh and she was declared hostile .. However, she admitted
that in the house only Khim Singh and his wife were living. His
son Mohan Singh was living with her. Khimuli Devi (PW-2), is         E
the wife of Lachham Singh, brother of the accused, sister-in-
law of the deceased Himuli Devi (gotani). According to her, she
did not know whether any quarrel took place between the
ac~used and the deceased. She had gone to her field on the
day of Harela festival. The next morning also, she had gone to       F
the field, but when she came back, she saw Himuli Devi lying
dead. Mohan Singh (PW-3), is the minor son of the accused.
He stated that he was inside the house of his grandmother and
he did not know as to what happened in the house of his father.
                                                                     G
     10. Bachi Singh (PW-4), is the Pradhan of the village. He
stated that Khim Singh and his wife Himuli Devi often
quarrelled. It was also talked amongst the villagers that the wife
of the accused was of loose character and on that count
accused Khim Singh was annoyed with his wife and they
                                                                     H
    248      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A   frequently quarrelled. He further stated that on 17th July, 1987,
    in the evening, there was a quarrel between Khim Singh and
    his wife, deceased Himulipevi. Early in the morning, at about
    6.30 a.m., the mother of the 'a<;cused came to him and informed
    that Himuli Devi had not got up and Khim Singh was also not
B   there. When he went to the house of Khim Singh, he found that
    the door was open and found that Himuli Devi was lying injured
    and dead. Khim Singh was not found there. Bahadur Singh,
    Joga Singh(PW-5), Lachham singh, Ram Singh and others
    also came and by that time, Khim Singh was also found coming
c   towards his house. He also testified that he got prepared the
    written report,Ext.Ka-1, scribed by Bahadur Singh, and the
    same was sent to the Patwari concerned. He further stated that
    when Patwari came, a blood stained Kulhari was recovered
    from the house at the instance of the accused and the Fard,
D    Ext.Ka-2, was prepared. Joga Singh(PW-5), another resident
    of the village, in his testimony, very hesitatingly stated that the
    wife of accused was not of loose character. He stated that he
    went to the house of Khim Singh when the Sabhapati called
     him there. There he found Himuli Devi dead. Accused-Khim
     Singh was not present there at that time, but after a short-while"
E    he was seen coming to his house. Narain Singh (PW-6),
     Patwari,is the Investigating Officer and Dr. N.D.Punetha(PW-
     7), conducted postmortem on the dead body. Both of them are
     formal witnesses and had proved their report. The evidence of
     Mohan Singh (PW-3), aged about 8 years, minor son of the
F    accused-Khim Singh, is not at all material.

       11. The accused-appellant in his statement under Section
  313 Cr.P.C. denied the accusations levelled against him. He,
  denied that his wife did not obey him and he used to quarrel
G with her. He also denied that she was of loose character and
  that he was annoyed with her on that count. He asserted that
  he was not present there at the alleged time of death, therefore,
  there was no question of quarrel and altercation between him
  and his wife. The accused did not disclose as to where he was
H on the relevant date. However, he denied the recovery of blood ·
       KHIM SINGH v. .STATE OF UTTARAKHAND                     249
        [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
stained Kulhari at his instance. He claimed that the witnesses         A
were inimical to him hence they have falsely given evidence
against him. In reply to question No.11, the accused stated that
he cannot claim if his wife was murdered by Kulhari on the
relevant date and time. He admitted that Patwari arrested him
on 18th July, 1987. He also claimed that he had no reason to           B
kill his wife, who had been living with him for the last about 17
years.

      12. Himuli Devi died in the night intervening 17th and 18*h
-July, 1987 and her death was fully proved by the postn:iortem
 report· prepared by Dr.N.D.Punetha(PW-7). It is not disputed th\'it   C
 the deceased suffered-from ante mortem injuries, as detailed
 above. It is also not disputed that two injuries found on the
 person of the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course
 of nature to cause death. It has not been challenged that the
 ante mortem injuries. could be self-inflicted. The prosecution        D
 thereby established that the deceased Himuli Devi died as a
 result of ante mortem injuries sustained by her in the night
 intervening 17th and 18th July, 1987.

       13. From the perusal of the entire evidence on record, we, E
 find that the prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the
 accused has relied upon the testimony of Manuli Devi(PW-1),
 Khimuli Devi (PW-2), Bachi Singh(PW-4) and Joga Singh (PW-
 5). In order to see whether frequent quarrels were there
 between the accused and his wife, the statements of these F
 witnesses are relevant to be discussed.

