Holding

The Supreme Court acquitted the respondent of both the murder (Sec. 302 IPC) and abetment of suicide (Sec. 306 IPC) charges, holding that the medical evidence disproved suicide and the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to establish guilt.

Summary

The respondent Ramanand was charged with the deaths of his wife Anita and daughter Ekta, alleged to be caused by strangulation with the bodies later set on fire. Post‑mortem reports established that death resulted from asphyxia due to strangulation and that the burns were post‑mortem, contradicting the initial claim of suicide. The trial court convicted Ramanand under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, while the High Court set aside those convictions and instead convicted him under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the medical evidence conclusively ruled out suicide, there was no proof of dowry‑related motive, and the prosecution’s case rested solely on circumstantial evidence without any direct link to the accused. The Court also clarified that a statement made under Section 162 CrPC could be read as evidence but, by itself, could not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the respondent was acquitted of both the murder and the abetment charges, and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The cause of death: whether it was suicide or homicide by strangulation.
Whether the prosecution proved the respondent's participation in the murders beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the statement recorded under Section 162 CrPC can be relied upon against the accused.
Whether the conviction under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide is sustainable.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 162, s. 174
Constitution of Indias. 136, s. 142
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 211, s. 302, s. 306, s. 498, s. 511

Subjects

murderculpable homicidedowry harassmentcircumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtSection 162 CrPCpost‑mortem evidencesuicideabetment of suicideSupreme Court appellate jurisdictionArticle 136

Judgment

[2017] 3 S.C.R. 981

STATE OF RAJASTHAN A
v.
RAM ANAND
(Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 2008)
B
APRIL ll, 2017
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
ss. 302, 201 and 306 - Death of wife and daughter of the c
respondent-accused due to burn injuries - Report thereof Ext. D-1
was lodged by the respondent-accused to the Police stating that the
deceased committed suicide - Thereafter brother of the deceased-
wife lodged a written Report (Ext P-2) that she was harassed for
dowry - After post-mortem Medical Board opined that cause of
death to be Asphyxia due to strangulation and that burns were post- D
mortem in nature - Charge-sheets were filed ulss. 498A, 302134,
201 against the respondent-accused, his mother and brother, while
other three bro_thers were charged uls. 20l/5 ll !PC - Trial court
convicted the respondent-accused only u/s. 302 and 201 and
acquitted the other accused of all the charges - High Court altered E
the conviction of respondent-accused uls. 306 - On appeal, held:
In view of medical evidence, the deaths could not be termed as
suicide, hence conviction u/s. 306 not justified - Prosecution case
was based on circumstantial evidence - The absence of evidence
regarding dowry or related harassment nullifies the motive - Even
if circumstances emerging from Ext. D-1 is taken against the F
respondent-accused, that by itself without any connecting material
is not sufficient to bring home the case against respondent-accused -
However strong the suspicion be, the respondent is entitled to benefit
of doubt and cannot be convicted uls. 302.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: G

s. 162 - Statement made under - Reliance on - Held: s.162
governs only the cases where statements are made to police "in the
course of an investigation" under Chapter XII.

H
981
982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R.

