Holding

The cumulative circumstantial evidence proved corpus delicti and the guilt of Rama Nand beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction was upheld.

Summary

Rama Nand was convicted for the murder of his wife Sumitra under Section 302 IPC, with co‑accused Shish Ram and Kali Datt convicted under Section 201 IPC. The prosecution relied on a series of circumstantial facts: a strong motive demonstrated by threatening letters, Sumitra’s last sighting with the accused, the planting of false suicide clues, recovery of her personal effects from the accused’s house, forensic hair evidence linking a recovered paranda to her dupatta, and the discovery of a mutilated, legless corpse later identified as hers. The defence argued that the corpse was that of a child and that the body had not been positively identified, contending that conviction required proof of corpus delicti. The Supreme Court held that when the dead body is not found, a cogent chain of circumstances that unerringly points to homicide can satisfy the requirement of proof, and the cumulative evidence here met that standard. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions and sentences.

Issues considered

The conviction for murder can be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence without a positively identified dead body.
Whether the circumstances established constitute a cogent, unerring chain leading to guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the forensic and documentary evidence (letters, hair, personal effects) sufficiently prove motive and homicidal death.
The applicability of the doctrine that a dead body must be found to prove corpus delicti.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 3, s. 342, s. 8
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 302

Subjects

circumstantial evidencecorpus delictimurderidentification of bodymotiveforensic evidencesuicide vs homicideIndian Penal CodeEvidence Act

Judgment

H4

A RAMA NAND AND ORS.
v. •
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
January 6, 1981

B [R. S. SARKARIA AND R. S. PATHAK. JJ.]
Clrcumstantial evidence, "·alue of-Corpus delicti not found in tlu· case-
Wllether inference of guilt of murder could be drawn l1·/ie11 rhe oth~r cil'cum.f'-
tances established 011 record were sufficient to !Cad to the coriclusion lfiot ltn"lhin
all liun1a11 p1obability the rictini was murdered by the accust'd.
..
-
c Dismissing the appeal and maintaining the conviction and sentences of the
appellants, the Court

HELD : (I) It is well settled that where the inference of guilt of an
accused PeriiOn .is to be drawn ftoin circumstantinP evidence only, thoSe circutrt- '
stances must, in the first place, be cogently established. Further, those cin:um-
stances should be of a definite rendency pointin,g towards the guilt of the accused,
and in their totality, must unerringly lead to the conclusion that within an
D
huma11 probability, the offence was committed by the accused and none else.
In the instant case-, the following circumstances had been correctly found to
have been established by the prosecution: (i) Rama Naud accused bad a stroiit
motive to murder bis wife, Sumitra. (ii) Sumitra \Vas last seen alive "ith Rama:
Nand, appellant in- the family house at Jherwin on the night between 13th and
"·
14th May, 1972. (iii) (a) Rama Nand and the other co-accused falsely gave
E out that she had committed suicide by jumping into the river. They 'planred' o
Sa/war and a pair of shoes on the bank of the Sutlaj and gave out that they
belcnged to the deceased, and Shish Ram lodged a folsc report with the police
to the effect that she had committed suicide by jumping into the river. The
Salwar and the shoes, which had been 'planted' there to manufacture false clues
by the accused, did not beiong to Sumitra, and the accused falsely ;:tiserte.d that
these articles belong to the deceased. (b) The story given out by the accused
F persons that upto 11 a.n1. on May 14, 1972, Sumitra was planting chillies along
with Sheela and other members of the family of the accused, was false. (iv) Tue.
gold chain (Ex. P-1) and the watch (Ex. P-2) \Vhich Sumitra u~ed to \Vear on
her person all the 24 hours, and the clothes (Ex, P-5 to P-10) which she had
on her person and lhc basket (fu. P-11) and umbrella (Ex. P-12) which sho
was carrying \Vhcn on the evening of May 13, 1972 she came to the house of
the accused at Jhen.vin, \Vere recovered: from the house: of tho- accu~ed. (v) Somo
•
G days after the occurrence, one Paranda was found from the jungle near this
village. There was a bunch of hair in the plated tail of this Paranda. The tail
:ippeared to have been cut. These hair sticking in the paranda and those found:
entangled in the Dupatta of the deceased were according to the Forensic Expert
of one and the sa·n1c person. (vi} A legless decomposed corpse \\'as. recovered
from the Sutlej near village Randol in a mutilated condition. But its identity
[4510-H, 452A-E, 453A-BJ
H
(2) Even o nthe assumption that the dead body of the victim was not found,
circumstances (i) to (v) mentioned above in their cumulative effect includably
and ra.tionally compeJ the conclusion that Sumitra had died and it 'n'as, Rama
RAMA NANO v. H.P. (Sarkaria, J.) 445

