RAM CHANDER & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

                            [20 17] 1 S.C.R. I 0



                        RAM CHANDER & ORS.
                                    v.
                          STATE OF HARYANA
                  (Criminal Appeal Nos. 658-659of2010)
B                          JANUARY 02, 2017
         [A. K. SIKRI AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
           Penal Code, 1860: ss.148, 3021149 and 2011149 - Double
    murder - Prosecution case was that the appellants and other accused
    persons were related to the deceased mother and daughter and were
c   annoyed with them over issue of engagement of daughter - A day
    prior to the incident they came to the house of deceased and
    threatened them to cancel the engagement else face dire
    consequences - PW-9 close relative of the deceased and also staying
    next door was present when threat was given by the accused persons
D   - Next day, they all came equipped and assaulted both the women
    resulting in their. death and then they set ablaze the dead bodies -
    Thereafter they took mvay the ashes, bones and other burnt material
    in a tractor - The incident was witnessed by PW-9 through space in
    common wall - Courts below convicted the appellants and other
    accused persons primarily based on evidence of PW-9 - Appeal
E
    agai1.1st conviction on the ground that PW-9 was in close relation
    with the deceased persons, therefore, she should not be believe</
    /'or want of evidence of any independent witness - Held: Close
    relationship of witness with the deceased or victim is no ground to
    reject her evidence - Therefore, PW-9 was rightly held to be
F   eyewitness and two courts rightly relied upon her sworn testimony
    for sustaining appellant's conviction - The disclosure statements
    made by accused during interrogation on the basis of which the
    recoveries of incriminating articles were made which. 11'ere duly
    proved by investigating officer were sufficient to 'sustain the
    conviction - Evidence adduced was found sufficient to sustain the
G
    conviction - No reason to take a different view from one taken by
    the courts below.
          Dismissing the appeals, the Court
          HELD: 1. Both the Courts below were justified in accepting
H   the evidence of PW-9 for resting the appeliants' conviction upon
                                   10
            RAM CHANDER & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA                        11



     it. The following facts were proved with the aid of evidence. PW-    A
     9 was next-door neighbour to the house of both the deceased
     where the incident took place. She was closely related to the
     deceased family and the family of the accused. She was fully aware
     of the marriage issue of deceased daughter. She was present at
     the time of threat given by accused to the deceased mother. She
                                                                          B
     was able to see the incident graphically due to sufficient space
     available in the common wall. The narration by PW-9 of entire
     incident was so graphic that it looked natural. It also showed how
     confidently she was able to narrate the role of every accused in
     commission of the offence. The existence of blood stains on wall
     and earth coupled with fresh mud and cow dung put on the walls/      c
     earth duly proved by Investigating Officer (PW-11) and PW-7
.~~ corroborated statement of PW-9 that one of the accused before
     leaving the place of occurrence cleaned the place with mud and
     cow-dung. It is not possible to give description of an incident in
     such graphic manner and that too by a middle aged illiterate
                                                                          D
     housewife unless she had actually seen such incident and why
     should PW-9 give evidence against the appellants and falsely
     implicate them when there is no evidence to prove their previous
     animosity. Motive to eliminate the two deceased was proved by
 -·· PW-9 against the appellants and lastly, nothing could be brought
     out to shake her testimony in cross-examination. PW-9 was rightly    E
     held to be an eye-witness and the two Courts rightly relied upon
     her sworn testimony for sustaining the appellants' conviction.
      [Paras  50, 51, 55] . [21-F-H; 22-A-E; 23-C-DJ
    .  r,
          2. There was no evidence to prove the fact as to whether
    the canal from where.the recovery of ashes and bones was made, f
    had any water therein or not at the relevant time. No question
    was put to any witness ·on this issue and secondly, no independent
    evidence was brought on record to prove as to whether the canal
    was full of water or had no water therein. In any event, one could
    not dispute that bones were recovered from the canal. In the
    absence of any evidence, which could otherwise be led in any G
    form, this submission at this stage is, therefore, not acceptable.
    [Para 57) [23-E-F]
          3. The incident had taken place during midnight when all
    the villagers were fast asleep. No evidence was adduced to prove
                                                                          H
12            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2017) I S.C.R.


