Ranjeet Singh @ Dara vs State Of M.P

of the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302

IPC, passed by the Special Judge (S.C & S.T Prevention of

Atrocities) and Additional Sessions Judge, Indore has been

confirmed.

2

2. The deceased Jayawati was the second wife of Machi

Singh. The prosecution version of the tragic episode, leading to

the death (murder) of Jayawati (hereinafter referred to as the

deceased) has been primarily narrated by Hukum Singh (PW

11). He is the son of Machi Singh and the deceased. The first

wife of Machi Singh, Kaushalya Devi had given birth to 13

children. She had produced 8 sons, namely, Surendra Singh,

Narendra Singh, Balwant Singh, Nanak Singh, Ranjit Singh @

Dara (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), Jasbir Singh,

Santosh Singh, Trilochan Singh (PW 12), and five daughters.

3. The deceased Jayawati used to reside with her son

Hukam Singh (PW 11) at A.H. Sukalya Road on the first floor.

Trilochan Singh @ Lucky (PW 12) used to reside on the ground

floor with his wife Surendra Kaur @ Poli (PW 1). The appellant

was a regular visitor at the house situated at Sukalya. On the

morning of 6/9/97, the appellant had gone to Indore from

Bhopal by car and reached the house at around 11:30 am. He

came in to visit, after parking the car outside. On the same 3

day Jayawati was found dead in the same house around 2 to 3

pm.

4. It is further the case of the prosecution that one Ranjeet

Singh had telephonically informed that someone had

committed a murder at house NO: A.H. 37 Sukalya, and that

the accused had been caught and detained. This information

was recorded by Brijesh Mishra (PW13),SHO, in the General

Diary at Serial No: 357 (Ex P/19 - C at 14:50 hours). The SHO

then proceeded along with Constable Balkishan (PW8) to the

house in question. On reaching the house when he went to the

first floor, he found that the door was closed from inside. He

asked the person inside to open the door. When the door was

opened by the appellant from inside, he had a blood stained

sword in his hand. His hands were soiled in blood. There were

also stains of blood on the door. Jayawati was lying on the

double bed and her body was smudged with blood. Trilochan

Singh @ Lucky (PW 12) then asked the accused "Dara, what

have you done?" The appellant replied that "I have done the

right thing - you shut up and go away from here." SHO, 4

Brijesh Mishra (PW 13) persuaded the accused to hand over

his sword and it was laid down on the floor by him. Constable

Balkishan (PW 8) was deputed to stand guard.

5. Soon the senior officials of the Police, on being apprised

of the incident, also arrived at the scene of the murder.

Hukum Singh (PW 11) gave report Ex P/16 in writing and on

the basis thereof Dehati Nalish P/17 was recorded. Summons

were issued for holding inquest and inquest report Ex. P/8

was prepared. PW8 was entrusted with the duty of taking the

dead body of Jayawati for post mortem examination. At the

instance of Trilochan Singh (PW 12) spot map Ex P/20 was

prepared. In the presence of Rajesh Dubey (PW 3) and

Nanuram (PW 4), the sword was seized from the floor, one gold

"bala" lying near the leg of the deceased., the cotton in which

the blood was collected, simple cotton, the sheath of the sword

lying behind the door, the blood stained bed sheets and pillow

cover were seized vide Ex. P/13. Accused was arrested under

Memo Ex P/6. His clothes namely shirt, jeans, shoes and the

blood removed from his hands were seized vide Ex P/4. 5

Accused was taken to Police Station Heeranagar and case No:

165/97 under Section 302 IPC was registered vide Ex P/21.

Accused was also sent for medical examination by issuing

medical form Ex P/22.

6. By order dated 7/3/2000, the Trial Court convicted the

appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section

302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and

imposed a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of which he had to

further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

Challenging the aforesaid judgment, the appellant herein filed

Criminal Appeal No: 469 of 2000 before the High Court of

Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore. The High Court vide order

dated 13/3/2006 confirmed the conviction of the accused

under Section 302 IPC. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the

appellant herein has filed the present appeal before this Court.

7. We have heard Mr. K.T.S Tulsi, learned Senior Advocate

for the appellant and Mr. C.D. Singh on behalf of the

respondent-State.