Nand accused who had intentionally caused her death. Ordinarily, the recovery A
of· the dead-body of the victim or a vital part of it, bearing marks of violence
is sufficient proof of homicidal death of the victim. Even so, discovery of the
dead-body of the victim bearing physical CiVidence of vio1encci, has never been
considered as the only mode of proving the corpus delicti in murder. Indeed
ve.ry many cases arc of such a nature where the discovery of the dead-body is
in1possible. A blind adherence to this old doctrine of Sir Mathew Hale that
"for a conviction of murder atlcast the bcxly was found dead" would open the B
doer \\'idc open for many a henious. murderer to escape \Vith impunity simply
because they were: a cunning and cleYer enough to destroy the body of their
victim. Jn the context of our law, Haolc's enunciation has to be interpreted
no more than emphasising that where the dead-body of the victim in a: murder
case is not found, other cogent and satisfactory prOOf of hon1icidal dl~ath of
• the victim must be adduced by the prosecuti.on. Such proof may be the
dir("Ct ocular account of an eye-witness, or by circurnstantial evidence, or by c
both: But \vhere the fact of corpus delicti, i.e. 'homicidal death' is sought
to be established by circumstantial evidence alone. the circumstances must be
• of a clinching and definitive character unerringly leading to the inference that
the· victim concerried has met a- homicidal death. f,ven so, this principle of
caution cannot be pushe'cl too far as requiring absolute proof. Perfect proof is
se;ldom to be .had in this imperfect \VOrld, and absolute certainty is a myth.
That is \vhy under Section 3, Evidence Act, a fact is said to be "proved'', ir D
tlie Court coru;idering the matters before- it, considers its existence so probable
that a prudent man ought. under the circumstanCts of the paorticular case, to
act up-On the sllpposition that it exists. The corpl1s delicti' or the fact of
homicidal death, therefore, can be proved by telling and inculpating circums-
tances \vhich definitely lead to the conclusion that within alt human probability,
the victim has been murdered by the accused concerned. [457 D-H, 458A·D1
E
CRIMINAi. APPllLLATE JuR1smcnoN: Criminal Appeal No. 11 of
1975.

Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
7-6-1974 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal F
r~ No. 40/73.

• flardya/ Hardy and P. P. Juneja for the Appellants .
Badri Das Sharma and Miss A. Subhashini for the Respondent.
. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G

SARKARIA, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against
a judgment, dated June, 7, 1974, of the High Cour~ of Himaehal
Pradesh, whereby it upheld the conviction of Rama Nand accused
under Section 302, Penal Code. and that of the co-accused Sbish fl
Ram and Kali Datt under Section 201, Penal Code, and also the
sentences awarded to each of them by the learned Sessions Judge,
446 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 s.c.R. •
A Mandi. The prosecution story, as it emerged from the record, was
as follows: •
Sumitra deceased, aged 19 yearn, was }he daughter of Som
Krishan (P.W. 33). Rama Nand, appellant is her husband and
Shish Ram, appellant 2, is her father-in-law while Kali Datt appellant
ii 3, is the younger brother of Rama Nand.

Sumitra's father wished to see his daughter highly educated, and
employed in Government service and married to a suitable, highly
educated person, settled in life. Sumitra had passed Higher Second-
ary Examination and wanted to pursue her studies further according
c to the wishes of her father.

About two years before Sumitra's reported death, Shish Ram
appellant approached Som Krishan (P,W. 33) and persuaded him
to give Sumitra in marriage to hi~ son, Rama Nand. While nego-
tiating this matrimonial alliance, Shish Rama told Som Krishan that
. b his son was suitably employed on a Government job in the Office
of the Deputy Commissioner, Kasumpti. He further falsely repre-
sented to Som Krishan that his son, Rama Nand was a graduate.
Believing this representation to be true, Som Krishan about 1t or 2
years before Sumitra's murder in question, married her to Rama
Nand. Before this marriage it was settled by Som Krishan with Shish
E Ram and Rama Nand accused that even after her marriage, Snmitra
would continue to pursue further stu.dies and take up employment as
a teacher. After the marriage, her father got his daughter, Sumitra,
employed as a teacher in Village Nursery School at Chanyana
which was situated near her parents' village. While teaching at
Chnayana, she continued to reside with her parents. She used to visit
F village Jherwin occasionally to be in the society of her husband who.
also used to come to Jherwin from Kasumpti. The accused persis-
tently demanded that Sumitra should give up her employment at
Chanyana, and start residing permanently and continuously in her
matrimonial home at Jherwin. Sumitra tenatiously refused to do so.
Rama Nand wrote several letters to Sumitra urging her to give up
G her adamant attitude. These letters furnished evidence of a stron~
motive for Rama Nand to put an end to the life of Sumitra.
Rama Nand was employed as a Clerk in the Office of the Deputy
Commissioner Kasumpti. On May 12, 1972, he came to Jherwin
from Kasumpti. He had earlier written to his wife, Sumitra, strongly
H urging her to come to village Jherwin. On May 13, 1972, Sumitra
came to Rama Nand's house at Jherwin and stayed with him in his
room on the night between 13th and 14th May, 1972. The other
RAMA NANO v. H.P. (Sarkaria, !.) 447