A    that near the place of incident, there were many houses and lastly,
     had the injury been caused by the Gun Shot, it would have created
     some noise in the nearby locality and attract the attention of the
     villagers. Such was, however, not the case because the weapon
     used in commission of the offence was 'Gandasa'. (Para 59] (23-
     H; 24-A]
B
            4. The disclosure statements made by the accused during
     their interrogation on the basis of which the recoveries of articles
     were made such as - gandasa, bones, ashes, blood stained bricks
     and earth, tractor with cart, two plastic cans smelling diesel oil,
     which were duly proved by the Investigating Officer are sufficient
c    to sustain the conviction when it is examined in the context of
     oral evidence. Merely because no expert opinion was obtained
     to prove as to whether bones recovered were human or animal
     bones would not weaken the case of prosecution in the light of
     overwhelming evidence available on record to prove the
D    complicity of the appellants. The evidence adduced was found
     sufficient to sustain the conviction and there is no good ground
     to take a different view from the one taken by the two Courts
     below. [Paras 60, 61] [24-B-C, E]
           Dalbir Kaur and Ors. v. State of Punjab [1977] 1 SCR
           280 : (1976) 4 SCC 158; Harbans Kaur and Anr. v.
           State of Haryana [2005] 2 SCR 450 : (2005) 9 SCC
           195; Namdeo v. Stale of Maharashtra [2007) 3 SCR
           939 : (2007) 14 SCC 150; Vijay @ Chinee v. State of
           Madhya Pradesh (2010) 8 SCR 1150 : (2010) 8 SCC
           191 - relied on.
F
                            Case Law Reference
               [1977) 1 SCR 280             relied on      Para 52
               [2005] 2 SCR 450             relied on      Para 52
               [2007) 3 SCR 939             relied on      Para 53
G              (2010] 8 SCR 1150            relied on      Para 61
           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
     Nos. 658-659 of20 I 0.
          From the Order dated 12.08.2008 by the High Court of Punjab
     and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 448-DB of 1998.
H
        R,AM CHANDER & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA                               13


       Naresh Kaushik, Yogesh Yadav, Mrs. Lalita Kaushik, Advs. for           A
 the Appellants.
       Sanjay Kumar Vi sen, Anil Grover, Manendra Dubey, B. S. Gautam,
 Advs. for the Respondent.
       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                              B
        ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. I. _These appeals are
 filed against the common fina1 judgment and order dated 12.08.2008
 passed by the High Co~rt of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in
 Criminal Appeal Nos. 448-DB and 395-DBof 1998 whereby the Division
 Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants
 herein and upheld the judgments/orders of conviction and sentence            c
 rendered by the Trial Court.
       2. The case of the prosecution is as under:
       One Hari Singh (sinc!! dead) was married to Messo (deceased).
 Out of this wedlock, the couple was blessed with three daughters, namely, D
 Dholi alias Krishna, Sumitra and Raj Bala. Raj Bala was aged around 15
 years and the youngest amongst the three daughters. Both Dholi and .
 Sumitra were married at a place (village) called Kagdana whereas
 Rajbala was unmarried.
         3. Hari Singh has twa-brothers, namely, Sohan Lal (accused -
                                                                              E
  since dead) and Bhoop Singh. Sohan Lal has four sons, namely, Ram
  Chander, Ranbir alias Randhir, Ram Kumar and Om Parkash (accused-
  appell;mts herein). Messa has one sister Guddi (PW- 9) who is married
· to Bhoop Singh.                                              ·
        4. Messa and Raj Bala (mother and daughter) were living in one
                                                                              F
 house at villageArnianwali. Guddi was their next-door neighbour. Messa
 was in search of a boy for Raj Bala and had selected one boy from a
 place called Manak Dewan for which talks had been going on for the
 last one month or so from the date of incident. The engagement ceremony
 was accordingly fixed for 22.09.1996 atArnianwali. Dholi alias Krishna
 (married daughter of Messa) had, therefore, came to her mother's place       G
 at Arniahwali on 19.09.1996 to help her mother and sister-Raj Bala for
 the ceremony.
        5. On 20.-09.1996, around 3 p.m. Sohan Lal along with his four
 sons, namely, Ranbir, Ram Chander, Ram Kumar and Om Parkash; came
 to the house of Messa and told her to desist from settling the marriage of   H
                                                                                   '
14            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         (2017] I S.C.R.


