Supreme Court of India
RAHULversusSTATE OF HARYANA
- Citation
- 2021 INSC 145
- Decided
- 3 March 2021
- Disposal
- Leave Granted & Dismissed
- Bench
- ASHOK BHUSHAN
Holding
The prosecution proved Rahul's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 25(1B)(a) Arms Act is affirmed.
Summary
The appellant Rahul was convicted for murdering Jitender, allegedly because Jitender had an illicit relationship with Rahul's wife. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including the testimony of the deceased's brother and mother, forensic findings linking a recovered .315 bore pistol to the fatal bullets, mobile call records, and a disclosure statement that the weapon was kept at the house of Rahul's Bua. Rahul challenged the admissibility of the relatives' testimony, the reliability of the weapon recovery, and argued that motive alone could not substitute for proof. The Supreme Court held that the relatives' statements, though from interested witnesses, were corroborated by other evidence and that the chain of circumstantial evidence satisfied the tests laid down in Sanjay Thakran and related precedents. Consequently, the Court affirmed the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, dismissing the appeal.
Issues considered
- The admissibility and weight of testimony from relatives of the deceased (interested witnesses).
- Whether the circumstantial evidence, including weapon recovery, satisfies the legal tests for conviction under s.302 r/w s.34 IPC and s.25 Arms Act.
- The reliability of the recovery of the pistol from the residence of the appellant's Bua.
- Whether motive is essential when the circumstantial evidence establishes guilt.
- The propriety of upholding the appellant's conviction while acquitting the co-accused.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959s. 25(1B)(a)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34
Subjects
circumstantial evidenceinterested witnessweapon recoverymurderIPC s.302IPC s.34Arms Actmotiveconvictionappeal
Judgment
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 499 499
RAHUL A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
(CRIMINAL APPEAL No.262 of 2021)
MARCH 03, 2021 B
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w. s.34 – Arms Act, 1959
– s.25(1B)(a) – Prosecution case was that the appellant-accused
suspected that his wife was in illicit relation with the victim-deceased
C
– The appellant informed his father-in-law and his brother-in-law
about the same and all three of them decided to eliminate the victim-
deceased – All three of them had taken victim-deceased to a hill
and fired on him and thereafter thrown him in a pit – A telephonic
message regarding the body was received in Police station – After
receiving the said information, the police officials reached the spot D
– The inspecting officers found marks of dragging of the deceased
on the kacha road which was going towards the hill and on checking
of the dead body, they also found two fire-arm shots on both sides
of waist along with other injuries – FIR was registered u/s. 302 r/w.
s.34 IPC and s.25 of the Arms Act – News item along with a
E
photograph of the deceased was published for identification of the
body – The body was identified by PW-12-mother of deceased and
PW-3-brother of deceased – After recording their statements and
collecting necessary evidence, the appellant and his father-in-law
were arrested – The other accused brother-in-law of appellant
absconded – Both PW-3 and PW-12 stated that victim was taken by F
the appellant and his brother-in-law from a bus stop – Further, on
basis of the disclosure statement of the appellant, a country made
pistol and two live cartridges were recovered from the house of his
bua-DW-1 – The Trial Court found both appellant and his father-
in-law guilty for offence u/s. 302 r/w. s.34 and appellant also guilty
G
u/s.25 of the Arms Act – The High Court confirmed the conviction
of appellant and acquitted his father-in-law – Aggrieved, the
appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court – Held: There
is no reason to disbelief the recovery of weapon from the residence
of DW-1 – Further, as per the FSL report, the country made pistol
.315 bore used by the appellant was found in working order and H
499
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.
A both the fired cartridges recovered from the spot and fired bullet
taken out from the body of the deceased were found fired from the
country made pistol recovered at the instance of appellant-accused
– PW-5-doctor had deposed that the cause of death was because of
fire-arm injuries and he had clearly stated that the fired bullet which
was marked as Ex.P1 was same which was taken out from the body
B
of the deceased – As far as testimony of PW-3 and PW-12 is
concerned, merely because they are related, by itself is no ground,
to reject their testimony – A close relative who is natural witness
cannot be regarded as an interested witness – It is fairly well settled
proposition that even the evidence of interested person can also be
C considered provided such evidence is corroborated by other
evidence on record – There is a complete chain of evidence which
would lead to irresistable conclusion that the appellant-accused
has committed the offence.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
D HELD: 1. Although it is the contention of the appellant that
as PW-3 and PW-12 are family members/close relations of the
deceased, as such, their testimony is to be discarded, but the
same cannot be accepted. Merely because PW-3 and PW-12 are
related, by itself is no ground, to reject their testimony. Further,
E a close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded as an
interested witness. It is fairly well settled proposition that even
the evidence of interested person can also be considered
provided such evidence is corroborated by other evidence on
record. [Para 17][515-C-E]
F 2. It is clear from the deposition of PW-5 (doctor) and the
post mortem report that, injuries were caused over the body of
the deceased with a fire-arm and the bullet was found embedded
in the body. It is also clearly stated that death was due to fire-arm
injuries and was ante mortem in nature. He has clearly stated
that the fired bullet which was marked as Ex.P1 was the same
G which was taken out from the body of the deceased. [Para 18][516-
E-F]
3. If the oral evidence on record coupled with the
documentary evidence is closely scrutinized, this Court is of the
considered view that there is a complete chain of evidence which
H
RAHUL v. STATE OF HARYANA 501
would lead to irresistible conclusion that the appellant-accused A
has committed the offence and none else. Even the recoveries
are sufficiently proved with the cogent evidence. In the disclosure
statement the appellant-accused has stated that he has kept the
weapon with his Bua. Though she was examined on behalf of the
accused to disprove the recovery, at the same time, she has
B
admitted in the cross-examination that police have visited her
place a year and a half earlier to her statement. If this part of
evidence is examined, coupled with the other documentary
evidence on seizure, there is no reason to disbelieve the recovery
of weapon, from the residence of appellant’s Bua. All the
recoveries have been proved by examining witnesses for such C
recoveries. Only in view of the disclosure statement Ex.PX
recoveries of pistol .315 bore and cartridges were made from
the house of his Bua recovery memo Ex.PY on 24.08.2010.