rooms of the house were in occupation of the other members of A
Shish Ram"s family. Thereafter, on May 14, 1972,. she
disappeared from the house of the accused. The accused gave. out
that Sumitra had gone towards the Sutlej river on the pretext of
attending to the call of nature; that thereafter her Salwar and shoes
were found on the bank of the river, which indicated that she had
jumped into the river and committed suicide. After pretending to
make a search for her body in the river and nearabout, Shish Ram
on May 16, 1972, went to Police Station Karsog at 5.30 p.m. and
lodged a report (Ex. PAQ). It was recorded by Head Constable
Nand Lal. After recording it in the Roznamacha, the Head Cons-
• table read it in the presence of one Inder Pal to the informant, who, c
after hearing the same. to be correct, signed it in Hindi and his com-
panion lnder Lal signed it in English. As this report, according to
• the prosecution, shows that an attempt was made by Shish Ram
accused to lay a false trail and manufacture false clues as to the cause
of the death of Sumitra and to screen the offence, it is necessary to
reproduce the material parts of that report (rendered into English) , D
hereunder :
...... "my dauglxteI1-i~law Smt. Sumitra Devi aged
about 18/19 years, was married about H years ago, to my
son Rama Nand who is employed in the office of D.C.
Kasumpti as a clerk. Sumitra Devi herself was employed
E
as a Mistress in Nursery School, Chanyana and was residing
with her parents. Whenever my son used to come home on
leave, she also used to visit her house at such time. Simi-
larly my son Rama Nand had come on leave to his house on
12-5-72 and in the evening of 13-5-72, my daughter-in-law,
Smt. Sumitra Devi had also come to his house. As usual, F
because of Sunday holiday, in the morning on 14-5-72,
myself, my daughter-in-law and other members of the family
were planting chiliy seedlings in the fields near our house.
• My son (Rama Nand) was lying in bed on account of stomach
trouble. After plantation work, at about 9/10 a.m. my
daughter-in-law, Smt. Sumitra Devi along with Sheela Devi
aged about 7 years, who is daughter of my brother, had
gone downward on the pretext of easing herself. After
some time, Sheela returned home and reported that she had
been turned back from the way by her aunt. Sumitra Devi,
who had gone ahead towards the river side. For some time
it was believed that she might have gone to answer the call II
of nature. The. river is about 2 furlongs from my ho\lse
.. towards downside. When sufficient time passed and she did
443 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.R.

A not return home, then cails were given hither and thither
and search was also started but her whereabouts could not
•
be known. After a thorough search on the Sutkj river bank,
the Sa/war and shoes of Smt. Suntitra were found which
Smt. Sumitra was wearing at the time of her going
that side. This created a suspicion that she might have com.-
B milted suicide by jumping into the river. She was searched
at the river bank as also in the nearby villages ...... but
her dead-body was not found, nor any clue of her going is
available. Smt. Sumitra was married in a good famify and
her character was also good, her relations with her husband
were cordial. No quarrel on that day or prior to that, took
..
c place between her and my son, nor is there any reason for
lier disappearance. I have come to report, which may be
recorded. After locating her alive or dead, separate report
will be lodged."

D Daulat Ram, Station Honse Offiror (P.W. 38) then visited the
scene of occurrence on May 13, 1972. He was not s:itisfied about
t!ic correctness of the information given by Shish Ram', accused. He,
therefore, got a case under Section 364; Penal Code, registered.

Shislr Ram accused produced bzforc him the Sa/war (Ex. P'l4)
and shoes (Ex. P-15/12) which, according to Shish Ram's report,
belonged to Sumitra deceased and were found lying on the river bank.
The investigator also prepared a rough sketch of the. spot where these
clothes and shoes were stated to have been found.

l' Som Krishan upon receiving the information, suspected that her
daughter had been murdered at the iustance of Rama Nand and
others. Som Krishan reached the spot and made enquiries. Rama
Nand and Shish Ram accused were arrested by the Investigating
Officer on June 5, 1972. The Investigating Officer took into posses- •
sion the Locket-chain (Ex. P-1) and the watch (Ex. P-2) belonging
G to the deceased from the room which was in the occupation of Rama
Nand, in the presence of Kanshi Ram and Hira Mani and prepared
the Memo (Ex. P-A) in this behalf. Rama Nand accused, whilst
in polic-.: custody, produced Sumitra's clothes (Ex. P-5 to Ex. P-10)
which were taken into possession by the Investigator in the presence
of Mastu and Hari Ram, witnesses (vide Ex. P-Y). These clothes,
11 according to the prosecution, were the same which Sumitra was wear-
ing when sl1e arrived at the house of Rama Nand accused on May
13, 1972. ..
RA'l1A NAND v. H.P. (Sarkaria, J.) 449