A    Raj Bala with a boy from Manak Dewan. Sohan Lal said that they could
     settle it according to their own choice. Sohan Lal, who was not happy
     with the marriage proposal, expressed his total unhappiness and did not
     want the marriage proposal to fructify. He then threatened Messo that
     in case she did not agree to his proposal then both (Messo and Raj Bala)
     would not see the sun the next day. After giving this threat, Sohan Lal
B
     along with his sons (appellants herein) left the place. Dholi and Guddi
     were present along with Messo and Raj Bala when Sohan Lal and his
     four sons had come.
           6. Messo fearing with the threarofSohan Lal asked her daughter
     Dholi to go immediately to her brother, Ram Sarup at village Dhigtania
c    which was around 20 KM away from her house and inform him about
     happening of such incident with her. Dholi, accordingly, went there and
     narrated the incident to Ram Sarup-her maternal uncle. She then stayed      >A
     overnight with Ram Sarup:
            7. On 21.09 .1996, in the early hours, when Dhol i and Ram Sarup
D    accompanied by one Om Prakash-Sarpanch ofVillage Dhigtania reached
     to the house of Messo, they found both, Messo and Raj Bala, missing
     from the house. They, therefore, went to the house of Guddi (PW-9),
     who was living next to the house ofMesso. They noted that Guddi was
     weeping and was in the state of shock.
E          8. When they inquired from her about the whereabouts ofMesso
     and Raj Bala, Guddi told them that Sohan Lal and his four sons had
     come in the night and murdered Messo and Raj Bala, burnt their bodies
     in house and carried the remains of the ·dead bodies and ashes in a cart
     driven by the tractor from her house to an unknown place.
F           9. This led to the registration of FIR bea~ing No, 197 (Ex-PA- I)
     dated 21.09.1996 by Dholi at Police Station Nathusari Chopta naming
     Sohan Lal and his four sons (appellants herein) as accused persons for
     committing the murder of her mother-Messo and sister-Raj Bala. The
     police authorities then started investigation, visited the spot, recorded
G    the statements of the witnesses, prepared the spot map, recovered several
     articles from the spot and arrested the accused persons. On being
     interrogated, the accused made disclosure statements about the manner
     in which ashes/bones of both the deceased were disposed of in a nearby
     Canal known as-Sheranwali Canal and also disclosed the place where
     the weapons used in commission of the offence and tractor with cart
H
           RAM CHANDER & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA                                  15
                 [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. ]

