Satish Nirankari vs State Of Rajasthan

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1074 OF 2007

SATISH NIRANKARI .....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF RAJASTHAN .....RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

A.K. SIKRI, J.

Pooja, daughter of Pramod Bhatnagar (Informant) went

missing on November 01, 1995. On that day, she had left her

home at 5.30 PM to attend her MBA classes. However, she did

not return back. Her father and family members became anxious

and worried when they found that she had not returned till 9.00

PM. Before they could go out to search for her, one Ashok

informed them around 10.00 PM, that Pooja was admitted to SMS Signature Not Verified

Hospital, Jaipur. On receiving this information, the informant Digitally signed by PARVEEN KUMAR Date: 2017.06.09 17:21:40 IST Reason:

rushed to the hospital. After reaching there, he found that body of

Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 1 of 35 Pooja was lying there as she was already dead. As per the

informant she was murdered by the appellant herein, who had

strangulated her neck by squeezing the same. Next morning, the

Informant lodged written report of the murder of Pooja with the

Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, stating the aforesaid facts.

2) On the basis of the report, case was registered and police sprung

into action. Dead body of Pooja was subjected to autopsy.

Statements of various witnesses were recorded and necessary

memos were drawn. The appellant was arrested. Challan was

filed in the court implicating the appellant alleging that the

appellant had committed the murder. The case came up for trial

before the Special Judge (Communal Riots/Man Singh murder),

Jaipur who framed the charges under Sections 302 and 309 of

the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’). The appellant denied the

charges and claimed trial. The trial was held wherein the

prosecution produced as many as 16 witnesses. Statement of the

appellant, thereafter, was recorded under Section 313 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘Cr.PC’) wherein the appellant

claimed innocence and rebutted the prosecution story. The

version projected by him was that Pooja was madly in love with

him and wanted to marry him. However, her parents did not

Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 2 of 35 agree for their marriage. Accordingly, both, the appellant and

Pooja had decided to commit suicide. Both of them consumed

copper sulphate, though the quantity taken by the appellant was

lesser in comparison with that of Pooja. Soon after Pooja started

vomiting. At this juncture, he went out of the room to seek help.

When he returned back he found Pooja hanging. He untied the

noose of cable wire which was used for the purpose of hanging

and removed her to the hospital with the help of the neighbours.

3) Arguments were heard by the Special Judge. Aforesaid story put

forth by the appellant did not convince the trial court judge, who

after analyzing the prosecution evidence, came to the conclusion

that the prosecution was able to prove, beyond reasonable doubt,

charges against the appellant. Holding that Pooja did not commit

suicide but was murdered, the trial court found the appellant guilty

of murder. It imposed the sentence of life imprisonment for

committing that crime, punishable under Section 302, IPC. The

trial court also held that since the appellant had himself admitted

that he had consumed copper sulphate with the intent to commit

suicide, offence under Section 309 also stood proved. For this

offence, the appellant was directed to undergo simple

imprisonment of three months. Monetary fines for both the

Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 3 of 35 offences were also inflicted with default clauses.

4) The appellant preferred appeal against the said judgment under

Section 374 Cr.PC by approaching the High Court of Judicature

for Rajasthan. This appeal has been dismissed by the High court

vide impugned judgment dated February 19, 2007. Aggrieved by

this outcome, he has challenged the order of the High Court,

which is the subject matter of the present appeal.

5) From the aforesaid prosecution story narrated in brief along with

the defence version, it becomes clear that it is only the appellant

who is involved in the episode in-question. The only aspect on

which the controversy revolves around is as to whether it is the

appellant who committed murder of Pooja or Pooja had

committed suicide? Since, this is the only narrow scope of the

appeal, arguments were advanced by the counsel for the parties

revolving around this limited aspect. Obviously, our discussion

would also remain within the bounds of the aforesaid controversy,

eschewing other details which are not warranted and relevant for

the purposes of deciding this appeal.

6) It would be apposite to take into consideration some of the

admitted facts which would also help in resolving the dispute.

Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 4 of 35

7) Deceased Pooja was a student of English Literature and

simultaneously she had joined Management course of American

Institute for which she was attending classes in the evening. She

was 23 years of age. Satish (appellant) was non-matric and

Pooja fell in love with the appellant while she was teenager. She

wrote a few love letters to the appellant during that period. On

November 01, 1995, Pooja left her house at 5.30 PM, but she did

not reach to attend management classes. Around 10 PM, one

Ashok informed the father of Pooja that she was admitted to the

Hospital. When parents of Pooja reached hospital, they found

Pooja dead.

8) Pooja was found hanging in the house which bears Municipal No.

D-9 Indrapuri, Jaipur. This house belonged to one Priyambda,

daughter of Vidya Bhushan, Advocate (PW-1) and was under

construction on the relevant date, though the construction was

almost complete. Thus, at the time of incident nobody was

staying in the house. How this incident happened and under what

circumstances the incident came to be noticed and Pooja was

taken to hospital are described by Vidya Bhushan (PW-1),

Mahesh Sharma (PW-2), Vinod Kumar Gupta, Advocate (PW-4)

and Karni Singh Rathore, Advocate (PW-13). Their statements

Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 5 of 35 need to be noted, in brief, at this stage.

9) Vidya Bhushan, advocate (PW-1), in his deposition stated that the

house D-9, Indrapuri belonged to his daughter Priyambda and its

construction was almost complete. Key of the house usually

remained near electricity meter so that labourers could do their

work. Although Mahesh was not his son, he was living with him

since his childhood. In the year 1990-91, he got installed

Dishantenna in the house and its control room was at the ground

floor. Satish who was a mechanic of dish-antenna associates

with Mahesh in that work. On November 01, 1995 Vinod Gupta,

Advocate informed him over telephone around 8.30 PM that in his

house at Indrapuri a girl was lying unconscious and a boy was

pelting stones. Thereupon, he directed Mahesh to make inquiry.

Mahesh later on informed him that from his house one boy and a

girl were removed to the hospital. He further stated that site-plan

(Ex. P-1) was drawn in his presence and in the ground floor of his

house, a register, purse, wrist watch, small box of vermillion,

metal glass, glassware contained copper sulphate Neela-Thotha,

fruit juice and many other articles were found. In

cross-examination, he stated that two cable wires were hanging

from the railing of staircase. Garlands of rose and glass bangles

Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 6 of 35 were also lying. He also stated that he had seen Pooja

(deceased) once when she came to his house with Satish. Satish

wanted to marry her and he advised Satish to seek permission of

their parents.

10) Mahesh Sharma (PW-2) deposed that the house D-9, Indrapuri

was in the name of Vidhya Bhushan’s daughter, Priyambda. In

that house he with the assistance of appellant installed

dish-antenna. When the business of dish-antenna was in

progress, one day the appellant came to the house with a girl

whose name was Daisy. On November 01, 1995 around 9 PM

Vidhya Bhushan directed him to go to the said house. On

reaching the house he was informed by neighbour Vinod Gupta

that a boy and a girl consumed poison and they were vomiting.

Karni Singh Ji thereafter took them to SMS Hospital.

11) Vinod Kumar Gupta, advocate (PW-4) deposed that plot No. D-9,

adjacent to his house, belonged to Vidhya Bhushan, Advocate.

On November 01, 1995 around 9 PM while he was sitting on

dining table he noticed that somebody was pelting stones at his

house. He came out of the house and found that on plot No. D-9

a boy was vomiting. The boy told him that he and his girlfriend

consumed poison. The boy made request to save him and gave

Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 7 of 35 telephone number of his brother. Vinod Gupta communicated

information about the incident to Vidhya Bhushan and the brother

of the boy. After fifteen minutes three persons came on a scooter

and the girl was removed to the hospital.

12) Karni Singh Rathore, Advocate (PW-13) in his deposition stated

that on November 01, 1995 around 9 PM he had gone to the

house of his relative Anand Singh Rathore at Satya Vihar Colony

for taking dinner. As soon as he reached one boy of Video

parlour came to him and requested him to save the life of his

brother. He then carried a boy and a girl to the hospital. The

condition of the girl was serious.