Further, as per the FSL report Ex.PXX, the country made pistol
.315 bore used by the accused-appellant for committing the
D
murder of the deceased was found in working order and both the
fired cartridges recovered from the spot and fired bullet taken
out from the body of the deceased, are found fired from the country
made pistol recovered at the instance of appellant-accused.
Further, the injuries on the person of deceased have been proved
by doctor who was examined as PW-5. The material evidence on E
record produced by the prosecution has been further corroborated
by call details of mobile phones of father-in-law of appellant,
brother-in-law of appellant and victim and such call details have
been proved by the statement of PW-14. Further, it is also well
settled that if other evidence on record clearly establishes that
F
the deceased was murdered by the appellant by using fire-arm,
the factum of motive loses its importance, more so, in this case
the motive has been established by leading cogent evidence to
show that only because the deceased had developed relationship
with appellant’s wife, has decided to eliminate the deceased. [Para
19][516-F-H; 517-A-E] G
4. From the evidence on record, this Court is of the
considered view that prosecution has proved the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent evidence.
Further, the motive is also proved by the prosecution. [Para
20][517-E-F] H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.
A 5. In the case of Sanjay Thakran relied on by the the
appellant, this Court has held that certain tests are to be fulfilled
by the prosecution by leading cogent evidence, when the case
rests upon circumstantial evidence. Further, in the case of Wakkar
this Court has held that mere recovery itself cannot be the basis
for conviction and recovery of incriminating articles and its
B
evidentiary value has to be considered in the light of other
relevant circumstances. However, having regard to evidence on
record in this case on hand, this Court is clearly of the view that
the prosecution has satisfied all the tests mentioned in the case
of Sanjay Thakran to bring home the guilt of the accused, by
C resting upon the circumstantial evidence. If the factum of
recoveries is considered along with other evidence in entirety, it
gives an irresistible conclusion that the appellant alone has
committed offence by using the weapon,which is recovered from
the house of DW-1 who is the Bua of the appellant. Further, it is
also to be noted that whether the guilt of the accused is proved
D
or not based on the circumstantial evidence, each case has to be
judged on the overall assessment of the evidence on record, as
such this Court is of the view that the case law which is referred
above, relied on by the the appellant, would not render any
assistance to accept his plea that the appellant was falsely
E implicated. [Para 21][517-F-H; 518-A-C]
6. The High Court, in the appeal filed by the appellant herein
and his father-in-law, reappreciated the evidence on record and
confirmed the conviction and sentence, so far as the appellant is
concerned and acquitted the other appellant, i.e.,his father-in-
F law. Though it is contended by the appellant, on same set of
evidence while acquitting the other accused there is no reason
to confirm the conviction and sentence so far as the appellant
herein is concerned. In the impugned judgment, the High Court
has recorded reasons for acquittal of the other appellant,
i.e.,father-in-law of appellant. PW-3, in his deposition has clearly
G stated that when he along with his mother and deceased, went to
Badhra, after some time deceased was separated from them, and
came back along with appellant and brother-in-law of appellant
(proclaimed offender) in a Maruti car. It is stated by PW-3, at that
H
RAHUL v. STATE OF HARYANA 503
time deceased stated that he was going to Haridwar and would A
come back in 3-4 days. Thereafter, victim-deceased went along
with appellant and brother-in-law of appellant. To the same effect
is the statement of PW-12, mother of the deceased. From the
said evidence on record, it stands established that the deceased
was last seen in the company of appellant and appellant’s brother-
B
in-law (proclaimed offender) only. There was no mention that
father-in-law of the appellant-accused (appellant before the High
Court) also accompanied deceased for going to Haridwar. In the
absence of any evidence on record to show that deceased was
also seen with appellant’s father-in-law lastly by PW-3 and PW-
12, the High Court has come to the conclusion, that prosecution C
has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt so far as the
other appellant-father-in-law is concerned. In view of such
reasoning recorded by the High Court and evidence on record
there are justifiable reasons for acquitting the other appellant,
father-in-law of appellant, while confirming the conviction so far
D
as the appellant herein is concerned. [Para 22][518-C-H]
Kanhaiya Lal & Ors. etc. v. State of Rajasthan (2013)
5 SCC 655 : [2013] 6 SCR 361; Ram Chander & Ors.
v. State of Haryana (2017) 2 SCC 321 : [2017] 1 SCR
10 – relied on.
E
State of Goa etc. v. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Etc. (2007)
3 SCC 755 : [2007] 3 SCR 507; Kanhaiya Lal v. State
of Rajasthan (2014) 4 SCC 715 : [2014] 3 SCR 744;
Wakkar & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011) 3 SCC
306 – referred to.