    were kept. On such disclosure being made, the police made recoveries           A
    of the articles at the instance of the accused.
           I 0. After completion of the investigation, the case was committed
    to the Court of Sessions and the accused persons were charged for
    commission of the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 reaq
    with Section 149 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short '!PC').     B
           11. On 07.08.1997, Om Parkash-one of the accused escaped from
    police custody froin Civil Hospital Sirsa. Proceedings under Sections 82 ·
    and 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'the Code') were
    initiated against him. He was declared 'Proclaimed Offender' and
    proceedings under Section 299 of the Code were ordered to be taken up          c
    against him. The trial of other accused, however, proceeded on merits.
             12. The prosecution, in support of his case, examined as many as
     I I witnesses whereas the defence did not choose to lead any evidence.
     Proceedings under Section 313 of the Code were carried out. After
     completion of the trial, theTrial Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa),   D
     vide judgment dated 27.07 .1998, convicted Sohan Lal, Ranbir@ Randhir,
     Ram Chander and Ram Kumar for the offences punishable under Sections
     148, 302/149 and 2011149 !PC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous
     imprisonment for a period of one year each under Section 148 !PC.
     Ram Chander and Ranbir@ Randhir to undergo imprisonment for life
     under Section 302 !PC and to pay a fine ofRs.5000/- each, in default of       E
---·P<i)'lllent, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one
     year each. Sohan. Lal and Ram Kumar were sentenced to imprisonment
     for life under Section 302/149 !PC and to pay a fine ofRs.5000/- each,
     in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment
     for a period of one year each. All the four accused were sentenced to         F
     undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each for the
     offences punishable under Section 20 I /149 !PC. All the sentences were
     ordered to run concurrently. .
          13. After arrest of Om Parkash on 22.02.1999, a separate trial
    was conducted against fiim and after its completion, the Trial Court, by  a G
    separate judgment dated 7/8.08.2000, convicted him for the offences
    punishable under Sections 148, 302/149 and 201 /149 !PC and sentenced
    him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 148
    IPC.imprisonment for life and fine ofRs.5000/- with default clause under
  . Section 302/149 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years under
                                                                                   H
16            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          (2017] l S.C.R.


A    Section 20 l/149 !PC. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run
     concurrently.
            14. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
     27.07.1998, Sohan Lal, Ram Chander, Ram Kumar and Ranbir@Randhir
     filed Criminal Appeal No. 448-DB of 1998 before the High Court.
B           15. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
     7/8.9.2000, Om Parkash filed separate Criminal Appeal No. 395-DB of
     2000 before the High Court.
           16. The appeals were heard together. By impugned judgment dated
     12.08.2008, the High Court dismissed both the appeals. During the
c    pendency of the appeals before the High Court, Sohan Lal died, therefore,
     appeal against him stood.abated.
            17. Aggrieved by the said judgment, all the accused have filed
     these appeals by special leave before this Court questioning the legality
     and correctness of their conviction and sentence.
D
            18. Heard Mr. Naresh Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellants
     (accused) and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen learned counsel for the
     respondent- State. We also perused the written submissions submitted
     by the learned counsel for the parties.
            19. Learned counsel for the appellants (accused) while assailing
E
     the legality and correctness of the impugned order, reiterated the same
     submissions which were pressed in service though unsuccessfully by
     the appellants before the two courts below resulting in their conviction.
            20. In substance, the submissions were that firstly, the appellants
     were falsely implicated in the incident inasmuch as none of the appellants
F
     were connected with the commission of the offence in question in any
     way so also their complicity in the commission of the offence could not
     be e'stablisht)d by the prosecution for want of evidence against any of
     them.
             21. The second submission was that neither the motive for
G    commission of the offence and nor the presence of any of the appellants
     either jointly and individually was proved at the time of the comm'ission
     of the offence by the prosecution and the evidence adduced by the
     prosecution is not sufficient to implicate the appellants for commission
     of the offence .
.H
       RAM CHANDER & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA                                 17
             [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

       22. The third submission was that the two Courts below erred in        A
placing reliance on the evidence of the so-called eye-witness-Guddi (PW-
9) as according to the learned counsel, her testimony, if scanned properly
would neither inspi;~ confidence and nor will command creditability due
to her close relationship with the deceased family.
       23. The fourth submission was that apart from the evidence of          B
Guddi (PW-9), no independent eye-witness to the incident was examined
by the prosecution, therefor~, it is not safe to rely on the uncorroborated
testimony ofGuddi (PW-9) for sustaining the appellants' conviction.
      24. The fifth submission was that when the prosecution claimed
that on the strength of disclosu~e statement of one accused, they             c
recovered "Ashes and Bones" from the canal, this itself renders the
case of the prosecution wholly unacceptable because ashes could ne\ier
be recovered from canal.
       25. The sixth submission was that it looked highly improbable that
no villager could witness the incident except Guddi(PW-9). This, according    D
to learned counsel, is sufficient to hold that the prosecution failed to
establish the complicity of the appellants in commission of the crime.
      26. The seventh submission was that no ·expert opinion was
obtained to find out as to whether bones recovered were human bones
or animal bones?                                                              E
      'k7. It is basically these submissions, which were elaborated by
the learned counsel for the appellants with reference to the evidence on
record.
       28. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent supported the
impugned order and contended that since both the Courts below, on             F
proper appreciation of evidence, have held that the appellants were
involved in the commission of the offence in question and committed
brutal murder of two innocent ladies, mother and daughter, and further
both the Courts have given cogent reasons while rejecting their
subrnissions and hence there arises no reason to interfere in the impugned
                                                                              G
order.
       29. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record of the case, we find no merit in the appeals.
           '                         ,
      30. At the outset, we may take note of.one legal principle
consistently reiterated by this Court since inception that it is. not the     H
18            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] I S.C.R.



