RAM PAL @ BUNDAversusSTATE OF HARYANA

                   [2013] 2 S.C.R. 797

                   RAM PAL @ BUNDA                             A
                             v.
                   STATE OF HARYANA
            (Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2012)
                     APRIL 11, 2013
                                                               B
     [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED
               IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.]

     Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302 and 376 - Rape and murder
- Case based on circumstantial evidence - Conviction of        C
accused-appellant with 10 years RI - Justification - Held:
Justified - Medical evidence revealed that the victim was
subjected to sexual intercourse before her death - PW-10,
mother of the victim found the accused present at the scene
of crime immediately after the occurrence - Accused ran away   D
from the scene of occurrence without responding to the
queries of PW-10 and remained absconding for two days -All
the circumstances only supported the prosecution version -
No missing link· in any of the circumstances found proved
against the accused - Further, accused had inimical            E
relationship with the family of the victim and thus, motive
aspect demonstrated by the prosecution also acceptable -
Moreover, accused-appellant did not let in any evidence for
his defence.

    CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal         F
No. 120 of 2012.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 07.09.2011 of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal
Appeal No. 686-DB of 2006.                                     G

    R.K. Talwar, David Rao, K. Kaushik, Chander Shekhar
Ashri for the Appellant.


                            797                                H
    798      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A         Kamal Mohan Gupta for the Respondent.

          The following order of the Court was delivered

                                ORDER
B        1. The sole appellant is the accused who was convicted
    for the offences under Sections 302 and 376, Indian Penal
    Code (IPC). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous
    imprisonment for life and 10 years rigorous imprisonment for
    committing rape and murder of one Devi (real name disguised).
c   According to the prosecution, a telephonic intimation was
    received in the police station regarding the dead body of Devi
    resident of Mangalore within- the jurisdiction of Shahzadpur
    police station, Ambala, lying in the fields of one Prithi Pal. On
    reaching the spot PW-14, SHO recorded the statement of PW-
D   10 Sumitra Devi the mother of the deceased. It was learnt
    through her that she had two daughters, that the elder one was
    married while the younger one who went to the fields on
    18.2.2005 at 6.30 p.m. to ease herself did not return and their
    intensive search was in vain. In her statement she mentioned
    the name of the appellant who was stated to have been found
E   at the place of search and on being asked, he pleaded
    ignorance about the victim. It was her further statement that
    only on the next day morning in day light they were able to trace
    the body of the victim whose neck was wrapped with a blue
    shawl owned by her. The complainant PW-10 raised suspicion
F   about the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the
    offence in view of his past misbehavior towards her elder
    daughter on which occasion he was reprimanded before the
    local Panchayat and was forced to tender an apology. As it
    was a case of circumstantial evidence, the trial Court after
G   scrutinizing the evidence of prosecution witnesses and after
    taking into account the stand of the appellant in his 313 Cr.P.C.
    statement noted the circumstances in paragraph 17 of the
    judgment.
          2. The circumstances noted were as under:
H
     RAM PAL @ BUNDA v. STATE OF HARYANA                      799

     1) Medical evidence                                              A
     2) presence of accused at the scene of crime immediately
     after the occurrence
     3) conduct of the accused in running away from the village
     and remaining absconding for two days after the                  8
     occurrence and
     4) motive for the offence.
        3. While examining the above circumstances, on the motive
. aspect the trial Court found that PW-11 Natho Devi, the elder
  daughter of PW-10 in her evidence deposed that in the year          C
  2002 when she along with her cousin was returning from the
  fields, the appellant met them on the way along with his cousin
  Sham Lal and that both of them teased deceased PW-11 and
  her cousin and the bundle of the grass carried by them fell down.
  It was also her statement that by providence they could save        D
  themselves from the onslaught of the appellant and his cousin
  on that occasion. She reported the same to her parents.
  Pursuant to her complaint, a Panchayat was convened in her
  village and in the Panchayat, the appellant and his cousin
  begged pardon and that the appellant thereafter used to tell her    E
  that one day or other he would take a revenge for the said
  incident. It was also in her evidence that she belonged to labour
  class and the appellant was nurturing a long standing grievance
  and grudge in his mind against the family of the complainant
  as he felt that he was humiliated in the Panchayat. The said        F
  version of PW-11 was also corroborated by PW-10, the mother
  of the victim and Natho Devi, PW-11. In the 313 statement
  except making a simple denial, the appellant did not come
  forward with any explanation insofar as the motive aspect was
  concerned.
                                                                      G
    4. As far as the presence of the appellant at the scene of
occurrence was concerned PW-10 in her evidence
categorically explained as to how while searching for her
daughter she found the appellant in the fields and that on being
questioned about the whereabouts of her daughter the appellant        H
    800     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013) 2 S.C.R.