F
Case Law Reference
[2007] 3 SCR 507 referred to para 10
[2014] 3 SCR 744 referred to para 10
(2011) 3 SCC 306 referred to para 10
G
[2013] 6 SCR 361 relied on para 17
[2017] 1 SCR 10 relied on para 17
H
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.
A CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
262 of 2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.12.2016 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. A. No. D-1060-DB/2012.
Tathagat Harsh Vardhan, Aditya Singh, Vikas Verma, Advs. for
B the appellant.
Dinesh Chander Yadav, AAG, Amit Gupta, Sanjay Kumar Visen,
Advs. for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred, aggrieved by the judgment and
order dated 06th December 2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab &
Haryana at Chandigarh, confirming the conviction recorded and sentence
D
imposed, for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section
34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms
Act, 1959, by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani.
3. On 07.08.2010 a telephonic message was received in Police
Station, Charkhi Dadri from one Jaswant Singh, resident of Village
E Kaliyana, to the effect that in the pit of panchayat land adjoining Kaliyana-
Jhojhu road towards hill, dead body of a young boy was lying. After
receiving the said information, the Inspector of Police/SHO of the Police
Station along with other police officials reached the spot for investigation.
After reaching the place of occurrence, they found a dead body of an
F unknown person with fire arm injury marks. At the place of occurrence,
two empties of brass having marka of 8 MM PF on their bottom were
recovered along with a pair of chappals. Blood-stained earth was
collected from the spot and converted into sealed parcels. The
complainant Jaswant Singh who was examined, during the trial, as PW-
6 was present and his statement was recorded. The inspecting officers
G have found marks of dragging of the deceased on the kacha road which
was going towards hill; there were also marks of tyres of a small vehicle.
On checking of the dead body by the police, they have noticed two fire-
arm shots on both sides of waist and there was a deep wound on the
back of right ear and left jaw of the mouth was cut. The dead body was
H smeared with blood and they suspected, some unknown persons have
RAHUL v. STATE OF HARYANA 505
[R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
brought the deceased in a vehicle and committed murder by causing fire A
arm injuries. On the complaint of Jaswant Singh (PW-6) a crime was
registered in FIR No.297 on 07.08.2010 for the offence punishable under
Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
4. After registering the crime, investigation was taken up. The
post mortem of the dead body was conducted in PGIMS Rohtak. For B
identification of dead body, news item was got published in the newspaper
along with the photograph of the deceased. During the investigation of
the case, on 14.08.2010, the mother of the deceased Kasturi Devi (PW-
12) and the brother of the deceased, by name, Anil Kumar (PW-3)
approached the police on the basis of news publication and identified the
deceased as Jitender, who was son of PW-12 and brother of PW-3 and C
resident of Kanhra. After recording the statements of the aforesaid
witnesses, investigation was proceeded on the basis of call details of the
deceased and statements of the mother and brother of the deceased.
After collecting necessary evidence, the appellant herein, i.e., Rahul, a
resident of Mirpur was arrested on 21.08.2010. It is stated that during D
the interrogation, the accused Rahul made disclosure statement that about
six months earlier he was married with Priyanka, daughter of Ramesh,
caste Jat, resident of village Chandwas. He had suspicion on the character
of his wife and he is stated to have informed his father-in-law Ramesh
Kumar and brother-in-law Ashok Kumar, that Priyanka has illicit relation
with Jitender (deceased), resident of village Kanhra. Therefore, they E
have decided to eliminate Jitender. As per the case of the prosecution,
on 06.08.2010 at about 06:00 p.m. as per their plan, appellant (Rahul)
called Jitender, his father-in-law Ramesh and brother-in-law Ashok to
Badhra. He was having a Maruti car bearing registration no.DL-9CJ-
5165 and thereafter in Badhra, Jitender had two bottles of beer and he F
came under influence of liquor. Further, the case of the prosecution is
that all of them have taken the deceased from Jhojhu to Kaliyana hill
where Jitender also got down from the car and they have fired on the
deceased and thrown him in the pit. The Maruti car bearing registration
no.DL-9CJ-5165 and the mobile phone of the accused Rahul were taken
into possession vide recovery memo. Further it is stated that on G
23.08.2010, the appellant-accused pointed the place of occurrence and
on 24.08.2010, in pursuance of his disclosure statement, a country made
pistol .315 bore and two live cartridges were seized from the house of
his Bua, resident of Old Housing Board Colony, Bhiwani. It is alleged
that during the investigation the other accused, namely, Ramesh also H
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.
A suffered disclosure statement and disclosed that the SIM of phone which
he was using, was in the name of his brother-in-law, and he was talking
to his son-in-law (Rahul) by using the said SIM. As the other accused
Ashok Kumar was absconding, non-bailable warrants were pending
execution and proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.PC were
also issued.
B
5. After completion of the investigation, final report under Section
173 of Cr.PC was filed against the appellant herein and Ramesh for
their trial and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. On the
aforesaid allegations, the appellant (Rahul) and other accused, by name,
Ramesh were charge-sheeted under Section 302 read with Section 34,
C IPC; and the appellant herein was also charge-sheeted for offence under
Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959. Accused pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial.