On June 5, 1972, a legless and armless dead-body in a highly A
tkcomposed state was found at a distance of four kilometres down-
•
slrcam on the bank of the river Sutlej near village Randaul. Kali
Datt appellant was found near tlrat skeleton in the early hours or
June S, 1972. He dragged the skeleton from the river upto some
distance. It appeared that Jogs clc. had eaten away the flesh. A
p.1rl of the skull was found in tact, while the remaining part of it was B
lying at some distance. On receiving information, Som Krishan
(P.W. 33) and bis brother's wife, Laxmi (P.W. 2), came and identi-
fied the skeleton to be' that of Sumitra. There was some flesh on the
buttock portion and there was a mark on it. According to these
-f· identifying witnesses, this mark was that of a burn which Sumitra bad
c
• received during her infancy. One of the teeth found in the mandible
was carious, while another tooth was jutting out. Daulat Ram got
the dead-body measured from shoulder to the cut portion of the
thics by Mchar Chand. The measurement came to 2'-4". Daulat
Ram prepared the inquest report (Ex. P /F) which was attested by
Kundan wilncss. He sent the dead-body a.long with the inquest D
report (Ex. PF) to Simla for post-mortem examination. The dead-
hody reached the Hospital at 1 p.m. on June 7, 1972. There, they
directed the police to take the dead-body lo Ripon Hospital. Conse-
quently, at 2 p.m., the dead-body was made over to the Duty Doctor
at the Ripon Hospital. The post-mortem examination was conduct.ed
by Dr. J. R. Sharma (P.W. 14) on the following day. The post E
mortem report was handed over to the police by the Doctor on June
21, 1972. A few components of the skeleton, including the mandible,
were sent to the Dental Surgeon, Dr. R. S. Patbania (P.W. 15) and
Radiologist, Dr. M. L. Ahuja (P.W. 16) for examination and opinion.
These Doctors, however, opined that the mandible belonged to a
child of not more than 10 years of age. The components of the F
_ skeleton were, also, sent to Dr. 0. P. Bhargava (P.W. 31), Professor
J' of Anatomy in the Medical College of Simila. His opinion about the
' age of the deceased was also the same. The Doctors could not deter-
mine the sex of the skeleton.
On August 24, 1972, a Paranda (cotton headtail), alleged to be G
of Sumitra deceased was recovered from the jungle of Ghangar.
Some human hair were found entangled in the Paranda. These hair
were sent for comparison with the hair of the deceased found embed-
d•:d in her Dupal/a. The forensic expert opined that the two sets of
hair belonged to one and the same person.
After investigation, the four accused, namely, Rama Nand, .his H
father Shish Ram, his brother Kali Datt and Shish Ram's brother
Kesar Chand, were sent up befor·~ a Magistrate who committed them
..
45(} SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.R.

A for trial to the Court of Session. At the trial, j)1 his examination un-
der Section 342, Rama Nand admitted that after her marriage, Sumitra
got employment as a teacher. He, however, denied the prosecution •
allegation that he and his father were opposed to her employment as
a teacher. He expressed ignorance as to whether there was any settle-
ment between his father, Shish Ram, and Som Krishan Shastri, father
B of Sumitra that she would continue her studies even after the
marriage and would be free to take up service as her career. He
added that his matrimonial alliance with Sumitra was not negotiated
alld settled in his presence. He admitted that the letters dated
December 13, 1971, December 16, 1971 and May 9, 1972 (the
English rendering of which is marked Ex. PAH, Ex. PAB, and Ex. PC,
c respectively) were written by him to Sumitra, and that the letter •
(Ex. PAJ) dated October 14, 1971, was written by him to his father-
in-law. Som Krishan Shastri (P.W. 33). He further admitted that on
May 13, 1972, Sumitra came to his house In village Jherwin from her f
parents' place, and that she was then wearing the golden chain (Ex.
P-1), wrist watch (Ex. P-2), Dupatta (Ex. P-5), suit (Ex. P-6 and Ex.
D
P-7), socks (Ex.P-8 and 9), banian (Ex.P-10) and was carrying the
basket (Ex. P-11) and umbrella (Ex. P-12). He, however, added
that when she (Sumitra) reached home on May 13, 1972 with the arti-
cles mentioned above, she was wearing pink ribbon on her head and
not any threadbunch like Ex.P-4. Question No. 9 put to him was:
E "It is in prosecution evidence that on May 14, 1972 Sumitra was
not seen at your house or in the village at Jherwin at
all or thereafter. What have you to say?" He replied: "On 14-5-72
morning at about, say upto 11 a.m., she was working in the field at
Jherwin and thereafter she was not seen there and later on I was
arrested and so I cannot say about her whereabouts." He admitted
F that his father Shish Ram had lodged the report (Ex. PAQ) in the
Police Station, Karsog. When the circumstance appearing in the
prosecution evidence, "that after the occurrence on May 16, 1972, he
(Rama Nand) went away to Simla from Jherwin and returned home
three or four days thereafter" was put to Ramanand, he replied: "It is
wrong. I went to Simla on 17-5-72 evening and returned on 19th •
G morning". He denied that he and his father implored Som
Krishan Shastri that he should save them from the police at
Jherwin. When .the negative circumstance appearing in evidence, to •
the effect that the Sa/war (Ex. P-14) was not of Sumitra, was put to
him, he asserted that the Salwar (Ex. P-14) was that of Sumitra; and
that bis father had shown the Salwar (Ex. P-14) indicating that bis
H daughter-in-Jaw, Sumitra had gone in the river when the (Rama'nand)
was weeping. In reply to the last question, Rama N and narrated
more or less the same story which was given by them (accused) to
.
RAMA NAND v. H.P. (Sarkaria, !.) 451

the police in the Report, PA Q. Among other things, he stated : "It A
was found on the river side that her Salwar (Ex. P-14) and shoes
• (Ex. P-15) were lying by the river bank giving indication that she
had jumped into the river. Then we were in mourning and the villagers
also verified that Sumitra was seen going to the river".