A    function of this Court to re-assess evidence and an argument on a point
     of fact which did not prevail with the Courts below cannot avail the
     appellants in this Court (see observation ofleamed Judge- Saiyid Faz)
     Ali, J. while speaking for the Bench in the case of Lachhman Singh
     and othe~ vs State (AIR 1952 SC 167).
B          31. Here is a case where the Trial Court and the High Court, on
     appreciating the entire oral evidence, recorded categorical concurrent
     findings of fact against the appellants (accused) about their complicity in
     commission ofcrime in question which resulted in ki1l111g of mother and
     her unmarried daughter.

c          32. Both the Courts below held that firstly, it were the appellants
    who had come to the house of Messa (mother) and threatened her that
    she (Messo) should not pursue her daughter, Raj Bala's marriage with
    the boy from Manak Diwan, otherwise both will not see the sun the next
    day. Secondly, noticing that both did not pay any heed to the threat, the
    appellants came to Messo's house in the midnight with a pre-determined
D mind to eliminate Messo and Raj Bala. Thirdly, the appellants
    accomplished their "1Jlan by mercilessly killing Messo and Raj Bala with
    the use ofgandasa when both were in fast asleep. Fourthly, the appellants
    first caught hold of Messo and chopped her head with Gandasa and
    then did the same to Raj Bala and then put them on a cot and put
E mattresses and wood sticks over their bodies and poured kerosene/diesel
    and set their bodies to fire. Fifthly, the appellants then removed the
    ashes and bones from the place of occurrence in a tractor and all this
    was witnessed by Guddi (PW-9) who was living as next door neighbour
    of the deceased. Sixthly, Guddi (PW-9) was a reliable eye-witness whose
  . evidence did not suffer from any infirmities or/and inconsistencies.
F   Seventhly, the ashes, human bones, plastic bags, Gandasa used in
    execution of the offence were recovered from the canal and house at
    the instance of the respective appellants on the strength of individual
    disclosure statements Jllade during their interrogation. Eighthly, the
    defence did not adduce any evidence to demo Iish the case of the
    prosecution and nor statements of the accused made under Section 313
    of the Code, in any manner, could demolish the case of the prosecution
    on any material points. Ninthly, the case set up by the prosecution was
    proved with the aid of evidence adduced by witnesses, namely, PW- I to
    PW-11.
           33. As observed supra, the aforementioned nine main findings of
H
         RAM CHANDER & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA                                   19
               [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. ]