6. To prove the charges framed against the appellant and another,
prosecution has examined 20 witnesses, namely, PW-1, Krishan Lal;
D PW-2, Manjeet; PW-3, Anil, brother of deceased Jitender alias Jittu;
PW-4, Ravinder Pal, Senior Scientific Offficer; PW-5 Dr. Hitesh Chawla;
PW-6 Jaswant Singh (complainant); PW-7 Dharmender Singh, draftsman;
PW-8 Inderjeet, photographer; PW-9 HC Ravinder Kumar; PW-10 HC
Arvind Kumar; PW-11 ASI Surat Singh; PW-12 Kasturi, mother of
deceased Jitender; PW-13 constable Jasveer; PW-14 constable Manoj
E Kumar; PW-15 Krishan Singh, Reader to District Magistrate; PW-16
Sarif Singh; Inspector (investigating officer); PW-17 ASI Amir Singh;
PW-18 EHC Rajbir Singh; PW-19 constable Radhey Shyam; and PW-
20 Vijender Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Investigating
Officer). In defence, on behalf of the accused, DW-1 Rani, widow of
F Jagdish was examined.
7. After completion of the trial, the Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, by
recording a finding that the prosecution has proved the charges, vide
judgment dated 17.10.2012, held that both the accused Rahul (appellant
herein) and Ramesh were guilty for offence under Section 302 read
G with Section 34, IPC and appellant Rahul is also found guilty for offence
under Section 25 of the Arms Act and convicted them accordingly. By
order dated 20.10.2012 both the accused were sentenced to undergo
life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each, in default of
payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period
of one year each under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and further
H
RAHUL v. STATE OF HARYANA 507
[R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
sentenced appellant Rahul to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period A
of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence under Section
25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Both the sentences were ordered to run
concurrently.
8. Aggrieved by the conviction recorded and sentence imposed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, the appellant, along with another B
accused, namely, Ramesh approached the High Court of Punjab &
Haryana at Chandigarh by way of Criminal Appeal No.D-1060 of 2012.
The High Court, by judgment and order dated 06.12.2016, while confirming
the conviction recorded and sentence imposed on the appellant, has
allowed the appeal partly by acquitting the other accused, namely, Ramesh.
The High Court has held that prosecution has failed to prove its case C
against Ramesh (appellant before High Court) beyond reasonable doubt.
9. We have heard Sri Tathagat Harsh Vardhan, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and Sri Dinesh Chander Yadav, learned
Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana.
D
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has made the following
submissions :
• The incident in question was a blind murder and the conviction
is solely based on the circumstantial evidence.
• PW-3 (Anil) and PW-12 (Kasturi) who are brother and
E
mother respectively of the deceased, are interested witnesses
and the conviction is based on the testimony of these
interested witnesses, to prove that deceased was last seen
with the appellant.
• PWs-3 and 12 have made improvements in their statements
and there are material contradictions in their depositions. F
Moreover, PW-3 was declared hostile by the prosecution.
• Both these star witnesses have tried to introduce new theory
imputing motive for the first time by stating that panchayat
was held by Ramesh and Ashok against Jittu (deceased) for
latter calling Priyanka, daughter of Ramesh and sister of G
Ashok.
• The conviction is based on the alleged recovery of weapon
at the instance of the accused – appellant herein and said
weapon was used in commission of offence, though the same
was not proved by the prosecution. H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.
A • In absence of any other independent evidence, courts below
have committed error in accepting such evidence which is
with material contradictions. It is submitted that PW-3 has
himself stated in the chief examination that he did not have
any suspicion on anyone, and there was no enmity or grudge
with the accused persons. Further the conduct of the
B
aforesaid two witnesses is not trustworthy and is unnatural.
Thus, last seen theory is to be disbelieved and discarded. It
is submitted that any amount of suspicion, cannot substitute
proof and as such it was the duty of the courts to take utmost
precaution before ordering conviction on the basis of
C circumstantial evidence.
• Recovery alleged to have been made at the behest of the
appellant is false and unreliable, as much as, no independent
witness was called to substantiate the so-called recovery of
.315 bore country made pistol and two live cartridges.
D
• Lastly stating that the appellant has been falsely implicated
in the instant case and is undergoing incarceration from last
about 11 years, it is submitted that it is a fit case to allow the
appeal by acquitting the appellant for the charges levelled
against him.
E
To support his contention that the suspicion, howsoever grave,
cannot replace proof, learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court
in the case of State of Goa etc. v. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Etc.1
wherein this Court has laid down the tests to be applied, when the case
rests upon circumstantial evidence. Relying on the aforesaid judgment,
F it is submitted that the tests stated in the above said judgment are not
satisfied by the prosecution, to bring home the guilt of the accused. Further,
in support of the argument that the ‘circumstance of last seen together’
does not by itself necessarily lead to inference that it was the accused
who committed crime and there must be something more to establish
connection between accused and the crime, that points to guilt of accused
G
and none else, he has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the
case of Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan2. Further, submitting that
to prove the guilt of the accused based on circumstantial evidence, the
1
(2007) 3 SCC 755
2
H (2014) 4 SCC 715
RAHUL v. STATE OF HARYANA 509
[R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
evidence and circumstances must form a chain of events, placed reliance A
on a judgment of this Court in the case of Wakkar & Anr. v. State of
Uttar Pradesh3.
11. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State,
by drawing our attention to the statements of various witnesses which
are on record, has submitted that apart from the evidence of PW-3 and B
PW-12 several other witnesses were examined on behalf of the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the appellant. It is submitted that if the
entirety of evidence is taken into consideration, it makes it clear that the
appellant alone has committed the offence. It is further submitted that
the motive was also established, namely, that deceased had developed
relation with Priyanka who is the wife of the appellant. It is further C
submitted that the forensic report also supports the case of the prosecution
to show that the weapon, recovered at the instance of the appellant
from the residence of his Bua, was used for committing the offence.
Lastly, it is submitted that merely because PW-3 and PW-12 who are
brother and mother respectively of the deceased were examined to prove D
the case of the prosecution, same is no ground to discard their testimony,
if the same is corroborated along with other oral and documentary
evidence on record. It is submitted that having regard to facts and
circumstances of the case, the prosecution has clearly proved the chain
of events and if the same is considered along with the post mortem
report and the recoveries effected at the instance of the appellant, it E
leads to an irresistible conclusion that the appellant has committed the
offence. Further, it is submitted that the trial court as well as the High
Court have elaborately considered the evidence on record and in view
of the concurrent findings, so far as the appellant is concerned, there are
no grounds to interfere with the same. F
12. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel on both sides and perused the material on record.
13. Though the appellant (Rahul) and another accused, namely,
Ramesh were tried together and were convicted by the trial court but on
appeal the High Court has allowed the appeal qua Ramesh and acquitted G
him of the charges by recording a finding that prosecution has failed to
prove the guilt of the accused Ramesh beyond reasonable doubt. At the
same time, the High Court has confirmed the conviction recorded and
sentence imposed, by the trial court, on the appellant. As there is no
3
(2011) 3 SCC 306 H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.
A appeal by the State challenging the acquittal recorded by the High Court,
as such, we are only required to examine whether the circumstantial
evidence on which basis the conviction of appellant (Rahul) is recorded,
establishes the guilt of the accused or not. Before we deal with the
contentions advanced, we need to notice the relevant evidence which is
led by the prosecution to prove the case against the accused appellant
B
(Rahul).
14. It is the case of the prosecution that appellant Rahul has married
Priyanka, who is the daughter of Ramesh and sister of Ashok. It is the
case of the prosecution that because of the relationship of the deceased
Jitender @ Jittu with Priyanka who is the wife of the appellant, the
C appellant and other accused have decided to eliminate the deceased. It
is true that the entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. In
ocular evidence there is a deposition of PW-3 and PW-12 who are brother
and mother respectively of the deceased. Merely because two of the
witnesses are related to the deceased, that by itself, is no ground to
D discard their testimony. If their testimony is corroborated by other
evidence on record, same can be relied on to establish the guilt of the
accused.
15. In this case PWs-1 and 2 were declared hostile and PW-3
also, at some stage, was declared hostile. He was cross-examined by
E the counsel for the prosecution. In his chief examination, PW-3 (Anil),
brother of the deceased (Jittu) has deposed that, Jitender alias Jittu was
his younger brother. On 06.08.2010, Ramesh from village Chandwas
had come to his house and he told Jittu in his presence at about 02:00 or
02:30 p.m. that appellant (Rahul) would come in the evening and he had
a programme of going to Haridwar in order to bring ‘kawar’. Thereafter
F in the evening at about 05:00 p.m., he, his mother and brother Jittu went
to Badhra in a bus. They purchased some articles and after some time
Jittu separated from them and after two hours, Rahul (appellant), Jittu
and Ashok came in a Maruti car 800 CC No.DL-9CJ-5165 and told
them that they were going to Haridwar and would come back in 3-4
G days. Jittu had gone with Rahul and Ashok. After 3-4 days he tried to
contact his brother on his mobile, but both the mobiles were switched
off. Further, he has deposed that on 14.08.2010 his sister had read the
newspaper and told him the description of cloths and slippers which
were mentioned in the newspaper. Thereafter, he also read the
newspaper, as such they went to Police Station and saw the cloths of
H Jittu and the photographs of dead body of Jittu. They identified the cloths
RAHUL v. STATE OF HARYANA 511
[R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
and photographs of Jittu. At that time he did not have any suspicion on A
anyone. After he has deposed to some extent by way of chief examination,
he was declared hostile at the request of the Public Prosecutor and he
was further cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. In the cross-
examination, he has admitted that he stated to police that his brother had
made a telephone call to Priyanka - sister of Ashok Kumar and on that,
B
Ashok and Ramesh came to their house and protested, and that might
be the reason for murdering his brother Jittu. Senior Scientific Officer –
Ravinder Pal Singh was examined as PW-4 and in his deposition, he
stated that he along with his assistant inspected the spot and prepared
his report under Ex.PE and he also prepared the rough sketch Ex.PF.
Doctor who had conducted post mortem examination, namely, Dr. Hitesh C
Chawla, was examined as PW-5. In his deposition he has stated that he
along with Dr. Jitender Jakhar conducted post mortem examination on
the body of a male individual on 09.08.2010 and they have noticed
following injuries :
“The length of the body was 180 cm. The body was wearing :- D
(1) A multicoloured (orange, white, black check shirt) full sleeved,
with imprint over its inner back as shown in post-mortem report.
The shirt was blood stained and showing holes corresponding with
underlying injuries.
(2) A white baniyan with trademark as Rupa’s Joy 90 cm. The E
baniyan was blood stained.
(3) A cream pant with hook and zip tied in situ. The pant was
blood stained and having a trademark over inner side of zip as
shown in post mortem report.