13) At this juncture, we reproduce the post-mortem report (Ex. P-4)

wherein the following ante-mortem injuries were found on the

dead body of Pooja:

“1.A ligature mark 29cm x 0.5cm placed 8 cm above supra sterna notch in mid line and is nearly transversely all around the neck, another ligature mark commencing from the left side of the upper border of ligature mark on one above 3 cm from the mid line and is running obliquely upwards backwards laterally and disappearing in chairs just post to the left mastoid process and it is 06 cm below left ear labule.

Right side 2 cm from the upper border of ligature mark no one running obliquely upwards backwards and laterally upto below right mastoid process and it is 04cm below right ear lobule the ligature mark number one is deep and upper one is not deeper brown coloured.

Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 8 of 35 2. Hematoma 5cm x 4cm on occipital region.

Medical board that conducted autopsy on the dead body opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to pressure on neck with ligature.”

14) It would also be pertinent to mention here that Pooja was wearing

bangles, bindi and had also applied Sindoor. Garlands were also

there.

15) An alleged suicide note (Ex. P-3), purportedly written by Pooja

was also found from the place of incident in the register belonging

to Pooja which register Pooja had presumably taken along with

her as she had left the house to attend her management classes.

This suicide note reads as under:

““Dear Mummy Papa

We both are taking our lives. We cannot live without each other. We tried a lot to make you understand but you refused to listen to us. We and no one else are responsible for our death. It is our last desire that we both be cremated together on one pyre. Hope you would definitely fulfil our last desire.

Your daughter Sd/- Daisy

Dear Bhaisahab

Must fulfil our last desire. Satish” Sd/- Satish.”

16) The aforesaid facts proved on record would demonstrate that the

appellant and Pooja were alone in the house which belonged to a

third person, at the time of incident. There is no eyewitness of the Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 9 of 35 occurrence. Both had consumed copper sulphate. However,

since the appellant had consumed lesser quantity, and was,

therefore, fully conscious as he had gone out and drawn the

attention of Vinod Kumar Gupta (PW-4) towards the incident by

pelting stones at his house. At the same time, cause of death of

Pooja was Asphyxia and ligature marks were found over her neck.

Thus, it is not the consumption of copper sulphate which resulted

into her death. At this juncture, we would also like to reproduce

the entire statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313,

Cr.PC where he claimed his innocence:

“I am not guilty, case is false. Puja alias Daisy was residing near my house. Houses of both of us were situated close to each other. We both used to visit the houses of each other. Puja used to visit my house. Since childhood, strong friendship developed between us. We both started loving each other. We used to write love letters to each other as well. Exh. D.6 to Exh. D.11 letters were written by Puja only to me which were given by me to police. We both wanted to marry but parents of Puja were against our marriage. On 21.10.95 it was birthday of Puja. That day I went to the house of her parents about our marriage whereupon they flatly refused for the same and got angry and abused and beat Puja and threatened to kill me. On 1.11.95 Puja came to me and told that today her parents have beaten her black and blue. They beat her daily and do not allow her to meet you. Thereupon, we both decided that today we would marry each other. We both went to the market on scooter and from there Puja herself bought make up items, bangles, bindi, etc. Also purchased garlands for marriage. We both performed marriage before the photo of God by exchange garlands. Thereafter, Puja said that he parents and relatives are very dangerous people they would kill me and you. She said now she

Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 10 of 35 does not want to live and would commit suicide. I explained to her but she did not agree to my advice. Then I told her that I cannot live without you. Pooja said that we lived together and should die together. Then, she wrote a note to her parents in which I also put my signature and Puja also signed it. Then she brought jug fill with liquid like copper sulphate from the white washing material lying there in the house D-9, Inderpuri. She gave that to me also and herself consumed it. I consumed in small quantity and I thought that one should not commit suicide and then I put down the glass. In the meanwhile, condition of Daisy started deteriorating and she started vomiting. I went out for help and knocked at the door of neighbour Vinod, Advocate but no one came out inspite of knocking the door for long and thereupon from outside I threw stones at his house. After sometime, Vinod came out and I requested him to save Daisy and have (sic.) him telephone number of my brother. After that I went back to the house and saw Puja hanging with wire and withering in pain and then I ran to her and got her freed from the hanging and she fell down on the floor and I also sat beside her and started attending her. After some time, my brother Ashok reached. I told him to call parents of Puja whereupon he said that first arrange for her treatment as that could save her. Thereupon, I also considered it better and then we were taken to the hospital. There I sent Ashok to the house of Puja to inform her parents. I do not know what happened after that.”