 the Sessions Court were affirmed by the High Court after appreciating            A
 the oral evidence. These findings of fact being concurrent in nature are
 usually binding on this Court. This Court, being the last Court ofappeal,
 does not re-visit and re-appreciate the entire oral evidence de novo in
 its jurisdiction under Article l 36ofthe Constitution unless there are strong
 and primafacie reasons to do so pointing out therein any apparent legal
                                                                                  B
 and jurisdictional error prejudicing any rights of the accused.
        34. However, since this Court granted leave to file appeal to the
 appellants against the impugned order of the High Court and hence we
 considered it just and proper to have a re-look to the evidence of material ··
 witnesses with a view to find out whether th·e concurrent findings of the
 two <:;ourts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence or any
                                                                                c
 of these findings call for any interference.
       35. As mentioned above, the only eye-witness to the incident in
 question is Guddi (PW-9). Both the Courts below found her testimony to
 be natural, credible and consistent.
                                                                                  D
         36. Guddi (PW-9) is the real sister of the deceased Messo and
  she was living next to the house ofMesso. She, in her evidence, narrated
  in detail her family tree and their inter se relations including her relation
  with the accused family.
         37. She stated that Sohan Lal-one of the accused (since dead)            E
  was her husband's (Bhoop Singh's) real elder brother and the accused
  are So)lan. Lal and his sons. She stated that Sohan Lal and his sons
  (appellants) had come to Messo's house in the afternoon on tlie date of
  incident (incident had occurred in midnight the same day) and held out a
  threat to her and Raj Bala that marriage proposal of her daughter with
  the boy from Manak Diwan should not be materialized and if it is not            F
  cancelled then she and her daughter will not see the sun the next day.
  She stated that Sohan Lal gave this threat to Messo in her presence and
  in presence of Dhoti (PW-8) who had come to Messo to extend help for
  engagement ceremony of Raj Bala.
        38. She stated that Messo on hearing the threat asked Dholi-her           G
  daughter to go to her maternal uncle (Ram Sarup )- who was the resident
  of nearby village and bring him with her, if possible.
         39, She stated that Dhoti immediately left to the house of Ram
   Sarup and on reaching there she told him about the incident. Dhoti stayed
.- back overnight with Ram Sarup.                                                 H
20            SUPRF'         . ,LJRT REPORTS                [2b 17] 1 S.C.R.


A          40. '.ihe then stated that during mid-night hours, she heard some
     noise in the house of Messo. She, therefore, woke up and came out to
     find out the cause of no ice. She stated that between her house and the
     house ofMesso, there is one common wall with sufficient space, which
     enables anyone to peep through easily in both the houses.        ·
B          41. She stated that she came near to the joint wall and through
     space in the wall saw that Ram Chander (accused) and Randhir (accused)
     were holding Gandasas in their hands whereas Sohan Lal (accused) and
     Om Prakash (accused) had caught hold of Masso's hand and legs and
     Ram Chl!nder (accused) with his gandasa gave blow on Messo's neck,
     which completely severed Messo's neck from her body.
c
            42. She stated that Ram Kumar (accused) then caught hold of
     Raj Bala who was on a separate cot and Ranbir (accused) with his
     gandasa gave blow on Raj Bala's throat due to which her neck was
     completely severed from her body. The accused persons then put both ·
     the bodies on one cot along with their severed heads and put mattresses
D    on the dead bodies. Sohan Lal then put some wood sticks by the side of
     the cot and poured two tins'-Of diesel/kerosene on the cot and set the cot
     ablaze with matchstick.
            43. She stated that Ranbir (accused) then came to her (Guddi's)
     house and took their tractor and camel cart to Messo's house. He dumped
E    ashes, bones and other burnt material in the tractor and proceeded with
     the tractor to an unknown place. She_ stated that before leaving, Ram
     Chander plastered the place of occurrence with mud and cow-dung and
     cleaned the place. She stated that she told about this incident to Bhoop
     Singh but on hearing it, he ran away out of fear.
F           44. She stated that next morning when Ram Sarup, Dholi and Om
     -Prakash-Sarpanch came, she narrated the entire incident to them, which
      eventually led to filing of FIR by Dholi immediately in the conce!'lWd
      nearby Police Station naming therein the appellants as the culprits ~f
      commission of the offence.
G          45. Dholi (PW-8) corroborated the evidence ofGuddi (PW-9) on
     material points such as (I) all the accused visiting Messo's house and
     giving threat in her presence to Messo and Raj Bala, (2))laj Bala's
     marriage proposal with a boy from Manik Dewan (3) She having left to
     her uncle's place at the request of her mother Messo to infor,m him
     about the incident (4) her family relations with the accused and with
H
        RAM CHANDER & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA                                21
              [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