Shish Ram accused admitted that Sumitra had come to their house B
at Jherwin on May 13, 1972 and had disappeared on May 14, 1972.
He admitted having lodged the report (Ex. PAQ) in th" Police Station,
Karsog. He admitted that he had produced the Salwar (Ex.P-14) and
shoes (Ex. P-15) before the police during investigation. He also
maintained that the Salwar (Ex. P-14) belonged to Sumitra. He de-
• nied that he and his co-accused were threatening to teach Sumitra and c
her father the lesson of life for keeping Smnitra employed against their
wishes at Chanayana. He_ repeated the substance of the story which
he had earlier stated in the report (Ex. PAQ), and reiterated that
' since Sumitra's Salwar and shoes were found on the river bank,
she had either jumped into the river or run away somewhere.
D
The learned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment, dated
December 1, 1973, convicted Rama Nand under Section 302, Penal
Code, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life. He fur-
ther convicted Kali Datt and Shish Ram accused under Section 201,
Penal Code, and sentenced each of them to one year's rigorous impri-
sonment and a fiue of Rs, 500/-. Keshar Chand accused was given E
the benefit of doubt and acquitted. The appeal by the convicted per-
sons was dismissed by the High Court as per its judgment, dated
June 7, 1974. Hence this appeal by special leave. The conviction
of the appellants is based entirely on circumstantial evidence.

In convicting Rama Nand, appellant under Section 302, Penal F
:i"' ~ Code, for the murder of his wife, Sumitra, the courts below have con-
, currently relied upon these circumstances which, according to them,
had been established by the prosecution.
-" (1) Rama Nand accused had a strong moth'l: to murder his wife, •
Sumitra. G
(2) Sumitra was last seen alive with Rama Nand, appellant in the
family house at Jherwin on the night between 13th and 14th May,
1972. The other two co-accused were also present in the same house.
(3) (a) Rama Nand .and the other co-accused falsely gave out
that she bad committed suicide by jumping into the river. They .H
'planted' a Salwar and a pair of shoes on the 'bank of the Sutlej and
gave out that they belonged to the deceased, artd Shish Ram lodged
.
'
4sz SUPREME COURT REPORTS [198!] 2 S.C.R.

A a false report with the police to the effect that she had committed
suicide by jumping into the river. The Salwar and the shoes, which
had been 'planted' there to manufacture false clues by the accused,
•
did not belong to Sumitra, and the accused have falsely asserted that
these articles belong to the deceased.
B ( b) The story given out by the accused persons that upto 11 a.m.
on May 14, 1972, Sumitra was planting chillies along with Sheela
and other members of the family of the accused, was false.
(4) The gold chain (Ex. P-1) and the watch (Ex. P-2) which
Sumitra used to wear on her person all the 24 hours, and the clothes
c (Ex. P-5 to P-10) which she had on her person and the basket -~"'
(Ex. P-11) and umbrella (Ex. P-12) which she was carrying when •
on the evening of May 13, 1972 she came to the house of the accused
at Jherwin,. were recovered from the house of the accused.
(5) Some days after the occurrence, one Paranda was found from
the jungle near this village. There was a bunch of hair in the plaited
D tail of this Paranda. The tail appeared to have been cut. These hair
sticking in the Paranda and those found entangled in _the Dupatta of
the dceascd were according to the Forensic Expert of one and the
same person.
( 6) A legless decomposed corpse .was recovered from the Sutlej
E near village Randol in a mutilated condition. From a burnt mark on
the flesh stickinf,l to the buttock of the corpse it was identified as that
of Sumitra, deceased.
TI1e High Oiurt further held that even if any doubt remained with
regard to the identity or recovery of the corpus delicti, the telling
F circumstances otherwise complete the chain of evidence to establish
beyond doubt that Sumitra had been murdered and the charges had
been established against the accused as held by the trial court. In the · - ~
result it dismissed the appeal of the accused respondents.

G
Shri Hardayal Hardy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants
contents that these circumstances have not been satisfactorily
established. He has placed great emphasis on the evidence of the
• -
medical experts, according to which the mutilated corpse found at
Randol was that of a child, aged about 8 or 9 years. It is submitted
•
that the dead-body found was not that of Sumitra deceased. and as a
result, the courts below were not justified in holding that the death of
H Su.mitra had been established by the prosecution.
On the other band, the learned counsel for the State has argued
in support of the judgment of the High Court.