F
(4) Blue and grey stripes underwear with elastic waist having
imprint Jockey over its elastic.
(5) Red thread around neck having a yellow metallic locket of
“Shivji” in it.
The body was at room temperature. It was emitting foul smell. G
Clusters of eggs and maggots of size 0.3-0.5 cm were present all
over the body at places. Scalp hairs were black, 6-8 cm long,
peeled off with moderate traction. The mouth, lips and tongue
was deformed. The eyes were closed. Moustaches were 0.3-0.5
cm long black, beard was shaven. The mouth was open with tip
H
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.
A of tongue protruding out. Facial features were distorted. Rigor
mortis was passed off; marbled appearance of skin was present
at places. Epidermis was peeled off at places. The chest was
tense. Abdomen was distended. Greenish discoloration was seen
over anterior abdominal wall. Pubic hairs were 2-3 cm long, black
coloured and curly. Penis and scrotum were distended.
B
All ends of long bones were fused including medial end of clavicle.
Cranial sutures namely sagittal, coronal & lambdoid were not
obliterated on the inner table as well as outer table of skull. Body
of sternum was fused; xiphoid and manubrium were not fused.
All third molars were erupted and showing mild to moderate
C attrition.
The following injuries were over the body:
(1) A firearm entry wound of size 2.5 x 2.0 cm over right anterior
chest wall, 3 cm medial to right nipple, 5 cm away from midline
D and 140 cm above right heel. The margins of wound were irregular,
inverted and abrasion collar for 3-5 mm was present all around
the entry wound. The wound was directed laterally downwards,
backwards from left to right, piercing the 3rd and 4th ribs anteriorly,
pleura and underneath lungs to emerge out as wound no.2.
E (2) A firearm exit wound of size 1 x 0.5 cm over upper back right
side, 10 cm away from midline and 15 cm below shoulder blade.
The margins of wound were everted and irregular.
(3) A firearm entry wound of size 2 x 2 cm over left anterior chest
wall, 4 cm medial to left nipple and 5 cm away from midline and
F 139 cm above left heel. The margins of wound were irregular,
inverted and abrasion collar for 3-5 mm was present all around
the entry wound. The wound was directed backwards, downwards,
from left to right, piercing the 3rd intercostal space, underneath
pleura, lung, the pericardium, base of heart and trachea. The bullet
was found embedded just beneath the skin, in muscular space
G over right upper back along the inferior border of scapula, 12 cm
away from midline and 18 cm below shoulder blade. The length
of bullet was 3.0 cm. The whole of track was ecchymosed in its
entire length.
(4) A firearm entry wound of size 3.0 x 2.0 cm over left side of
H face, lateral to left angle of mouth and 155 cm above left heel.
RAHUL v. STATE OF HARYANA 513
[R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
The margins of wound were irregular, inverted. The medial end A
of wound was reaching up to lateral angle of mouth. The would
was directed medially backwards and upwards from left to right;
the left ramus of mandible, left maxilla and right maxilla was
fractured into multiple pieces with the fractured ends showing
infiltration of blood; to emerge out as wound no.5.
B
(5) A firearm exit would of size 2.5 x 2.0 cm situated 5 cm behind
right ear. The margins of wound were everted and irregular.
The topographic representations of the injuries described was made
and attached with post mortem report.
The following findings were observed on systemic examination :- C
Skull, vertebrae and internal organs of generation were healthy.
The membranes of brain, hyoid and peritoneum were intact. Brain
was thickish, grayish pasty. The large vessels and urinary bladder
were empty. Stomach contained app. 30 cc. of mucoid material
and its mucosa was pale. Small intestine contained chime. Large D
intestine contained fecal matter and gases. The liver, spleen and
kidney were pale and softened.”
The doctor (PW-5) has deposed that the cause of death was
because of fire-arm injuries and they were ante mortem in nature.
Probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was immediate E
and that of between death and post mortem examination was 1-3 days.
Further, through him, it is proved that the fired bullet Ex.P1 was the
same which was taken out from the body of the deceased. The
complainant (Jaswant Singh) who has informed to the police at first
instance, was examined as PW-6. He has deposed, reiterating the F
information which he has given to police. The draftsman who prepared
the scaled site plan Ex.PT was examined as PW-7 and to prove the
photographs Ex.PW8/1 to Ex.PW8/8, PW-8 Inderjit was examined. PW-
10 Head Constable Arvind Kumar, who was on patrolling duty along
with other police officials, has inspected the car of the appellant on
21.08.2010 and he was interrogated by the investigating officer to whom G
disclosure statement was made under Ex.PV. Further, PW-10 has also
pointed out that the appellant has disowned the earlier statement and
stated that he concealed the pistol and cartridges in House No.160,
Housing Board, Bhiwani in the house of his Bua. That disclosure
statement was recorded as Ex.PX. The mother of the deceased PW-12
H
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.
A (Kasturi) in her deposition while stating that Jittu was taken by the
appellant (Rahul) and Ashok from the bus stop stating that they were
going to Haridwar to bring ‘kawar’. She has further stated that few
days prior to occurrence, a panchayat was convened by Ramesh and
Ashok on the point that her son Jittu was making telephone calls to
daughter of Ramesh and only due to this the accused have killed her
B
son. PW-16 – Investigating Officer (Sarif Singh) in his deposition has
clearly stated that he lifted two empties from the spot and they were
taken into possession and sealed vide memo Ex.PL. He also stated that
he lifted blood-stained earth from the spot which was sealed in parcel
vide memo Ex.PK. Further, PW-17 – ASI Amir Singh in his deposition
C has stated that on 25.08.2010 he was posted as I.O. at Police Station
Charkhi Dadri and after arresting Rahul he has interrogated him and he
made his disclosure statement Ex.PLL. Vijender Singh, Dy.