A .without responding to her query ran away from the place of
   occurrence. Though at the instance of the appellant it was
   suggested that there were certain variations as compared to
   her statement to the police as regards the presence of the
   appellant, the trial Court found that such variation did not
B materially affect the evidence of PW-10 as regards the
   presence of the appellant in the place of occurrence at the
   relevant point of time and his running away from the scene of
   occurrence without responding to the queries of the
   complainant PW-10.
C      5. As far as the absence of the appellant from the village
  for two days after the occurrence enough evidence was let in.
  PW-12 father of the deceased who categorically stated that
  while the occurrence took place on 18.2.2005, the appellant
  was produced before the investigating officer by Jagmal Singh
D only on 21.2.2005 when he was arrested. It came to light that
  after 18.2.2005 the appellant could be traced in the village only
  on 21.2.2005 when he was arrested. Though PW-13 Jagmal
  Singh who stated to have produced the appellant, turned hostile,
  having regard to the record of proceedings which was not
E contradicted in the manner known to law, the above factum
  about the absence of the appellant in the village for more than
  two days was quite apparent and there was no reason to dis-
  believe the said factum.
       6. When the medical evidence was analyzed, the trial
F Court has found that according to PW-1 Dr. Ramesh and Dr.
  Sushil Kumar Singal, the cause of death was asphyxia due to
  strangulation which was aiite-mortem and was sufficient to
  cause death. Multiple aberrations and contusion of varying
  sizes on the face, chin and few superficial aberrations on the
G back were noted. Exhibit PD and PD/1, the report of the
  forensic science laboratory revealed blood on Shawl, Salwar
  and underwear of the deceased. Human semen was detected
  on the vaginal swab of the deceased. On examination of the
  accused, after his arrest, by PW-2 Dr. Vikas Pal who took into
H possession the underwear of the appellant revealed that human
       .
     RAM PAL @ BUNDA v. STATE OF HARYANA                      801


semen was detected in that as per the FSL report. The medical         A
evidence also revealed that the victim was subjected to sexual
intercourse before her death.
      7. Thus all the above circumstances only supported the
 prosecution version and there was no missing link in any of the
 circumstances found proved against the appellant.                    B
        8. The appellant did not choose to let in any evidence for
  his defence. In the 313 questioning what all the appellant said
  was that due to inimical relations with the family of the
  complainant, he was falsely implicated. The trial Court has         C
  rightly noted that apart from what was alleged by PWs-10 and
  11 no other inimical aspect with the family of the complainant
  was brought forth as against the appellant. In the said
  circumstances, the stand of the appellant also fully supported
  the version of PWs-10 and 11. It is not the case of the appellant
  that there was no previous contact in any manner whatsoever         D
. as between the appellant and the family of the complainant.
  Further considering the version of PWs-10 and 11 and the
  stand of the appellant thatjbere was inimical relationship with
  the family of the complainant, it can only be concluded that such
  inimical relationship would only relate to the appellant's          E
  misbehaviour in the past with PW-11 and as stated by her in
  her evidence the appellant who was forced to express his
  apologies in the presence of elders in Panchayat, developed
  a grudge in his mind to settle score with the family of the
  complainant. Therefore, the motive aspect demonstrated by the       F
  prosecution and accepted by the trial Court was also fully
  justified.                ·
      9~ Having regard to our above conclusion, we are
 convinced that the conviction and sentence imposed on the
 appellant by the trial Court which was also confirmed by the High    G
 Court was perfectly justified and we do not find any good
 grounds to interfere with the same. The appeal fails and the
 same is dismissed.
 B.B.B.                                      Appeal Dismissed.
                                                                      H