Bhagwan Dass vs State (Nct) Of Delhi

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1117 OF 2011

@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.1208 OF 2011

Bhagwan Dass .. Appellant

-versus-

State (NCT) of Delhi .. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Markandey Katju, J.

"Hai maujazan ek kulzum-e-khoon kaash yahi ho

Aataa hai abhi dekhiye kya kya mere aage"

-- Mirza Ghalib

2

1. This is yet another case of gruesome honour killing, this time

by the accused-appellant of his own daughter.

2. Leave granted.

3. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the

record.

4. The prosecution case is that the appellant was very annoyed

with his daughter, who had left her husband Raju and was living

in an incestuous relationship with her uncle, Sriniwas. This

infuriated the appellant as he thought this conduct of his

daughter Seema had dishonoured his family, and hence he

strangulated her with an electric wire. The trial court convicted

the appellant and this judgment was upheld by the High Court.

Hence this appeal.

5. This is a case of circumstantial evidence, but it is settled law

that a person can be convicted on circumstantial evidence

3

provided the links in the chain of circumstances connects the

accused with the crime beyond reasonable doubt vide Vijay

Kumar Arora vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 2 SCC 353

(para 16.5), Aftab Ahmad Ansari vs. State of Uttaranchal,

(2010) 2 SCC 583 (vide paragraphs 13 and 14), etc. In this case,

we are satisfied that the prosecution has been able to prove its

case beyond reasonable doubt by establishing all the links in the

chain of circumstances.

6. In cases of circumstantial evidence motive is very important,

unlike cases of direct evidence where it is not so important vide

Wakkar and Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011) 3 SCC

306 (para 14). In the present case, the prosecution case was

that the motive of the appellant in murdering his daughter was

that she was living in adultery with one Sriniwas, who was the

son of the maternal aunt of the appellant. The appellant felt

humiliated by this, and to avenge the family honour he murdered

his own daughter.

4

7. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the trial

court as well as the High Court and we are of the opinion that the

said judgments are correct.

8. The circumstances which connect the accused to the crime

are:

i) The motive of the crime which has already been mentioned

above. In our country unfortunately `honour killing' has become

common place, as has been referred to in our judgment in

Arumugam Servai vs. State of Tamil Nadu Criminal Appeal

No.958 of 2011 (@SLP(Crl) No.8084 of 2009) pronounced on

19.4.2011.

Many people feel that they are dishonoured by the behaviour

of the young man/woman, who is related to them or belonging to

their caste because he/she is marrying against their wish or

having an affair with someone, and hence they take the law into

their own hands and kill or physically assault such person or

commit some other atrocities on them. We have held in Lata

5

Singh vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (2006) 5 SCC 475, that this is

wholly illegal. If someone is not happy with the behaviour of his

daughter or other person, who is his relation or of his caste, the

maximum he can do is to cut off social relations with her/him, but

he cannot take the law into his own hands by committing violence

or giving threats of violence.

ii) As per the post mortem report which was conducted at

11.45 am on 16.5.2006 the likely time of death of Seema was 32

hours prior to the post mortem. Giving a margin of two hours,

plus or minus, it would be safe to conclude that Seema died

sometime between 2.00 am to 6.00 am on 15.5.2006. However,

the appellant, in whose house Seema was staying, did not inform

the police or anybody else for a long time. It was only some

unknown person who telephonically informed the police at 2.00

pm on 15.5.2006 that the appellant had murdered his own

daughter. This omission by the appellant in not informing the

police about the death of his daughter for about 10 hours was a

6

totally unnatural conduct on his part.

iii) The appellant had admitted that the deceased Seema had

stayed in his house on the night of 14.5.2006/15.5.2006. The

appellant's mother was too old to commit the crime, and there is

not even a suggestion by the defence that his brother may have

committed it. Hence we can safely rule out the possibility that

someone else, other than the appellant, committed the crime.

Seema had left her husband sometime back and was said to

be living in an adulterous and incestuous relationship with her

uncle (her father's cousin), and this obviously made the appellant

very hostile to her.

On receiving the telephonic information at about 2.00 pm

from some unknown person, the police reached the house of the

accused and found the dead body of Seema on the floor in the

back side room of the house. The accused and his family

members and some neighbours were there at that time. The

accused admitted that although Seema had been married about

7

three years ago, she had left her husband and was living in her

father's house for about one month. Thus there was both motive

and opportunity for the appellant to commit the murder.

iv) It has come in evidence that the accused appellant with his

family members were making preparation for her last rites when

the police arrived. Had the police not arrived they would

probably have gone ahead and cremated Seema even without a

post mortem so as to destroy the evidence of strangulation.

v) The mother of the accused, Smt. Dhillo Devi stated before

the police that her son (the accused) had told her that he had

killed Seema. No doubt a statement to the police is ordinarily not

admissible in evidence in view of Section 162(1) Cr.PC, but as

mentioned in the proviso to Section 162(1) Cr.PC it can be used

to contradict the testimony of a witness. Smt. Dhillo Devi also

appeared as a witness before the trial court, and in her cross

examination, she was confronted with her statement to the police

to whom she had stated that her son (the accused) had told her

8

that he had killed Seema. On being so confronted with her

statement to the police she denied that she had made such

statement.