A Constitution of India:
Ari. 136 - Jurisdiction under - Scope of - Held: Powers of
Supreme Court in appeals fl led u/Art. 13 6 are not restricted by the
appellate provisions enumerated under Cr.PC.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
B
HELD: 1. The medical evidence on record is very clear
and precise that deaths were as a result of strangulation, and not
as a result of burn injuries. They died of strangulation aPd their
bodies were sought to be set afire in order to create an impression
as if they had died of burn injuries. The finding by the trial court
C was therefore completely correct. It is impossible to assume how
the deceased could have strangulated herself and then attempted
to set herself afire. The view taken by the High Court is, therefore,
wholly unjustified. Consequently there could not have been
conviction of the respondent under Section 306 IPC. [Para 9] (988-
D A-C]
2.1 The fact that the deaths arc as a result of culpable
homicide is beyond any doubt. The entire case of the prosecution
on this count, rests purely on circumstantial evidence. It is true
that the deaths have occurred in a room occupied by the
E respondent along with wife, and daughter. But no witness has
been examined to suggest that the respondent was at or around
his residence at the relevant time. The marriage was more than
10 years old and as such no statutory presumption on any count
could be drawn, more particularly, when none of the prosecution
witnesses had supported the case of prosecution as regards
F demands of dowry and harassment. Apart from strangulation
marks nothing was found in the post-mortem report regarding
any other bodily injury. The absence of any evidence as !'egards
dowry or related harassment also nullifies the element of
presence of any motive on part of the respondent. None of the
G prosecution witnesses alleged anything against the respondent
nor are there any other supporting circumstances such as
discovery of any relevant fact. [Para 10][988-C-F]
2.2 Ext. D-1 which was the reporting made by the
respondent, undoubtedly shows that the respondent him&elf had
H opened the door and found the bodies of the deceased lying with
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. RAMANAND 983

IllJUnes. In the face of Ext.D-1 it is not possible to accept the A
assertion that the door was locked from inside and was pushed
open by PW7 and others. Locking of door from inside would
have been consistent with the theory of suicide but that th~ory
stood demolished as a result of medical evidence.[Para 11)(988-
G-H; 989-A]
B
2.3 It cannot be said that in view of Section 162 Cr.P.C.
Ext.D-1 could not be relied upon and read. against the respondent.
The terms of Section 162 are quite clear and govern cases where
statements are made to a police officer "in the course of an
investigation" under Chapter XII of Cr.P.C. Statement Ext.D-1
was neither given in the course of an investigation, nor could it C
be termed as a confession. Further, the cross-examination of
PWs14 and 15 would show that the respondent stood by and relied
upon that statement. Therefore, statement Ext.D-1 can be read
in evidence. However, that by itself docs not establish beyond
any doubt that it was the respondent alone who was responsible D
for having caused the deaths of the dccased. Even if the
circumstance emerging from Ext.D-1 is taken to be against the
respondent, that by itself without any connecting material on
record, is not sufficient to bring home the case against the
respondent. [Paras 12, 13] [989-B-D]
E
2.4 The circumstances on record do not rule out every other
hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. However strong the
suspicion be, the respondent is entitled to benefit of doubt and
cannot be convicted under Section 302 IPC. [Para 15](990-C-D]
3. Though in a case where the prosecution is coming up F
against the acquittal of the accused and is praying for conviction
on a graver charge, the accused is entitled to plead for acquittal.
But powers of the Supreme Court in appeals filed under Article
136 of the Constitution arc not restricted by the appellate
provisions enumerated under the Code of Criminal Procedure
or any other statute. When exercising appellate jurisdiction, the G
Supreme Court has power to pass any order. [Para 14] [989-E-F]
Chandrakant Patil v. State (1998) 3 SCC 38 : [1998] 1
SCR 447 - relied on.

H
. ".
984
.
SUPR'EME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R.

A Sumer Singh v. Surajbhan Singh (2014) 7 SCC 323 -
~:..,.~
referred to.
ll1l'" ·: '; . ~ .'
".le:i.,'.rh, ;.:·. : :... , ~. : . Ca~e Law R~ference 1
,

· .•ii~· ••(2,Qt~h7 -.~c<;: }.23 , Para 8<1 · . ~~ferre~ to
•l
,:1niL{l998J;il.S.CR447 . relied on Para 14
B· :;~!if :clillvIINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
357·of'20os: ·:· •·,... :" "' · , ··
' ,.,,r F~bm the Judgment arttlOrder datedb?.03.2006 of the High Court
ofJ\tdic'~fore for R':ijasthan at Jaipur Bench in·D. B. Criminal Appeal
Nci~ 12:i'ot2002. ·" •
1
•· • · •
.."l\.~ .. "'... '._, .~: ·, ; • :-•
c Puneet Parihar, Shiv Mangal Sharma, Milind Kumar;~Advs. for
the A.ppellant.
d.i. _;It'· . - ·• ~ c ,, '