6

8. After taking us through the relevant materials relied on

by the prosecution, Mr K.T.S Tulsi, learned Senior

Advocate submitted that initially Machi Singh, father of

the appellant, had been made the accused. According to

Mr.Tulsi, this is a case of false implication. The real

culprit, possibly Machi Singh is sought to be shielded. He

then set out the sequence of events which according to

him would make it atleast very doubtful, if not

impossible, for the murder to have been committed by

the appellant. He submits that in this case, the FIR had

been recorded at 7.00 p.m. However, the first document

mentioning the details of the incident is the inspection

report of Dr. Sudhir Sharma (PW10). Both the Courts

below have illegally discarded the evidence of this

witness. Mr.Tulsi emphasized that PW13 Brijesh Mishra,

SHO, who was the Investigating Officer did not conduct

the spot inspection according to the directions issued by

PW10. Investigation in this case being incomplete, no

reliance could have been placed on the evidence of PW13. 7

Learned senior counsel further emphasized that at the

time of the murder, the appellant was already in the

custody of the police. He had been sent for medical

examination to Dr.R.C.Choudhary. On medical

examination, this witness had recorded the time of

examination at 11.45 hrs. The appellant had suffered five

injuries on his hands. According to Mr.Tulsi, the nature

of the injuries would make it impossible for the appellant

to wield a sword, to inflict the kind of injuries that were

found on the deceased. According to Mr.Tulsi, the

registration of the FIR was deliberately delayed in order

to shield the real culprit. Learned senior counsel

submitted that obviously the delay had occurred whilst

the concerned individuals were trying to concoct a

plausible version to protect the real assailant. Apart from

the delayed registration of the FIR, there is no

explanation as to why a copy of the FIR was not sent to

the Magistrate for the next five days. This could be

sufficient to discredit the version of the prosecution.

According to Mr.Tulsi, the inherent weaknesses in the 8

prosecution case have been totally ignored by both the

courts below. The benefit of these shortcomings ought to

have been given to the appellant. In support of his

submissions, learned counsel relied on the judgments in

the cases of Rangaiah Vs. State of Karnataka [(2008)

16 SCC 737], Ghurey lal Vs. State of U.P [(2008) 10

SCC 450], and Abdulwahab Abdulmajid Baloch Vs.

State of Gujrat [(2009) 11 SCC 625]. With regard to the

effect of delayed receipt of the copy of the FIR by the

Magistrate, learned counsel relied on Budh Singh Vs.

State of U.P [(2006) 9 SCC 731] and Rajeevan Vs.

State of Kerala [(2003) 3 SCC 355].

9. Learned counsel for the State, however, submitted that

both the courts below have held that the delay in sending the

copy of the FIR has not caused any prejudice to the appellant.

Both the courts below have found that sufficient explanation

has been given about the delay by PW 13. In any event, the

delay in sending the copy of the FIR would not in itself be

sufficient to discard the entire prosecution evidence. Learned 9

counsel also relied on Dharamver & ors. Vs. State of U.P

[(2010) 4 SCC 469], Rabindra Mahto Vs. State of

Jharkhand [(2006) 10 SCC 432] and Aqeel Ahmed Vs.

State of U.P [(2008) 16 SCC 372]. Learned counsel further

submitted that the appellant in this case had a clear motive to

commit the crime. He was apprehensive that the father may

favour the illegitimate son PW11 over the legitimate sons. The

plea with regard to the real murderer being shielded is just to

protect the appellant, who was caught red handed. His hands

as well as the sword were covered in blood. He had suffered

injuries by sword whilst committing the murder. According to

the learned counsel, reliance on Ex.D5 is falsified by Ex.P22.

Therefore, Ex.D5 has been rightly discarded by the trial court

as well as the High Court. Ex.P22 clearly shows that the

appellant has been sent for medical examination after arrest

because he had suffered injuries with sword. The aforesaid

fact is clearly adverted to by PW 13 in his deposition.

10. We have considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the parties.

10

11. Undoubtedly, in this case there is no eye-witness account

of the murder. The prosecution has relied heavily on the

circumstantial evidence. Both the courts below have examined

the entire evidence with great care and caution and have

reached the conclusion that the murder has been committed

by none other than the appellant herein. The approach of the

courts below is in consonance with the well established

principles, in matters where the prosecution case is based only

or primarily on circumstantial evidence. Laying down the

principles in such cases, this court in the case of Hanumant

Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of M.P.,[1952 SCR 1091]

observed as follows:-

"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human 11

probability the act must have been done by the accused."

12. Mr.Tulsi has sought to project that the real culprit in this

case is being shielded. He has suggested that possibly it is

Machi Singh who had committed the murder. The only

evidence linking Machi Singh with a crime is the mention of

his name by Dr.Sudhir Sharma (PW 10) in the report Ex.P14.

This report itself indicates that it is based on the information

received. However, the author has failed to specify the source

of information, although at one stage, it was stated by PW-10

that he had talked to the Investigating Officer (PW13). There

is, however, no confirmation of this fact by the Investigating

Officer. Thus, the High Court declined to give any credence to

the suggestion that name of Machi Singh had been correctly

recorded in the report Ex.P14. Both the courts below have

concluded that the name of Machi Singh may have been the

result of confusion in the mind of Dr.Sudhir Sharma (PW10).