       14. Manuli Devi(PW-1), is the mother of the accused and
 mother-in-law of the deceased. That being so, there can be no
 reason for her to falsely implicate her son .in the commission
 of murder. In her statement she stated that the wife of Khim          G
 Singh, Himuli Devi, did not obey Khim Singh, therefore, Khim
 Singh was unhappy with her. She further stated that on the
 festival of Harela in the evening, there was a quarrel between
 Khim Singh and his wife. The next day in the morning, when
 Bahadur Singh opened the door of the house of Himuli Devi,            H
    250      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A  she also found Himuli Devi lying dead. In her cross-examination
   she further testified that in the evening of the alleged mis-
   happening the accused was present in the house and he had
   a quarrel with his wife. She also stated that Himuli Devi was s
   short-tempered woman and had often the accused assaulted
s her. She also stated that earlier Himuli Devi had gone to jungle
   to hang herself. The entire testimony of such a natural witness
    cannot be thrown out merely if the prosecution asked to declare
    her hostile and on their request she was cross-examined by the
    prosecution. The first circumstance that Himuli Devi was short-
C tempered was further corroborated by the statement of Bachi
    Singh (PW-4) Pradhan ofthe village. Generally the Pradhan of
    the village keeps general information regarding the family
    matters and tries to settle such matter in the village. Pradhan
    is instrumental to settle family disputes at his level, therefore,
D as and when any such incident happens, the Pradhan is
    immediately intimated. In the instant case, Pradhan (PW-4)
    prepared the written report, got it scribed by Bahadur Singh,who
    had first seen the deceased lying dead inside her house and
    called the Pradhan immediately on the spot. In his statement,
E · Bachi Singh, Pradhan, specifically stated that Khim Singh and
    his wife often used to quarrel and there was a rumour in the
    village that Himuli Devi was a woman of loose character and
    on account of the result accused Khim Singh was unhappy with
    her.

F       15. Joga Singh (PW-5), is also a resident of the same
  village. Though hesitatingly, this witness stated that so far as
  he knew the character of Himuli Devi was good. The learned
  Sessions Judge observed that such statemE?nt of Joga
  Singh(PW-5) is indicative of fact that probably Himuli Devi was
G a woman on whom Joga Singh (PW-5) never intended to make
  any specific remark. However, Joga Singh (PW-5) stated that
  accused and his wife sometimes used to have amicable
  relation and sometimes they used to quarrel.

          16. From the above narration of the testimony of the
H
      KHIM SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND                       251
       [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
witnesses, it can be concluded that for the reason aforesaid,          A
the ·accused was unhappy with his wife Himuli Devi and this
resulted in quarrels between them off and on. The quarrel took
place even in the evening preceding the date of the death.

       17. In the night intervening 17th and 18th July, 1987 Himuli    8
 Devi was killed by means of a Kulhari. Except accused Khim
 Singh nobody was residing in the said house. Therefore, Himuli
 Devi could not be killed as a result of assault by anybody else
 other than the accused. The conduct of the accused in the
 morning of 18th July, 1987 was unnatural. He failed to explain        C
 as to where he remained on the fateful night. In the background
  of the aforesaid circumstances, it has to be examined whetner
 the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution formed a
  series of events and whether the chain of circumstantial
  evidence was complete, which could be sufficient to show
, involvement of the accused in the commission of murder.              D

     18. Manuli Devi (PW-1), clearly stated that in the evening
of 17th July, 1987, Khim Singh and his wife had a quarrel. She,
however, added that it was before the sunset. Manuli Devi
being the mother of the accused is a very natural witness and          E
the credibility of her testimony cannot be discarded. It is in her
statement that she lived with her another son Lachham Singh
in a separate house, which is adjacent to the house of the
accused. She stated in unequivocal terms that Khim Singh and
his wife lived together and she(Himuli Devi) did not obey the          F
accused. Bachi Singh (PW-4), who is also a close neighbor,
also stated that on the festival of Harela, i.e., on 17th July, 1987
at about 6.30 p.m., a quarrel took place between the accused
and his wife and the shouts were heard by him. This part of his
statement has not been challenged in the corss-examination.            G
Bachi Singh (PW-4), being Pradhan of the village is an
independent witness and, therefore, there was no reason for
him to falsely implicate the accused for the offence of murder.
Therefore, the prosecution successfully proved that there was
a quarrel between the accused and his wife in the preceding
                                                                       H
evening.
    252      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 8 S.C.R:


A        19. The accused in his statement under Section 313
    Cr.P .C. in reply to the question Nos. 3 and 4 stated that on 17th
    July, 1987 he was not at his house. Such statement cannot be
    believed in absence of any explanation given by the accused
    as where he was in the night between 17th and 18th July, 1987.
s   The accused could not explain as to where he was in the night
    of 17th July, 1987. The conduct of the accused was unnatural
    in not disclosing the place where he remained in the fateful
    night, making it clear that his statement under Section 313
    Cr.P.C. was not believable. From the testimony of the real
c   mother of the accused, Manuli Devi (PW-1) as well as Bachi
    Singh (PW-4), Pradhan of the village, it is fully established that
    the accused was very much present in the house on the fateful
    night and there was a quarrel between the accused and his
    wife. In the absence of any reason for leaving his house, it can
    be held that the accused remained in his house in that night.
0
        20. Joga Singh(PW-5), in his testimony stated that when
    Khim Singh was found in the morning, he was asked about his
    whereabouts, in the night, which he could not explain.