• :lllll SJfshi} JS~plar Jain, Sr. Adv., Puneet Jain, Ms. Chhaya Kirti,
Shailencµ;r
~"" . .. ...
Shanna,
... . "·Pank.aj
. . Sharma,
' ,.,
Ms. Priyal B., Ms. Pratibha Jain,
Adv~~ fq!}~e){:espc,mdent. .
D · .!i.. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

' · ;a1unAY. UMESH LALIT, J. I. The respondent was convicted
by the Trial Court under Sections 302 and 201 IPC for having committed
Jl!Urdir of his wife Anita and daughter Ekta and was sentenced to undergo
, i~prisonffient
E·· life. ·•.. . . .offence under Section 302 and 3 years RI for
..for the
that under Section 201 IPC in Sessions Case No.62 of 2000. In DB
-· • ...<. ' ' ..

Criminal.Appeal No.20 of 2002 preferred by the respondent, the High
Couft:of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur by its judgment and order
dated'o?-]3:'2oo6·acquitted him of the charges under Sections 302 and
f ~?T~~f·~~ic~~vi.ct~d ~im under Section 306 IPC and sentenced hi~ to
~Rg~~ ~.(~~~s)\~1 ~P:icNudgment is under.challenge in this appeal_ by
Sp~ci.~p~ea,ye. . • " •, .
2. On 21,09.2000 at,about 9:.11 p.m. a report Ext. D-1 was lodged
by 1~~S£~spp.n~e~ttot~~ fo]lowing effecr- · ··
a~ :~r~-~ tH::To··, ·.~ '· I .
• IThe S:H.0, · ·
'· : ''"P. s·. Patan
t'l.L"i ::r1~. '....·: ~ ·:. ·. ·
,, •.• ,<::!rr, - ·~' ·-~~•-1:1•
-. . .
..
Ff
' . . t . . . ;;, .
Most respectfully I submit that my wife burnt to death this evening
on 5.30 p.m. I was at my shop and my brother was also there.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. RAMANAND 985
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

My mother and younger brother's :wife had gone to our house in A
Bihar. My wife was half mad. She. was burnt to death. When
the sinoke arose in the house and sounds of the crying came out
of the house,the neighbour came running to my shop and informed
me. I werttto the house; went up the'stairs and pushed tl'Ie'door
' open. ·I saw my wife and daughter were burnt to death. The s-
above report is produced. My marriage took place some 10 years ·
agoon21.09.2000. - · · •
Sdfc.
Yours
- '
Ra~anand .Agrawal
S/o Shri Visliashwar Dayal C
R.S. Dabla"
3. The aforesaid report was registered in the Case Diary and
appropriate steps under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were taken by PW14 Tulsi
Ram who at the relevant time was lncharge of Police Station Patan.
On the next day at about 6: 15 a.m. a written report Ext. P-2 was received D'
from PW2 Rakesh Agrawal, brother of deceased Anita that his sister
and niece were burnt to death; that his sister was being harassed for
dowry and that the respondent and his family members were· responsible
for the deaths of his sister and niece.
4. The reportExt. P-2 was received by PWISASI Rajendra Singh, E
pursuant to which crime was registered and investigation was undertaken.
Inquest Reports.Ex ts. P-6 and P-7 were prepared regarding the bodies
of Anita and Ekta and they were sent for autopsy. Photographs of the
bodies Exts. P-14 to P-19 were also taken and site pfan Ext:P-21 at tire
place of occurrence was also prepared. The post-mortem on the bodies
was conducted by a Board consisting of three doetors. As reg!lrdir F
Anita, the report Ext. P-i'3 had follo....illg teievaiit observations:- ' '• "'.
' • > ' • o i. '~ • ' ' ~
.... t•:
•' I'.1;1
•