---~-~ . l
RAMA NAND v. H.P. (Sarkaria, !.) 453

It ig well seUJed that where the inference of guilt of an accuse« A
person is to be drawn from circumstantial evidence only, those circum-
•
~tances must, in the first place, be cogently established. Further, those
circumstances should ·be of a definite tendency pointing towards the
guilt of the accused, and in their totality, must unerringly lead to the
conclusion that within all human probability, the offence was com-
mitted by the accused and none else. B

The first circumstance which has been found to be established by
the courts below against the appellant is that he had "a very strong
motive" to commit the murder of Sumitra. To substantiate this fact,
•
~--rhe prosecution produced four letters written by Rama Nand appellant.
There arc: Ex. PAJ, Ex. PAH. Ex. PAB/1 and Ex. PC. The accused c
also tendered in evidence the letter (Ex. DA) dated November 14,
1971 written by Som Krishan to Sumitra.

As already mentioned, Rama Nand accused has admiltcd that the
letters (Ex. PAJ, PAR, PAB/l and P.C.) were written by him. Ex.
P AJ purports to have been written by him from village Jherwin on D
October 14, 1971. In this Jetter, Rama Nand very clearly informed his
father-in-law that his father Shish Ram was not in favour of Sumitra
taldng up service and residing away from the accused's house at
Jherwin. In this Jetter, Rama Nand urged his father-in-law that the
latter should either come !o Jherwin along with Sumitra or send her
:ilone. This letter also indicates that Sumitra was persisting in takbg E
up &ervice elsewhere against the wishes of the accused persons.

Chronologically, the next letter is Ex. DA dated November 14,
1971. It is addressed by Som Krishan to his daughter, Sumitra. Tn
this Jetter, the father informs the daughh:r that he had obtained her
appointment Jctter and she would be required to join by the 17th to F
start the Nursing School at Balwari. He wanted her to come to his
(house to take up the appointment. In this letter, he also wishes her
daughter to convey to Rama Nand appellant and his brother, Kesar

-• ·Chand (acquitted accused) that tl1ey should agree to Sumitra's taking
up this employment and that they should further bring round Shish
Ram by reminding him that they liad earlier consented to her taking
G

11p Service. This letter further indicates that Sumitra was much dis-
tressed because of the hostile attitude adopted by her in-laws
towards her. To console her, the father wrote : "Don't worry. What-
ever God does is good. Have self-confidence and do not repent on any
failure". II
8. The third Jetter, datoo December 13, 1971, (Ex. PAH), written
.by Rama Naud to Sumitra, shows tl1at the opposition of the appellant,
" 13-57 SCI/81
I-
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 s.c.R.
A
his father Shish Ram and brothers to Sumitra's taking up service away
from the matrimonial home, had passed from the serious to the
sardonic stage. It starts with the words : "Wish you happy luxury!" •
Read in accord with the tenor of the letter, it conveys a biting ironi-
cal taunt. These words were capable of being construed as conveying
an innuendo that she was merry-making de-hors the matrimonial home
B
in an extra-marital way. May be, the appellant was doubting her
fidelity. He informs her that he had visited Jherwin in the hope toot
be would join her there, but this hope did not materialise. He com-
plains against this attitude of neglect on the part of his wife when
he says : "Today you have not seen to my condition, and have
c defamed me. To whom should I blame? It is the wind and to whicl!~
side it blows it must do something. I was thinking to save (you) from
this wind." He further reproaches a\1d upbraids her : "You did not
think owr it seriously and you did not care for it nor others. You have
taken it as a prestige issue. I cannot do anything so long I am not
heartily happy and I weep to my fate." He then warns her in a
.D contemptuous and peremptory tone : "It would be better that you
should resign your job now and come down here ... If you intend to
reside with me, then you should agree to my words .... otherwise it
will be a dog's life. You should either come to this place or to village
Jherwin after resigning the job and from there you may come to
Simla on any day. As you know, a friend in need is a friend in-deed.
E When this is lost, one cannot take the shelter of others." He reminds
her that her marriage had been solemnised with him. "To do serJice
entirely depends upon you and me and not upon (your) father ...
It is tin1e to resign the Service ... " He repeats : "It is against the
respect of my family, yourself and myself that I should allow you to
serve at a monthly pay of Rs. 120/- and only for a tenure of six
F months and myself to stay at Simla in the Hotel." He then in stronger
language demanded her to resign her job within 24 hours and coine
to his house direct wit?out waiti~g for her resi~ation to be ~ccepted.:"\
He closes the letter with an ommous threat veiled as a warmng : "If ·
you do not resign the job, onr relations will become strained."
G In the next letter (Ex. PC), dated December 16, 1971, Rama
Nand wrote to Sumitra that he did not understand why she did not
-
'improve his (?) life' and why she was acting at the beck and call of
others. He urged her that it would be better to 'live for a more'. He
added : "You obey me or not, you yourself will understand the
significance of this when you give place to it in your mind". He sternly
B repeated the warning : "I once again request you to keep in mind
your as also my honour, what you have to do, as the time has come.
There is no example in the history of world that. a girl after marriage
•
RAMA NANO v. H.P. (Sarkaria, J.) 455