other family members and lastly, what Guddi (PW-9) told her about the         A
entire incident arid the manner in which it was accomplished by the
accused on her reaching the house next day morning with Ram Sarup
and Om Prakash.
       46. Ram Sarup (PW-10) also corroborated the version of Guddi
(PW-9) and Dholi (PW-8) on all material points. He stated that when he        B
along with Dholi and Om Prakash went to Guddi, she was weeping and
frightened. On being consoled, she narrated the entire incident (mentioned
above) to them.
       47. The evidence of the Investigating Officer H.ardawari Lal (PW-
11) and Kiran Kumar (PW-7) who was the Scientific ~ssistant (Forensic         c
Science Laboratory) proved that the blood stains were found on the
walls and earth and also fresh mud and cow-dung was found on the
walls and when it was removed, blood stains were noticed on the bricks
of the wall. Kiran Kumar (PW-7) also corroborated the existence of
joint wall with sufficient space available' in the common wall as stated by
Guddi (PW- 9).                                                                D
    \
       48. The evidence of Investigating Officer (Pw:11) also. pro\ .:·d
the recoveries ofarticles on the basis of disclosure statements made by
respective appellants (accused). The seized articles were proved and
                                                  ~·~


exhibited.
                                                                               E
     49. It is with this evidence, the question arises as to whether the
two Courts below were justified in placing reliance on the evidence of
Guddi (PW-9) for resting the appellant's conviction?
       50. On scan.ning the aforementioned evidence, we are of the
considered opinion that both the Courts below were justified in accepting
                                                                              F
the evidence ofGuddi (PW-9).for resting the appellants' conviction upon
it. We, while concurring with the reasoning and the conclusion of both
the Courts below, give our reasons infra. In our view, the following
facts are proved with the aid of evidence.
       51. First, Guddi (PW-9) was next·doorneighbour to the house of
                                                                              G
both the deceased where the incident took place. Second, she was closely
related to the deceased family and the family of the accused. Third, she
knew the accused persons and the family members of the deceased
very well much prior to the date of incident being a part of the same
families. Fourth, she was fully aware of the marriage issue of Raj Bala.
Fifth, she was present at the time of threat giv~;1 by Sohan Lal and his      H
22            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            (2017] l S.C.R.



A    sons (accused) to Messa. Sixth, she was able to see the incident
     graphically due to sufficient space available in the common wall. Seventh, ·
     Scientific Assistant, Kiran Kumar (PW-7) on inspection of the place of
     occurrence proved that the common wall has space. He said "there
     was open space between this wall and the room". Eighth, it also
     corroborates with the evidence of Hardawari Lal(PW-11) and the spot
B
     map (EX-PU) of the place of incidence that the wall and the open space
     therein did exist; Ninth, Guddi's narration of entire incident is so graphic
     that it looks natural. lt also shows how confidently she was able to narrate
     the role of every accused in commission of the offence. Tenth, the
     existence of blood stains on wall and earth coupled with fresh mud and
c    cow dung put on the walls/earth duly proved by Hardawari Lal,
     Investigating Officer(PW-11) and Kiran Kumar (PW-7) corroborates
     Guddi's statement that '"Ram Chander - one of the accused before
     leaving the place of occurrence cleaned the place with mud and
     cow-dung ... Eleventh, it is not possible to give description of an incident
     in such graphic manner and that too by a middle aged illiterate housewife
D
     unless she had actually seen such incident and why should Guddi (PW-
     9) give evidence against the appellants and falsely implicate them when
     there is no evidence to prove their previous animosity; Twelfth, motive
     to eliminate the two deceased was proved by Guddi against the appellants
     a11d lastly, nothing could be brought out to shake her testimony in cross-
E    examination.
            52. The submission oflearned 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 ofany independent witness, deserves
     to be rejected in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Dalbir
F    Kaur and Ors. vs. State of Punjab, ( 1976) 4 SCC 158, and Harbans
     Kaur and Anr. vs. State of Haryana, (2005) 9 SCC 195, which lays
     down the following proposition:
           "There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be
           treated as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary, reason
G          has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show
           that the witnesses had reason to shield actual culprit and
           falsely implicate the accused."
           53. In Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCCl50,
     this Court further held:
H          "38 ........... it is clear that a close relative cannot be
     ..RAM CHANDER & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA                                  23
             [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