"Fairly built & nqurished; P.M. Iividity.present.on back ofl:iody,..-
R.M. ·present all over the l;Jody.. Partially burnt clothes. are prei;ent:
on body. No.smell lik:e kerosene like substance, The_whote bedy
has burns (Post mortem in nature) except back of trunk and hips. G
Bums limited upto skin only. Hair ofhead & pubic area are partially
burnt and axillary hair are totally burnt. Face is swollen. Tongue
is protruded-swollen. Eyes are partially open conjuctive having
patechial hemorrhage. Both hands are clinched. Bloody froth is
coming out of both nostrils and mouth."
H
986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R.

A "In the opinion of the medical board the cause of death is Asphyxia
due to strangulation (throatling)
. - Burns are post-mortem in nature as there is no blister
formation, no line ofredness and no signs of inflammation."
The.r~port Ext. P-12 regarding Ekta made following observations:-
B
"Fairly built & nourished, P.M. lividity present on back of Body,
R.M. present all over body. Partially burnt clothes are present on
body. No smell like kerosene, like substance. The whole body
has burns (P.M. in nature) except back of trunk and hips. Burns
limited upto skin only. Hairofhead burnt partially. Face is swollen.
c Tongue is protruded-swollen. Eyes are partially open. Conjuctive
having patechial hemorrhage. Both hands are clinched. Bloody
froth is coming out of both nostrils and mouth."
"In the opinion of the Medical Board the cause of death is Asphyxia
due to strangulation (throating). Burns are post mortem in nature,
D as there is ·no blister formation, notice ofredness and no sign of
inflammation."
5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against
six persons including the present respondent. The charges were framed
against the respondent, his mother Narangi Devi and brother Vinod
E Kumar for the offences under Sections 498A, 302/34, 20 l IPC while his
other brothers Mukesh Kumar, Moolchand and Mahesh Kumar were
charged for the offences under Section 201/511 IPC. They were tried
in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Neemka Thana, in Sessions
Case No.62 of2000. The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses. PWs
l, 2, 3,4 and 5, namely, father, brother, mother, cousin and brother-in-
F
law respectively of deceased Anita did not support the case of prosecution
as regards demands of dowry or harassment. PW7, Nandlal, neighbour
also turned hostile but in cross-examination stated that when the cries
were heard coming from the house, he was amongst the persons who
had gone to the house and opened the door. According to him the door
G was bolted from inside. PW l 0 Dr. Surendra Kumar Mecna, one of the
members of the Board which conducted post-mortem proved report Exts.
p .. 12 and P-13 and stated that the cause of death was asphyxia because
of strangulation and that Anita and Ekta were done to death first and
thereafter their bodies were sought to be set on fire. PW12 Mahesh
H Sharma, photographer proved photos Exts.P-14 to P-19. PW 14 Sub-
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. RAMANAND 987
[UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]