The conclusion reached by both the courts below on due 12

appreciation of the evidence of these two witnesses cannot be

said to be either unjustified or perverse.

13. On the other hand, there is oral, medical and

documentary evidence, which would undoubtedly connect the

appellant with the murder. The appellant was the step son of

the deceased. She was living on the first floor of the house

owned by Machi Singh. The ground floor was occupied by

Tarlochan Singh and his wife, Surinder Kaur, who appeared

as PW1. She has testified that appellant lives in Bhopal. He

had come to Indore in the morning of 6/9/1997. His car was

parked outside the house. She had met the appellant and

asked if he wanted to have a meal. He had, however, stated

that he will have the meal along with her husband Tarlochan

Singh, PW12. Thereafter, she went into her room. After about

10-15 minutes, Kiran (PW 9), her maid came and told her that

she had heard screams coming from the room of Jaya aunty.

Kiran also stated that appellant lives in Bhopal, he comes to

Indore quite often. She also corroborated the fact that he was

in the house at the time of the murder. PW-11 stated that on 13

the day of the murder, he wanted to go and see a movie. He

left the house around 1.30 p.m to tell his friend to get ready.

He then came back to the house at about 2.30/2.45 p.m.to

take some money for the movie, from his mother. Therefore, he

went upstairs to her room. He heard the voice of the appellant

from inside the room. It appeared to him, that he was talking

to some one on the telephone. The room was locked from

inside. He knocked at the door and asked the appellant to

open the door so that he could talk to his mother. The

appellant told him, "you go for now - I want to talk to Jaya".

He was told by the appellant that the deceased was in the

bathroom. He went out to the gallery and saw that there was

no body in the bathroom. He again came and asked the

appellant to open the door of the room. In the meanwhile,

Tarlochan Singh, PW 12 also reached there. He also tried to

get the door opened. He even called out to the appellant. He

was also told to go away by the appellant. Ultimately, the

appellant shouted that he will open the door only when the

police arrives. In the meanwhile, the police arrived. On being

satisfied with the identity of PW 13, the appellant opened the 14

door. He stated that he had killed the deceased. He was

holding a blood stained sword in his hand at the time. On

directions from PW13, he had put the sword on the floor.

Hukum Singh PW-11 then went inside the room and saw his

mother lying on the bed covered in blood. The Dehati Nalish

was recorded on the basis of the sequence of events narrated

by him. Thereafter, FIR (P 21) was recorded. This witness was

cross-examined at length. Nothing useful could be elicited

from him. The version given by PW 11 is consistent with the

testimony of the Investigating Officer PW.13.

14. Apart from the oral evidence, the post-mortem report

Ex.P-11 makes it abundantly clear that except for

injuries No. 2, 3 and 4, all the injuries found on the

deceased were incised wounds. The post mortem report

of Dr.P.C.Jain (PW5) indicates the following injuries on

the body of the deceased:-

15

1. Incised wound 3 x 2 x 0.5 c. transverse oblique

in direction (tr.06) on upper mid point of

abdomen (9 cm above umbilicus).

2. Contused abrasion 1.5 x 0.4 cm on left

hypocondrium region.

3. Contused abrasion 3 x 1 cm on public region.

4. Abrasion 1 x 0.5 cm on public region (3 cm

below injury no.3).

5. Incised wound - Stab wound internally size 3.4

cm x 2 cm on the upper point of Abdomen.

Vert. Oblique direction (Vt 06) present 17 cm

below the ant. End of axillary fold internally it

runs obliquely upwards passes through whole

wideness of abdominal wall (lat side), both

walls of stomach (through and through) and

makes cut mark on Lt. Lobe of liver (size of

wound is 1.3 x 0.4 x 3cm deep). The whole

abdominal cavity full of blood and very little

food particles (semi digested) come out from 16

stomach and present near wounds on

stomach.

6. Incised wound 3 x 2 x 1 cm on lateral part of

Lt. Inguinal region (vtl.06).

7. Incised wound - chopped size 4 x 2 x 0.3 cm.

(ms deep) on Lt. Middle finger (dorsum aspect

and near base Vgt. 06).

8. Incised wound - 4 x 2 x 0.3 cm. (ms deep) on

Lt. Pain near base of thumb and index finger

(Vt.06).

9. Incised wound - 2 x 0.5 x 0.2 cm (ms deep) on

Lt. Index finger (Tr.06) mid part and palmer

aspect.