Superintendent of Police/SHO, P.S. Sadar, Dadri was examined as PW-
20 on 31.08.2010.
D 16. In defence, accused examined DW-1 – Rani, widow of Jagdish,
resident of House No.160, Old Housing Board Colony, Bhiwani. In her
deposition, she has stated that appellant-accused is her real nephew.
Though she has stated in her cross-examination that appellant (Rahul)
never resided with her and he was residing in village Mirpur, Distt. Meerut,
has clearly admitted that police officials had come to her residence.
E Though she was examined to disprove the recovery of pistol from her
house at the instance of the appellant, but at the same time she has
admitted in the cross-examination that police officials had come to her
house about a year and half earlier to her statement.
17. Though it is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the
F appellant that the motive attributed is an improved version in the
statements made by PW-3 and PW-12, but in a case of this nature it is to
be noticed that deceased was known to the appellant (Rahul) and
Ramesh. Merely because PW-3 has deposed at first instance that there
was no suspicion or any animosity between the deceased and the appellant
G but at the same time he has clearly stated that on 06.08.2010, Ramesh,
the other accused had come to village Chandwas and in his presence
Ramesh told to Jittu at about 2:00 or 2:30 p.m. that Rahul would come in
the evening and they have planned to go to Haridwar in order to bring
‘kawar’. Further, it is also clearly deposed that the same day evening
PW-3 – Anil went along with his brother Jittu and his mother Kasturi –
H PW-12 to Badhra in a bus and they purchased some articles, thereafter
RAHUL v. STATE OF HARYANA 515
[R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
Jittu was separated and after two hours Rahul, Jittu and Ashok came in A
a Maruti car and stated that they were going to Haridwar and would
come back. Initially no suspicion was indicated but at the same time
when PW-3 was declared hostile and in cross-examination by the Public
Prosecutor he has admitted that he stated to police, his brother Jittu had
made a telephone call to Priyanka, sister of Ashok Kumar and on that
B
Ashok who is the brother of Priyanka and Ramesh, father of Priyanka,
came to their house and protested. He also indicated, that might be the
reason for murdering his brother Jittu by the appellant and other accused.
PW-12 who is the mother of the deceased has, in clear terms, stated
that few days prior to the occurrence, a panchayat was convened by
Ramesh and Ashok on the point that her son Jittu was making telephone C
calls to daughter of Ramesh and due to this they killed her son. Although
it is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that as PW-3 and
PW-12 are family members/close relations of the deceased, as such,
their testimony is to be discarded, but the same cannot be accepted.
Merely because PW-3 and PW-12 are related, by itself is no ground, to
D
reject their testimony. Further, a close relative who is a natural witness
cannot be regarded as an interested witness. It is fairly well settled
proposition that even the evidence of interested person can also be
considered provided such evidence is corroborated by other evidence
on record. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to a judgment of this Court
in the case of Kanhaiya Lal & Ors. etc. v. State of Rajasthan4. E
Paragraphs 24 and 25 of the said judgment read as under :
“24. In Hari Obula Reddy v. State of A.P. (1981) 3 SCC 675 a
three-Judge Bench has opined that it cannot be laid down as
“an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the
basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in F
material particulars by independent evidence. All that is
necessary is that the evidence of the interested witnesses should
be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If
on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be
intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be G
sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular case, to base
a conviction thereon.” (SCC pp.683-84, para 13)
25. In Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar (1996) 1 SCC 614 this
Court has stated (SCC p.621, para 15) that a close relative who is
4
(2013) 5 SCC 655 H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.
A a natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness, for
the term “interested” postulates that the witness must have some
interest in having the accused, somehow or the other, convicted
for some animus or for some other reason.”
While rejecting the plea that the witnesses were in close relation
B to the deceased, in the case of Ram Chander & Ors. v. State of
Haryana5 this Court has held as under :
“33. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that
since Guddi (PW 9) was in close relation with the deceased
persons, she should not be believed for want of evidence of any
C independent witness, deserves to be rejected in the light of the
law laid down by this Court in Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab
(1976) 4 SCC 158 and Harbans Kaur v. State of Haryana (2005)
9 SCC 195, which lays down the following proposition (Harbans
Kaur case, SCC p.198, para 7)
D “7. There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated
as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary, reason has to be shown
when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the witnesses
had reason to shield the actual culprit and falsely implicate the
accused.”.”
E 18. It is clear from the deposition of PW-5 (doctor) and the post
mortem report that, injuries were caused over the body of the deceased
with a fire-arm and the bullet was found embedded in the body. It is also
clearly stated that death was due to fire-arm injuries and was ante mortem
in nature. He has clearly stated that the fired bullet which was marked
as Ex.P1 was the same which was taken out from the body of the
F deceased.