InspectorTulsi Ram in answer to queries in the cross-examination stated, A
"Before the registration ofFirst Information Report, Ramanand had given
me an application. This application is attached with the case C:iary.
Aforesaid application was made under Section 174 of Cr.P.C, which is
. Ext.D-1 ". Similarly PW15, Sub-Inspector Rajendra Singh in his cross-
examination stated; "Before going to spot report Ext. D-1 had already B
been received. The report was submitted before S.H.O."
6. After considering the material on record.including the medical
evidence, the trial court found that both Anita and Ekta were killed by
strangulation and that the case was of culpable homici.de. As regards
the involvement of the accused in the crime in question, it was observed
that there was nothing on record to suggest the involvement of accused C
Nos.2 to 6. Further, all the relations of deceased Anita having turned
hostile and not supported the case of prosecution as regards demands of
dowry, no offence under Section 498A was found to be have been
established. The trial court further observed that motive for the crime
was also not established and in any case the death ofAnita had occurred D
I 0 years after the marriage. While acquitting rest of the accused, the
trial court convicted the respondent under Sections 302 and 20 I IPC
and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment under S.ection 302 IPC
and to suffer three years imprisonment under Section 201 IPC.
7. The respondent, being aggrieved filed DB Criminal Appeal E
No.20 of2002 in the High Court which found that charge under Section
302 IPC was not established against the respondent. However, it was
of the view that the circumstances on record clearly showed that the
respondent was guilty of the offence under Section 306. Thus, while
acquitting the respondent of the charges under Sections 302 and.20 I
IPC it convicted him under Section 306 IPC. The respondent having F
remained in custody for more than five years and four months, the sentence
was reduced by the High Court to the period already undergone.
8. This appeal, at the instance of State of Rajasthan challenges
the correctness of the decision of the High Court. Relying on the decision
of this Court in Sumer Singh v. Surajbhan Singh 1 Mr. Sushi! Kumar G
Jain, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent contended
that he was entitled to submit that the respondent ought to be acquitted
of all the charges.
1
c2014) 1 sec 323
H
988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R.

A 9. The medical evidence on record is very dear and precise that
deaths were as a result of strangulation. H'aving gone through the post-
mprtem report, the testimony of PW! 0 l)r. Surendra Kumar Meena and
the photographs Exts.P l4·to·PJ 9;it is very cl-ear that the deaths ofAnita
and Ekta Were'n0t as a result of bum injuries. They died of strangulation
and theirbodies were sought to be set.afire·in order to create an: impression
B
as if they had died of bum injuries. The finding by the trial c,ourt was
·therefore completely correct. It is impossible to assume how Anita could
have strangulated
'. . 1'
•i"
herself and then attempted
•'" : . 1 •'•.t ·-
to set
'
herself
'
afire.
)'
The
yiew taken bythe High Court is, therefore, wholly unjustified.
0

,¢onsequently there could 'not have be en 'conviction of the respondent
C under Section 306 IPC.
10. The question then arises whether the respondent was guilty
of the offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 201 IPC. The
fact that the deaths are as a result of culpable homicide is beyond any
doubt but the question is whether the respondent could be said to be
D author of die crime:" The entire case of the prosecution on this count
rests purely on circumstantial evidence. It is true that the deaths have
occurred in a room occupied by the respondent along with wife', Anita
and daughter .Ekta. But no witness has been examined to suggest that
the respondent was at or around his residence at the relevant time. The
Rl:kr~iage \~·as 'inore than 10 years old and as such' rio" st'atiifory
E presuniption cin any count could be diawn, more particularly, wh~n none
bfthe·prosecution witnesses had supported the case of prosecution as
regards demands of dowry and harassment. Apart from strarigulation
marks nothing was foundfo the post-mortem report regarding any other
~C)pily. injury. Th~ absence of any evidence as regards dowry or related
F ~arass.me!lt al~o nullififs the element of presence of any motive on part
·oqhe respondent. None of the prosecution witnesses alleged anything
ilgain.st the respondent Ii.or are there any other supporting circumstances
sll\\h as discovery of any relevant fact.
.11. We are, th~refore, left with the only material, namely Ext.D-1
which was the reporting made by the respondent. It undoubtedly shows
G that the respondent himself had opened the door and found the bodies of
Anita and Ekta lying with injuries. In the face ofExt.D-1 it is not possible
to accept the assertion that the door was locked from inside and was
pushed open by PW7 and others. Locking of door from inside would
have been consistent with the theory of suicide but that theory stood
H
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. RAMANAND
[UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]