should act on the advice of her father, which may be harmful." He A
again urged her : "Do not think this letter as a, mere piece of paper,
• but each and every line in it will decide our future career ...... you
should resign your post." He again administered a warning, coupled
w.i!h a threat of resorting to violence in case she did not resign her
job to live· with the accused permanently : "The present is the condi-
tion of China's wall as Lt. General Mr. Kaul was saying that on B
China Border there is no firing, no firing, no firing. But what was the
result in the end, you know betler . . . . . . . . . If you honour me,
'your husband, then you should tender your resignation from the job
ferthwith". He further sternly warned her : "If you still do not come
round, what would happen in future, will entirely be your responsi-
bility and I may not be blamed for that". He ended the Jetter with c
a hostile note, repeating the threat : "I may write, what will happen
in future, Entire responsibility of future solely depends upon you. It
is the question of life and not of service . . . . . . This is time of your
test. Reply this letter." The sentence, 'It is the question of life and not
of service' read in the context, clearly conveys to !he wife a threat that
D
the choice open to her was between 'life' and 'service', that is to say,
she would not be left alive if she did not give up the 'service'. This
letter unmistakably reveals that Rama Nand had worked his feelings
at his wife's persistent refusal to give up service and live with him, into
such a frenzied resolve that if his wife did not, as he desired, 'mend'
her ways, he would 'end' her life. E
Even after this Jetter, there appears to have been no alleviation or
change in this revengeful attitude of the husband towards his wife.
This is discernible from Rama Nand's last letter dated May 9, 1972
(Ex, PAB) addressed to Sumitra. In this letter also, he cannot
conceal his feeling of being "sick of you". He writes, ". . . . . . the
difference in views can make life troubleful or as well can '1ead towards F
downfall as I already told you'', that "to deceive any true person can
;*- only be a sin and nothing else". He appears to be giving her a
last warning, a last chance to come round and come home when he
writes that "time is short I will again request you that if you try to
• come home on Saturday, it will be good .... I do not feel
G
good. . . . you definitely try to come, if you cannot come on Saturday
then come on Sunday, otherwise .... "
,, ' These letters vividly reveal that despite the repeated persuasions,
Warnings and threats proceeding from Rama Nand ~ccused, Sumitra
intransigently and persistently refused to give up hi:r service , at
G!anyana, and reside_nce with her parents, _and declined .to come and H
live permanently iu .the matrimonial home at Jherwin:, and a& a result,
how the husband's.feelings of tender11es.s towards his wife progressively
.
.
.~·
456 SUPREME COUllT REPORTS [1981) 2 S.<.K.
..
A changing into regret, persecution complex, resentment, exaspe-
ration and smouldering hostility, ultimately hardened into a revenge-
•
ful resolve in the mind of Rama Nand lo end what Ire calls "a dog's
life" by putting an end to the life of his spouse, We agree with tJae
High O>urt that these letters reveal that Rama Nand appellant had a
strong motive to murder the deceased.
B
The second circumstauce was also well established. lt had been
admitted even by the appellant and his co-accused. The courts below
have found, aud rightly so, that both the limbs of circumstance
No. (3) had also been established by evidence produced by 1he
prosecution. Som Krishan (P.W. 33), father of Surnitra, had testified ~
that when he went to Jhcrwin on receiving a message from the accused
about the disappearauce of his daughter, he was shown the Salwar
(Ex. P-14) and shoes (Ex. P-15/1-2) and told that these clothes were
left behind on the bank of lhe Sutlej river when she disappeared.
P.W. 33 further stated that this shabby Salwar (Ex. P-14) which had
f)
patches on it, did not belong to Snmitra and she never wore such a
Salwar; nor did the pair of shoes (Ex. P-15) belong to lrer. P.W. 33
further testified : "Then Rama Nand, Shish Ram and Kesar Chand
accused implored me that they may be saved from police remand.
To this I said that I was not conversant with law but you may tell the
truth". This testimony of P.W. 33 has been accepted by lhc courts
E below. We have no reason to take a different view.