19. If we closely scrutinize the oral evidence on record coupled
with the documentary evidence, we are of the considered view that
there is a complete chain of evidence which would lead to irresistible
conclusion that the appellant-accused has committed the offence and
G none else. Even the recoveries are sufficiently proved with the cogent
evidence. In the disclosure statement the appellant-accused has stated
that he has kept the weapon with his Bua at House No.160, Old Housing
Board Colony, Bhiwani. Though she was examined on behalf of the
accused to disprove the recovery, at the same time, she has admitted in
5
H (2017) 2 SCC 321
RAHUL v. STATE OF HARYANA 517
[R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
the cross-examination that police have visited her place a year and a A
half earlier to her statement. If this part of evidence is examined, coupled
with the other documentary evidence on seizure, there is no reason to
disbelieve the recovery of weapon, from the residence of appellant’s
Bua, i.e., House No.160, Old Housing Board Colony, Bhiwani. All the
recoveries have been proved by examining witnesses for such recoveries.
B
Only in view of the disclosure statement Ex.PX recoveries of pistol .315
bore and cartridges were made from the house of his Bua at Bhiwani
vide recovery memo Ex.PY on 24.08.2010. Further, as per the FSL report
Ex.PXX, the country made pistol .315 bore used by the accused-appellant
for committing the murder of the deceased was found in working order
and both the fired cartridges recovered from the spot and fired bullet C
taken out from the body of the deceased, are found fired from the country
made pistol recovered at the instance of accused (Rahul). Further, the
injuries on the person of deceased have been proved by doctor who was
examined as PW-5. The material evidence on record produced by the
prosecution has been further corroborated by call details of mobile phones
D
of Ramesh, Ashok Kumar and Jitender and such call details have been
proved by the statement of PW-14. Further, it is also well settled that if
other evidence on record clearly establishes that the deceased was
murdered by the appellant by using fire-arm, the factum of motive loses
its importance, more so, in this case the motive has been established by
leading cogent evidence to show that only because the deceased had E
developed relationship with appellant’s wife Priyanka, has decided to
eliminate the deceased.
20. From the evidence on record, we are of the considered view
that prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt by leading cogent evidence. Further, the motive is also proved by F
the prosecution.
21. In the case of Sanjay Thakran1 relied on by the learned
counsel for the appellant, this Court has held that certain tests are to be
fulfilled by the prosecution by leading cogent evidence, when the case
rests upon circumstantial evidence. Further, in the case of Wakkar3 this G
Court has held that mere recovery itself cannot be the basis for conviction
and recovery of incriminating articles and its evidentiary value has to be
considered in the light of other relevant circumstances. However, having
regard to evidence on record in this case on hand, we are clearly of the
view that the prosecution has satisfied all the tests mentioned in the case
of Sanjay Thakran1 to bring home the guilt of the accused, by resting H
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.
A upon the circumstantial evidence. If the factum of recoveries is considered
along with other evidence in entirety, it gives an irresistible conclusion
that the appellant alone has committed offence by using the weapon,
which is recovered from the house of DW-1 who is the Bua of the
appellant. Further, it is also to be noted that whether the guilt of the
accused is proved or not based on the circumstantial evidence, each
B
case has to be judged on the overall assessment of the evidence on
record, as such we are of the view that the case law which is referred
above, relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, would not render
any assistance to accept his plea that the appellant was falsely implicated.
22. The High Court, in the appeal filed by the appellant herein and
C
another accused Ramesh, reappreciated the evidence on record and
confirmed the conviction and sentence, so far as the appellant is concerned
and acquitted the other appellant, i.e., Ramesh. Though it is contended
by learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on same set of evidence
while acquitting the other accused Ramesh there is no reason to confirm
D the conviction and sentence so far as the appellant herein is concerned.
In the impugned judgment, the High Court has recorded reasons for
acquittal of the other appellant, i.e., Ramesh. PW-3 Anil, in his deposition
has clearly stated that when he along with his mother and deceased
Jittu, went to Badhra, after some time Jittu was separated from them,
E and came back along with Rahul (appellant) and Ashok (proclaimed
offender) in a Maruti car. It is stated by PW-3, at that time Jitender @
Jittu stated that he was going to Haridwar and would come back in 3-4
days. Thereafter, Jitender @ Jittu went along with Rahul and Ashok. To
the same effect is the statement of PW-12 (Kasturi), mother of the
deceased. From the said evidence on record, it stands established that
F the deceased Jitender @ Jittu was last seen in the company of Rahul
(appellant) and Ashok (proclaimed offender) only. There was no mention
that Ramesh (appellant before the High Court) also accompanied Jitender
@ Jittu for going to Haridwar. In the absence of any evidence on record
to show that deceased was also seen with Ramesh lastly by PW-3 and
G PW-12, the High Court has come to the conclusion, that prosecution has
not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt so far as the other appellant
Ramesh is concerned. In view of such reasoning recorded by the High
Court and evidence on record there are justifiable reasons for acquitting
the other appellant, namely, Ramesh, while confirming the conviction so
far as the appellant herein is concerned.
H
RAHUL v. STATE OF HARYANA 519
[R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
23. For the aforesaid reasons, as the appeal is devoid of merits, A
same is dismissed. However, as it is stated by learned counsel for the
appellant that he has already served sentence for more than 11 years, it
is needless to observe, that after completing 14 years of sentence it is
open to the appellant to make representation for remission of the sentence.
If such representation is made, the concerned authority/Jail
B
Superintendent has to send the same to the Government which is to be
considered in accordance with the policy of the State.
Ankit Gyan Appeal dismissed.
C
D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "circumstantial evidence"Sign in to search