We are of the opinion that the statement of Smt. Dhillo Devi

to the police can be taken into consideration in view of the

proviso to Section 162(1) Cr.PC, and her subsequent denial in

court is not believable because she obviously had afterthoughts

and wanted to save her son (the accused) from punishment. In

fact in her statement to the police she had stated that the dead

body of Seema was removed from the bed and placed on the

floor. When she was confronted with this statement in the court

she denied that she had made such statement before the police.

We are of the opinion that her statement to the police can be

taken into consideration in view of the proviso of Section 162(1)

Cr.PC.

In our opinion the statement of the accused to his mother

Smt. Dhillo Devi is an extra judicial confession. In a very recent

9

case this Court in Kulvinder Singh & Anr. vs. State of

Haryana Criminal Appeal No.916 of 2005 decided on 11.4.2011

referred to the earlier decision of this Court in State of

Rajasthan vs. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180, where it was held

(vide para 10) :

"An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and

made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the

court. The confession will have to be proved like any

other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession,

like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of

the witness to whom it has been made. The value of

the evidence as to the confession depends on the relia-

bility of the witness who gives the evidence. It is not

open to any court to start with a presumption that ex-

tra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. It

would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the

time when the confession was made and the credibility

of the witnesses who speak to such a confession. Such

a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be

founded thereon if the evidence about the confession

comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be

unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused,

and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which

may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of at-

tributing an untruthful statement to the accused, the

words spoken to by the witness are clear, unambiguous

and unmistakably convey that the accused is the perpe-

trator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the wit-

ness which may militate against it. After subjecting the

evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touch-

stone of credibility, the extra-judicial confession can be

10

accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it pass-

es the test of credibility."

In the above decision it was also held that a conviction can

be based on circumstantial evidence.

Similarly, in B.A. Umesh vs. Registrar General, High

Court of Karnataka, (2011) 3 SCC 85 the Court relied on the

extra judicial confession of the accused.

No doubt Smt. Dhillo Devi was declared hostile by the

prosecution as she resiled from her earlier statement to the

police. However, as observed in State vs. Ram Prasad Mishra

& Anr. :

"The evidence of a hostile witness would not be

totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or

the accused, but can be subjected to close scrutiny and

the portion of the evidence which is consistent with the

case of the prosecution or defence may be accepted."

Similarly in Sheikh Zakir vs. State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC

911 this Court held :

"It is not quite strange that some witnesses do

turn hostile but that by itself would not prevent a court

from finding an accused guilty if there is otherwise

acceptable evidence in support of the conviction."

11

In Himanshu alias Chintu vs. State (NCT of Delhi),

(2011) 2 SCC 36 this Court held that the dependable part of the

evidence of a hostile witness can be relied on.

Thus it is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from

the chaff, and the maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no

application in India vide Nisar Alli vs. The State of Uttar

Pradesh AIR 1957 SC 366. In the present case we are of the

opinion that Smt. Dhillo Devi denied her earlier statement from

the police because she wanted to save her son. Hence we accept

her statement to the police and reject her statement in court.

The defence has not shown that the police had any enmity with

the accused, or had some other reason to falsely implicate him.

We are of the opinion that this was a clear case of murder

and the entire circumstances point to the guilt of the accused.

vi) The cause of death was opined by Dr. Pravindra Singh-PW1

12

in his post mortem report as death "due to asphyxia as a result of

ante-mortem strangulation by ligature." It is evident that this is

a case of murder, and not suicide. The body was not found

hanging but lying on the ground.

vii) The accused made a statement to the SDM, Shri S.S.

Parihar-PW8, immediately after the incident and has signed the

same. No doubt he claimed in his statement under Section 313

Cr.PC that nothing was asked by the SDM but he did not clarify

how his signature appeared on the statement, nor did he say that

he was forced to sign his statement nor was the statement

challenged in the cross examination of the SDM. The SDM

appeared as a witness before the trial court and he has proved

the statement in his evidence. There was no cross examination

by the accused although opportunity was given.