demolished as a result of medical evidence. We are, therefore, per~uaded .A
to accept what emerges from Ext.D-1. tbat the respondentbifTtseff h"ad '
opened the door and found the bodies havi?P burri!. ·~ ; .~~ ·: : ... ~ ',:~;:
12. Relying on.Section 162 Cr.P.C. Mr._Ja,in, learn!'..cl s~J!.i9r
Advocate submitted that Ext.D-1 could not be relied upon.and read against
the respondent. The terms of Section 162 are quite clear and govern . B
cases where statements are made to a police,pfficer "in the cours_~ of ~'
an investigation" under Chapter XII of Cr.P.C. Statement Ext.D-1 was
neither given in the course of an investigation, nor could it be term-:d as
a confession. Further, the cross-examination of PWsl4 and 15 w.ou,ld
show that the respondent stood by and relied upon that .~t~~e~ent.,.,}ye
do not see any difficulty why statement Ext.D-1.could not,,be re,afi._in C
evidence.
13. However, that by itself does not establish beyond any doubt
that it was the respondent alone who was responsible for.having caused
the deaths of Anita and Ekta. Even ifthe circumstance ~merging from
Ext.D-1 is taken to be against the respondent, that by itself\'(ithout any D
connecting material on record, is not sufficient to bring ho.me th~ ~ase
against the respondent. · · · .. ,. · , ·' · ,., . -~.
14. Mr. Jain, learned Senior Adv(>cate is.right in-his .§u.broissi.on
that in a case where the prosecution is coming up against the acquittal of
the accused and .. . is. praying
. for conviction
. . . on a graver . • charge,. .... .,the,,. ' ac.cused
, rn ,.. i.E
is entitled to'p]ead for acquittal.' While·considering'sirrtilar' ple:r'for
• • · · ., ·· , _ i _, •• - •• · ~.i .... , .. ~rt• ·-..
1

acquittal; thf?ugh this Court.negatedt~e_plea on facts~;.me }.~~~D~~~l\i~n
was summed up by this Court in Cltandrakant Patil 'v. ·state ·z a~
· . ,
unaer:
-,., ; '. ·~, ' !"~ L., .... • .t~·nb .~1t ,~~ ..;
. . "7. Powers of the Supreme Court in appeal~,:\il~d
• • • · · • -' • . ~ul-<
'• L ·
under;
I J __,.
"·
A.rticJe
,~· •+iJ>.

,;; . 136 of the Constitu~ion, are not restri?!ed py W,e,i!ppeU,~tt.\l~T<?Xit\i,13p,s
enumerated under the Code of Cr.iminal.Pro.~'~'~qre or. ap_~·R.ta,~r •IF
statute. When exercising appellate jurisciiqtiop.,!h~~~\lP~~me Court
has power to pass any order. The aforesaid legal position has
been recognized by a Constitution Bench of this Coutt hi Durga
Shankar Mehta v. Raglluraj Singlt 3 and later followed in 'a series
of decisions (vi de Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantltam4 , Delhi G
Judicial Service Assn. v. State of Gujarat5). · "' ;._,
''.
2
(1998) 3 sec 38
' AIR 1954 SC 520
• (I 979) 2 sec 291
'(1991) 4 sec 406 H
990 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R.

A 9. It is now well nigh settled that Supreme Court's powers under
Article 142 of the Constitution are vastly broad-based. That power
in its exercise is circumscribed only by two conditions, first is, that
it can be exercised only when Supreme Court otherwise exercises
its jurisdiction and the other is that the order which Supreme Court
passes must be necessary for doing complete justice in the cause
B
or matter pending before it. ........... "
15. In view of medical evidence on record, the deaths could never
be termed as a case of suicide and consequently the conviction of the
respondent under Section 306 was wholly unjustified. At the same time
C there is nothing on record to conclusively establish that the respondent
was the author of the crime. The circumstances on record do not rule
out every other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. However
strong the suspicion be, in our view, the respondent is entitled to benefit
of doubt and cannot be convicted under Section 302 IPC.
16. Thus, while rejecting this appeal, we acquit the respondent of
D the charge under Section 306 IPC. The appeal is disposed of in these
terms.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal disposed of.