E      21. Learned Sessions Judge for the said reason in the
  judgment observed that "this conduct of the accused in not
  explaining the alleged absence from the house would go to
  show the case taken by him that he was absent from the house
  is not believable. Obviously, the prosecution has been able to
F establish beyond doubt that this accused was present at his
  house in the night between 17th and 18th July, 1987. Having
  considered the material on record, the High Court was unable
  to disagree with the finding arrived at by the learned Sessions
  Judge on the point that the accused Khim Singh, was very much
G present in his house on the fateful day and we do not find any
  reason to disagree with such finding. Thus, the third
  circumstance is fully proved by the prosecution.

       22. The statement of Bachi Singh (PW-4), who clearly
  stated that none of the residents of the village had any enmity I

H with the deceased Himuli Devi is very relevant. It is evident frof11
     KHIM SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND                     253
      [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
the record that the accused failed to assign any reason for the A
alleged enmity of the villagers and he could not utter a single
word to that effect in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. ·
Therefore, there is no reason to infer that anybody else from
the village could have committed the murder of Himuli Devi who
was in the house along with the accused-husband on the fateful B
night. The Investigation Officer, Narain Singh (PW-6), Patwari,
was examined by the prosecution. He clearly stated that at the
instance of the accused, Kulhari used in the crime was
recovered. He was cross-examined by the defence. In cross-
examination, he clearly denied the suggestion that the Kulhari      c
(weapon of assault) was not recovered at the instance of the
accused. The Medical Officer, Dr. N.D. Punetha (PW-7) in his
examination in chief stated that ante mortem injury No.1 on the
person of the deceased could have been caused by heavy
sharp-edged weapon such as Kulhari and injury No.2 could have D
been Cjl~Sed by the blunt/rear side blow of Kulhari or by fall on
the stony surface. This part of his statement was not questioned
 in his cross-examination. It has come in the statement of
Investigation Officer (PW.6) that Kulhari recovered on the
 pointing of the accused was blood-stained and hair was stuck
                                                                  E
on it. He was cross-examined regarding the blood-stained
 portion of the Kulhari and the weight of the Kulhari, etc. It is
established that blood-stained Kulhari-Ext.Ka-2 was seized by
the Investigating Officer at the house of the accused.

       23. Homicidal death of Himuli Devi is corroborated by the    F
  conduct of the accused in the morning of 18th July, 1987. Jog a
  Singh (PW-5) stated that when the accused was found in the
  morning, he was asked about his whereabouts in the night and
;he was not able to explain it. Even Khimuli Devi (PW-2) wife
'of the brother of the accused, Lachham Singh, stated that          G
  accused was outside the house in the morning wandering here
  and there. Although accused was raising hue and cry that his
 wife was killed, he never bothered to contact the Pradhan or
. the Patwari concerned to lodge a report in the matter. However,
 ;statement of the accused that he was not present at the house     H
     254       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 8 S.C.R. -


.A   in the night seems to be unbelievable considering the positive
     and credible testimony of Manuli Devi (PW-1) and other
     witnesses referred to above.

          24. Bachi Singh (PW-4), stated that door of the house of
8    the accused was not bolted from inside. This is one of the
     incriminating circumstances which can be taken into
     consideration to conclude that the accused after committing
     offence opened the door anti went out.

       25. The statements of Manuli Devi (PW-1 )-mother of
C accused, Bachi Singh (Pw-4)- Pradhan and Khimuli Devi (PW-
  2)- sister-in-law also suggest that the accused was last seen
  with the deceased.

       26. The above narration of chain of circumstantial evidence
D relied upon by the prosecution in the present case lead to the
  inference that the accused is guilty for the offence of murder of
  Himuli Devi as all the circumstances taken together lead to only
  hypothesis of the guilt of the accused-appellant. The chain of
  circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution is
E complete to hold the accused guilty of the offence punishable
  under Section 302 IPC. We hold that the accused-appellant
  Khim Singh was rightly convicted and sentenced under Section
  302 IPC for life imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge
  as affirmed by the. High Court.

F      27. As a result, the appeal preferred by the accused-
  appellant has n.o force and the same is liable to be dismissed.
  Jhe appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The impugned judgment
  under appeal is upheld. We appreciate the endeavour made
  by the learned amicus curiae, Mr. Feroze Ahmed in assisting
G the Court tn the matter and direct to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/-
  as fee to the amicus curiae.     ·

     Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                          Appeal dismissed.