In his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC the accused was

asked :

"Q.8 It is in evidence against you that you were

interrogated and arrested vide memo Ex PW11/C and

your personal search was conducted vide memo Ex

13

PW11/D and you made disclosure statement EXPW7/A

and in pursuance thereto you pointed out the site plan

of incident and got recovered an electric wire Ex P1

which was seized by IO after sealing the same vide

memo ExPW7/B. What do you have to say?

The reply he gave was as follows :

"Ans. I was wrongly arrested and falsely implicated in

this case. I never made any disclosure statement. I

did not get any wire recovered nor I was ever taken

again to my house."

We see no reason to disbelieve the SDM as there is nothing

to show that he had any enmity against the accused or had any

other reason for making a false statement in Court.

viii) The accused had given a statement (Ex. PW7/A) to the SDM

in the presence of PW11 Inspector Nand Kumar which led to

discovery of the electric wire by which the crime was committed.

We are of the opinion that this disclosure was admissible as

evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Aftab Ahmad

Ansari vs. State, (2010) 2 SCC 583 (para 40), Manu Sharma

vs. State, (2010) 6 SCC 1 (paragraphs 234 to 238). In his

evidence the police Inspector Nand Kumar stated that at the

14

pointing out of the accused the electric wire with which the

accused is alleged to have strangulated his daughter ws

recovered from under a bed in a room.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the

appellant that there was no independent witness in the case.

However, as held by this Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Teja

Ram and Ors. AIR 1999 SC 1776 :

"The over-insistence on witnesses having no relation

with the victims often results in criminal justice going

awry. When any incident happens in a dwelling house,

the most natural witnesses would be the inmates of

that house. It is unpragmatic to ignore such natural

witnesses and insist on outsiders who would not have

even seen anything. If the court has discerned from the

evidence or even from the investigation records that

some other independent person has witnessed any

event connecting the incident in question, then there is

a justification for making adverse comments against

non-examination of such a person as a prosecution wit-

ness. Otherwise, merely on surmises the court should

not castigate the prosecution for not examining other

persons of the locality as prosecution witnesses. The

prosecution can be expected to examine only those who

have witnessed the events and not those who have not

seen it though the neighbourhood may be replete with

other residents also."

Similarly, in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of

15

Maharashtra (2006)1 SCC 681 this Court observed:

"These crimes are generally committed in complete se-

crecy inside the house and it becomes very difficult for

the prosecution to lead evidence. No member of the

family, even if he is a witness of the crime, would come

forward to depose against another family member. The

neighbours, whose evidence may be of some assis-

tance, are generally reluctant to depose in court as

they want to keep aloof and do not want to antagonize

a neighbourhood family. The parents or other family

members of the bride being away from the scene of

commission of crime are not in a position to give direct

evidence which may inculpate the real accused except

regarding the demand of money or dowry and harass-

ment caused to the bride. But, it does not mean that a

crime committed in secrecy or inside the house should

go unpunished."

(emphasis supplied)

In our opinion both the trial court and High Court have given

very cogent reasons for convicting the appellant, and we see no

reason to disagree with their verdicts. There is overwhelming

circumstantial evidence to show that the accused committed the

crime as he felt that he was dishonoured by his daughter.

For the reason given above we find no force in this appeal

and it is dismissed.

Before parting with this case we would like to state that

16

`honour' killings have become commonplace in many parts of the

country, particularly in Haryana, western U.P., and Rajasthan.

Often young couples who fall in love have to seek shelter in the

police lines or protection homes, to avoid the wrath of kangaroo

courts. We have held in Lata Singh's case (supra) that there is

nothing `honourable' in `honour' killings, and they are nothing but

barbaric and brutal murders by bigoted, persons with feudal

minds.

In our opinion honour killings, for whatever reason, come

within the category of rarest of rare cases deserving death

punishment. It is time to stamp out these barbaric, feudal

practices which are a slur on our nation. This is necessary as a

deterrent for such outrageous, uncivilized behaviour. All persons

who are planning to perpetrate `honour' killings should know that

the gallows await them.

Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Registrar

Generals/Registrars of all the High Courts who shall circulate the

same to all Judges of the Courts. The Registrar

17

General/Registrars of the High Courts will also circulate copies of

the same to all the Sessions Judges/Additional Sessions Judges in

the State/Union Territories. Copies of the judgment shall also be

sent to all the Chief Secretaries/Home Secretaries/Director

Generals of Police of all States/Union Territories in the country.

The Home Secretaries and Director Generals of Police will

circulate the same to all S.S.Ps/S.Ps in the States/Union

Territories for information.

...................................J.

(Markandey Katju)`

..................................J.

(Gyan Sudha Misra)

New Delhi;

May 09 , 2011