      characterised as an "interested" lvitness. He is a "natural"             A
      witness. His evidence, however, must be scrutinised
      carefully. If on such scrutiny, his evidence is found to be
      intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly
      trustworthy, conviction can be based on the "sole"
      testimony of such witness. Close relationship of witness
                                                                               B
      with the deceased or victim is no ground to reject his
      evidence. On the contrary, close relative of the deceased
      wouid normally be most reluctant to spare the real culprit
      and falsely implicate an innocent one."
       54. We follow and apply this well settled princ.iple of law for
rejecting the submissions oflearned counsel for the appellants.
                                                                               c
      55. In the light of aforementioned twelve reasons, we are of the
view that Guddi (PW-9) was rightly held to be an eye-witness and the
two Courts rightly relied upon her sworn testimony for sustaining the
appellants' conviction.
                                                                               D
      56. This takes us to the next argument of learned counsel for the
appellants. It was urged that the alleged recovery of articles on the
strength of disclosure statement of the accused and in particular the
"ashes and the bones" from the canal is not possible. We do not agree.
       57. In our view, there is no evidence to prove the fact as to whether    E
the canal from where the recovery of ashes and bones was made had
any water therein or not at the relevant time. We do not find that any
question was put to any witness on this issue and secondly, no independent
evidence was brought on record to prove as to whether the canal was
full ofwateror had no water therein. In any event, one could not dispute
that bones were recovered from the canal. In the absence of any evidence,       F
which could otherwise be led in any form, this submission at this stage is,
therefore, not acceptable.
       58. This takes us to the next argument of learned counsel for the
appellants. Learned Counsel urged that why the prosecution did not
examine any independent witness from the village other then Guddi              G
(PW-9).
       59. We find no merit in this submission for more than one reason.
First, no such argument was advanced before the two courts below.
Second, the incident had taken place during midnight when all the villagers
were fast asleep. Third, no evidence was adduced to prove that near the        H
24             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] I S.C.R.



A    place of incident, there were many houses and lastly, had the injury been
     caused by the Gun Shot, it would have created some noise in the nearby
     locality and attractthe attention of the villagers. Such was, however, not
     the case because the weapon used in commission of the offence was
     'Gandasa'.
B           60. In our considered opinion, the disclosure statements made by
     the accused during their interrogation on the basis of which the recoveries
     of articles were made such as - gandasa, bones, ashes, blood stained
     bricks and earth, tractor with cart, two plastic cans smelling dies.el oil,
     which were duly proved by the Investigating Officer are sufficient to
     sustain the conviction when it is examined in the context of oral evidence.
c    Merely because no expert opinion was obtained to prove as to whether
     bones recovered were human or animal bones, in our view, would not
     weaken the case of prosecution in the light of overwhelming evidence
     available on record to prove the complicity of the appellants.
            61. It is the consistent view of this Court that minor discrepancies,
D    even if noticed, wou Id not affect the prosecution case, if there is a
     sufficient independent evidence to sustain the conviction. (See.- Vijay
     @ Chinee vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 8 SCC 191, Paras
     23 & 23). In this case, the evidence adduced was found sufficient to
     sustain the conviction and we find no good ground to take a different
E    view from the one taken by the two Courts below and concur with their
     findings and views by giving our own reasons mentioned supra.
            62. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeals are found to be
     devoid of any merit. The appeals thus fail and are accordingly dismissed.
     In case ifany of the appellants is on bail, his bail bond stands cancelled
F    and he is directed to be taken into custody forthwith to undergo remaining
     period of sentence awarded to him by the Sessions Court.
     Devika Gujral                                             Appeals dismissed.