. As rightly held by tire courts below Sumitra was a sophisticated
and educated girl. It was difficult lo believe that she would do chi.Ry
plantation and wear such a patched and dirty Salwar as Ex. P-14.
The very story given out by the accused persons and narrated ~
ii:' Shish Ram in the report (Ex. PAQ) made by him to the Police, and
repeated by him and Rama Nand in their examination under Section
342, Cr. P.C., to effect-that Sumitra had after undressing aad ·· ""':
leaving behind her shoes (Ex. P-15) and Salwar (Ex. P-14) on t&e
bank of the Sutlej, committed suicide by jumping into the river-was
improbable, incredible and false. Thus, circumstance 3(a) and (b)
G had also been clearly aud cogently established. This piece of evidence
was relevant under Section 8, Evidence Act and was a definite pointer
·towards the guilt of the accused. Circumstauce (4) appearing in the
prosecution evidence, was admitted by the accused persons. Circnm-
·stauce (5) also stood established. Though a feeble pointer towards
a
the guilt of the accused, by itself it was not of conclusive character.
n Circumstance ( 6) has been seriously controverted. The burden of the
arguments of the learned counsel for the appellauts is that the prose-
cution had miserably failed to establish that the legless decomposed
RAMA NAND v. H.P. (Sarkaria, /.) 457

• body found in the river was that of Smt. Sumitra, and in such a A
situation, the possibility of her being alive cannot be reasonably ruled
out.

Although the High Court has held that the body recovered was
that of Sumitra deceased and that the bones sent to the medicdl
experts were not parts of the decomposed body found, but appeared
to have been fraudulently replaced with the bones of a child during
transmission to the medical experts, we would assume that the identity
of the body found in the river was not established beyond reasonable
doubt. In other words, we would take it that the corpus delicti, i.e.,
;
the dead-body of the victim was not found in this case. But even on
that assumption, the question remains whether the other circumstances c
established on record wer9 sufficient to lead to the conclusion that
Within all human probability, she had been murdered by Rama Nand
appellant? It is true that one of the essential ingredients of the offence
of culpable homicide required to be proved by the prosecution is that
the accused "caused the death" of the person alleged to have been
killed. D

This means that before seeking to prove that the accused is the
perpetrator of the murder, it must be established that homicidal death
has been caused. Ordinarily, the recovery of the dead-body of the
victim or a vital part of it, bearing marks of violence, is sufficient
E
proof of homicidal death of the victim. There was a time when under
the old English Law,. the finding of the body of the deceased was held
to be essential before a person was convicted of committing his cul-
pable homicide. "I would never convict", said Sir Mathew Hale, "a
per.;on of murder or manslaughter unless the fact were proved to be
done, or at least th" body was found dead". This was merely a rule of F
~caution, and not of law. But in those times when execution was the
only punishment for murder, !he need for adhering to this cautionary
rule was greater, Discovery of the dead-body of the victim bearing
:.. ' ~ysical evidence of violence, has neve~ been considered as the only
mode of proving the corpus delicti in murder. Indeed. very many
cases are of such a nature where the discovery of the dead-body is G
• impo5siblc. A blind adherence to this old "body" doctrine would open
the door wide open for many a heinous murderer to escape with
impunity simply becal!Se they w&e cunning and clever enough to
destroy the body of their victim. In the context of our law, Hale's
enunciation has to be interpreted no more than emphasising that
where the dead-body of the victim in a murder case is not found, other H
cogent and satisfactory proof of homicidal death of the victim must
bo adduced by the prosecution. Such proof may be by the direct ocular
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.R.

A al:colint of an eye-witness, or by circumsl!Jntial evidence, or by bot.h. •
But where the fact of corpus delicti, i.e. ·~micidal death' is sought:to
be established by circumstantial evidence alone, the circumstances
must be of a clinching and definitive character unerringly leading to
the· inference that the victim concerned has met a homicidal . death.
E;ye)i so, this principle of caution cannot be pushed too far ~s requir-
ing absolute proof.. Perfect proof is seldom to be had in this imperfect
world, and absolute certainty is a myth. That is why under Section
:>,Evidence Act, l>·fact is said to be "proved", if the Court consider-
ing the matters before it, considers its existence so probable that a -.4;
prudent man ought, ·under the ·circumstances of the particular. case, I
to. act µpan the supposition that it exists. The corpus delicti or the
c fact of homicidal death, therefore, can be proved by telling and incul-
pating circumstances which definitely lead to the conclusion · that (

within all human probability, the victim has been murdered by tJie
In
accused concerned .. the instant case, Circumstances (I) to .(5), in
their cumulative effect, are not only inconsistent with the innocenc.e
D of Rama Nand appellant, but ineluctably and rationally compel th~
conclusion that Sumitra has died and it is Rama Nand appellant who
has intentionally caused her death. Circumstance (3) involves an
admission by Rama Nand and Shlsh Ram accused that Sumitra has
inet an unnatural death. The only difference between the prosecution
version and the defence version is as to whether Sumitra committed
E suicide or had been killed by Rania Nand appellant. It has been found
that the story of the suicide set up by the accused is fal>c. The ar\icl~~
Salwar (Ex. P.14) and the shoes (Ex. P-15) do not belong to he.,
They were planted by the accused to lay a false trail and to mis-direct
the investigation. This circumstance taken in conjunction with the
others, irresistibly and rationally leads to the conclusion that she liru;
b,een murdered by Rama Nand appellant and her dead body has been - ""'
disposed of by the appellants Shish Ram and Kali Datt
For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss this appeal and maintain
ihe convictions and sentences of the appellants.

SJl. Appeal d~<misseef.

, '.;;

'.--;