10. Incised wound 2.5 x 1 x 0.3 cm on Lt.

Forearm. Present 8 cm above the wrist joint on

antro medial.

11. Incised wound 6 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm (upto skull

deep) on Lt. Temporal area of head in sagital (2

cm above the Ltd. Ear pinna and runs

posterior) 17

12. Incised wound 3 x 2 x 0.5 cm. on Lt. Buttock

(upper and outer quadrant & vt. 06).

13. Incised wound 1.5 x 0.4 x skin deep present

buttock (upper and outer quadrant).

14. Incised wound 1 x 0.2 x skin deep (4 cm

above).

15. Incised wound 7 x 3 x 1 cm on Rt. Forearm

present at 5 cm above the wrist joint on post

media.

16. 4 Incised wound 4 x 2 cm chopped cut present

Rt. Base of thumb and other three 1 cm x 4 cm

type x skin deep on Rt. Hand of palmer aspect

in one plane.

17. Incised wound 5 x 2 x 0.3 cm (ms. Deep

present from Rt. Angle of mouth and runs

laterally).

15. All the aforesaid injuries could be caused with a sharp

edged weapon such as a sword. Furthermore, the appellant 18

has failed to give any explanation for his presence in the room

of the deceased. There is no explanation about the presence of

blood stained sword in his hand. All the circumstances taken

together clearly point towards the guilt of the appellant.

16. The appellant had tried to create a defence by stating

that he was already in the custody of the police at the time

when the murder was committed. According to him, he had

been beaten up by the police which necessitated medical

examination. This, according to the appellant, was conducted

by Dr.R.C.Chaudhury. He relied on Ex.D5 which had indicated

that the appellant had been examined on 6.9.1997 in the

morning at 11.30 a.m. The story about the medical

examination at 11.30 a.m. has been disbelieved by the trial

court on the ground that since appellant had only arrived from

Bhopal, a little before the murder, there is little likelihood of

his being in the custody of police at 11.30 a.m. In any event,

the entry with regard to the time of inspection being 11:30 am

in the medical report (Injury Report) seems to be in different

ink from the rest of the report. The High Court further noticed 19

that Ex.D5 could not be relied upon as the author of the said

report, Dr. R.C.Choudhary was never examined. The report

was produced in Court by DW1 who merely stated that the

report had been written by Dr.Chaudhary. He had also stated

that the report bears the signatures of Dr.Chaudhary. In our

opinion, even this conclusion reached by courts below cannot

be said to be either erroneous or perverse.

17. The aforesaid conclusions have been reached by both the

courts below on the basis of due appreciation of the relevant

material on record. No exceptional circumstances have been

pointed out to enable this Court to interfere in exercise of

jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. We

may also notice that most of the submissions made by

Mr.Tulsi were in the realm of appreciation of evidence.

Undoubtedly, the powers of this Court under Article 136 are

very wide; the interference with concurrent findings of facts

would only be in very exceptional circumstances. The

circumstances in which this Court may interfere with the

concurrent findings have been broadly dealt with by this Court 20

in the case of Ganga Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of

Bihar,[(2005) 6 SCC 211] wherein it was observed as follows:

"10. From the aforesaid series of decisions of this Court on the exercise of power of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution following principles emerge:

(i) The powers of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution are very wide but in criminal appeals this Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact save in exceptional circumstances.

(ii) It is open to this Court to interfere with the findings of fact given by the High Court, if the High Court has acted perversely or otherwise improperly.

(iii) It is open to this Court to invoke the power under Article 136 only in very exceptional circumstances as and when a question of law of general public importance arises or a decision shocks the conscience of the Court.

(iv) When the evidence adduced by the prosecution fell short of the test of reliability and acceptability and as such it is highly unsafe to act upon it.

(v) Where the appreciation of evidence and finding is vitiated by any error of law of procedure or found contrary to the principles of natural justice, errors of record and misreading of the evidence, or where the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly perverse and unsupportable from the evidence on record."

21 18. We are of the considered opinion that the case of the

appellant does not fall within the purview of the aforesaid ratio

of law.

19. Mr.Tulsi has tried to point out a number of discrepancies

and contradictions between the evidence of PW-10, PW-11 and

PW-13. We are not much impressed by the aforesaid

submissions. The discrepancies have been noticed by both the

courts below. It was held by both the courts below that the

discrepancies are not such as to justify discarding the

evidence led by the prosecution.

20. For the reasons stated above, we find no reason to

interfere with the well reasoned judgments of the trial court

and the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

.................................J. [B.Sudershan Reddy] 22

New Delhi; ..................................J. September 20, 2010. [Surinder Singh Nijjar]