17) Keeping in view the aforesaid aspects, we proceed to discuss the

vital issue.

18) Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel for the appellant

stated that the circumstantial evidence which has surfaced on

record clearly leans in favour of the appellant’s version. He

submitted that prosecution accepted that there was a love affair

Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 11 of 35 between the appellant and Pooja. It is also accepted that parents

of Pooja were against their marriage. Not only this, since Pooja

was determined to marry the appellant, she was maltreated and

physically beaten by her parents. On the fateful day, i.e.,

November 01, 1995, Pooja had told the appellant that she was

beaten black and blue by her parents. Therefore, she was upset

and, at that moment, both decided to marry each other. It is for

this reason that Pooja had herself brought make up items like

bangles, bindi, sindoor etc. and she purchased garlands for

marriage. It is in these circumstances that they married each

other before the photo of God. However, immediately thereafter,

Pooja became paranoid as she had an apprehension that their

marriage will not be accepted by her parents and relatives who

were very dangerous and in all likelihood they would kill both

Pooja and the appellant. Under this fear she decided to commit

suicide and did not change her decision inspite of appellant’s

advice. At this stage, appellant also decided to end his life as he

did not want to live without Pooja. In that heat of the moment

both of them decided to end their lives. It is under these

circumstances that they took liquid like copper sulphate from the

washing material which was lying in the house, D-9, Indrapuri.

Emphasizing these facts coupled with the subsequent events, that

Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 12 of 35 is, the circumstances under which the appellant, after seeing that

condition of Pooja was deteriorating, went out and sought help of

neighbour, Vinod Kumar Gupta (PW-4). He also submitted that

when nobody came out from the house of PW-4 after he knocked

at the door, the appellant frantically threw stones at his house to

gain attention, forcing him to come out. From these

circumstances, Mr. Ahmadi pleaded that the entire conduct of the

appellant, taken together, would clearly show that the appellant

had not killed Pooja and would not have done so as he loved her

immensely from the childhood. He also highlighted the following

facts which were pleaded before the High Court.

“(i) The prosecution failed to establish motive behind the guilt.

(ii) Following material facts were left unnoticed by the learned trial judge:-

“a. Pooja had left her house on November 1, 1995 at 5 PM and this fact is established by the statements of Pramila Bhatnagar (PW9) and Pramod Bhatnagar (PW12) but there is no evidence as to where she remained from 5 PM to 9 PM.

b. There is no evidence from where the accused purchased Sindoor (Vermilion), Bindi and Bangles.

c. There is no evidence as to who did the make-up.

d. There is no evidence from where poison was purchased and who had administered poison.

Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 13 of 35 e. There is no evidence as to who were the associates of Ashok. Even Ashok had not been examined by the prosecution.

f. Appellant also consumed poison and was admitted in hospital for about 5 months.

(iii) There is no definite opinion of the doctor that death of Pooja was homicidal. The possibility that the death could be suicidal could not be ruled out.

(iv) The fact that Pooja committed suicide was established from the letter (Ex. P-3) which was written by her. He submitted that the courts below had simply gone by the testimony of Pooja’s mother, who had denied the handwriting of Pooja on Ex. P-3, which was neither here nor there as it was self-serving evidence. On the other hand, prosecution did not make any attempt to either compare the handwriting on Ex. P-3 with admitted handwriting of Pooja or sought any opinion of handwriting expert.

(v) In this behalf, he also referred to the deposition of PW-16, S.H.O. Gandhi Nagar, Police Station.”

19) Mr. Ahmadi read out the relevant portion from the deposition of

Vidya Bhushan, Advocate (PW-1), who had supported appellant’s

version to the extent that he knew that Pooja and the appellant

were in love with each other and Pooja’s parents were opposing

the same. PW-1 had even told them that he would persuade their

parents for their marriage. Else, both should go to court for

marriage. He also referred to the deposition of Pramod

Bhatnagar (PW-12), father of Pooja — deceased who had

accepted in his cross-examination that he was Kayasth and in

Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 14 of 35 their family no Kayasth had ever married a Sindhi. He had also

deposed that love marriage had never taken place in their family.

20) Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, read out the

depositions of Manju Bhatnagar, aunt of the deceased (PW-8),

Pramot Bhatnagar, father of the deceased and Pramila

Bhatnagar (mother of the deceased). All of them had consistently

stated that they recognised the handwriting of Pooja and Ex. P-3

was not written by her. They had stated that Pooja was not in the

habit of writing in Hindi and she used to write in English only. It

was also explained by PW-9 that the letter started with addressing

them as ‘Mummy Papa’ whereas she never used to call her

‘mummy’ and never called her father ‘papa’. Instead she was

addressing them as Jiji and Kaka Saheb respectively. She also

never used the words ‘My dear’ for her parents. They also

deposed to the effect that at the end of that letter name ‘Daisy’

was written which was not the name of her daughter. The learned

State Counsel also drew the attention of the Court to the seizure

memo of articles which were seized from the place of occurrence.

He submitted that apart from other articles like garlands, bindi

packet, vermillion, dark red colour box (sindoor), etc. It was also

significant to note that in the articles belonging to Pooja, one mark

Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 15 of 35 sheet of University of Rajasthan was found in the polythene bag

as well as prospectus of University of Rajasthan for post-graduate

studies 1995-96 with form and also one syllabus of University of

Rajasthan for M.A. English on which her name, Pooja Bhatnagar,

was written with pen. Two passport size photographs of Pooja in

black and white on the back of which No. 5134307 was written,

were also found in her bag. With the aid of these articles, learned

counsel submitted that Pooja had ambitions for higher studies and

the aforesaid papers showed that she was planning to apply for

admission in M.A English in the University. With these kinds of

ambitions, there was no question of Pooja taking her life by

committing suicide. He also relied upon the judgments of the Trial

Court as well as the High Court and the manner in which

evidence was discussed and analysed by the two courts below

holding that the circumstances conclusively established chain of

evidence so complete as not to believe any unreasonable ground

for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the appellant

and that the circumstantial evidence conclusively proved that it

was a case of murder committed by the appellant and,

particularly, emphasised that as per post-mortem report cause of

death was Asphyxia. Further, Dr. S.K. Pathak (PW-3), who

conducted autopsy on the dead body of Pooja had specifically

Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 16 of 35 stated that hematoma measuring 5cmX4cm was found on

occipital region. There was second ligature mark ending towards

back of the neck which was caused by strangulation. He further

submitted that the story projected by the appellant that when he

came out of the house for help, Pooja had hanged herself with

wire was so improbable that no credence could be given to it, as it

was not possible for a lonely girl, after consuming poison to

gather such strength to hang herself. He also submitted that the

High Court was perfectly justified in its conclusion that the version

of the appellant that Pooja herself brought copper sulphate from

the house, D-9, Indrapuri, was highly unbelievable being stranger

in the house of an advocate to arrange that poison.

21) We have given our due considerations to the submissions

advanced by the counsel on either side and have also minutely

gone through the judgments of the courts below alongside the

deposition of witnesses which were referred to and relied upon by

both the parties in support of their respective cases. As is clear

from the factual discussion recorded upto now, it is a case of

circumstantial evidence and there is no eyewitness to the incident

in-question. Cause of death of Pooja, as per the medical report,

was Asphyxia and ligature mars were found over her neck.

Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 17 of 35 Further, both the appellant as well as Pooja had consumed

copper sulphate. It is the quantum of the said poisonous

substance which made the difference. Inasmuch as lesser

quantity consumed by appellant was the reason that he survived,

coupled with the fact that he could be taken to the hospital before

his conditions deteriorated. However, he remained in the hospital

for 50 days which shows that the substance consumed by him

also had deleterious effects. It is also an admitted case that both

Pooja and appellant were in love with each other which had

blossomed over a period of time. They were neighbours and were

frequently meeting. Their affection for each other was known to

Pooja’s family but was not taken positively. Father of Pooja

(PW-8) has himself stated that because of difference in caste, he

being a Kayasth and the appellant being a Sindhi, such an

inter-caste marriage had not happened in their family. He, thus,

accepted that Pooja’s family refused to give their blessings to the

intentions of couple to tie a matrimonial chord. In this backdrop,

question that arises is as to whether both of them wanted to marry

even if Pooja’s parents and family members did not approve of

the alliance and they got married in the manner mentioned by the

appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.

Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 18 of 35

22) The story put forth by the appellant is plausible. As per him, Pooja

was subjected to physical abuse and beatings and was, in fact,

mercilessly beaten even on the day of incident. When she was

madly in love with the appellant and wanted to marry him, there is

a possibility that after receiving such kind of shabbily treatment at

the hands of her parents, in anguish she may have decided to

revolt and, therefore, proposed to the appellant, that they should

get married for which they chose a secluded place. This fact

cannot be wished away that from the place of the incident, bare

essentials necessary for a marriage which a couple would like to

perform in such circumstances, have been recovered. These are

in the form of garlands, bangles, bindi, sindoor etc. Thus, the

appellant and the decease got married in such a charged

atmosphere. After the marriage was performed, Pooja might have

started thinking as to what would lie ahead. Knowing the

adamant, stiff and belligerent attitude of her family, she might

have realised that in no case this marriage would be accepted in

her family. Going by the previous behaviour of her family

members, she might have nurtured the apprehension that neither

she nor the appellant would be spared by her family members. At

this stage, she could have insisted for putting an end to their lives

themselves. Such kind of thinking is not unusual in a situation in

Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 19 of 35 which the parties were placed, and the mind can work in such a

direction. On this hypothesis, it becomes a case of committing

suicide by Pooja, as projected by the appellant.

23) Other hypothesis is equally plausible. Going by the fact that Pooja

was in love with the appellant and though she wanted to marry

him, she might have told the appellant that because of stiff

resistance from her family she would not marry the appellant as

she would go by the wishes of the family even when she

personally did not approve of this. Such a reaction on the part of a

girl to sacrifice her love and accept a decision of her parents,

even though unwillingly, is a common phenomenon in this

country. If this was the situation and after she communicated to

the appellant her intention not to marry him as she was suffering

physical torture because of continuing the said relationship, it may

not have been liked by the appellant. It also happens in love that

when a man is not able to get a girl which he wants, he may go to

the extent of killing her as he does not want to see her alliance

with any other person. This might be the motive in the mind of

appellant. However, whether events turned in this way is

anybody’s guess as no evidence of this nature has surfaced. It is

not even possible for the prosecution to state any such things as

Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 20 of 35 whatever actually happened was only known to two persons, one

of whom is dead and other is in dock.

24) Which of the two hypothesis prevails in the present case, is the

question? We have to keep in mind that this Court is dealing with

a criminal matter where appellant is charged with committing

murder of Pooja. Criminal cases cannot be decided on the basis

of hypothesis. Another aspect which is to be kept in mind is that it

is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused charged for

such an offence and that too, beyond reasonable doubt. In a case

where there is no eyewitness and, which rests on circumstantial

evidence, the prosecution is obligated to prove all those

circumstances which leave no manner of doubts to establish the

guilt of the accused person, i.e., chain of circumstances must be

complete and must clearly point to the guilt of the accused. Chain

of continuous circumstances means that all the circumstances are

linked up with one another and the chain does not get broken in

between. It is now well established, by catena of judgements of

this Court, that circumstantial evidence of the following character

needs to be fully established:

(i) Circumstances should be fully proved.

(ii) Circumstances should be conclusive in nature.

Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 21 of 35

(iii) All the facts established should be consistent only with the

hypothesis of guilt.

(iv) The circumstances should, to a moral certainty, exclude the

possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused

(see State vs. Dr. Ravindra; 1992 (3) SCC 300);

Chandrakant vs. State of Gujarat; (1992) 1 SCC 473. It

also needs to be emphasised that what is required is not

the quantitative, but qualitative, reliable and probable

circumstances to complete the claim connecting the

accused with the crime. Suspicion, however grave, cannot

take place of legal proof. In the case of circumstantial

evidence the influence of guilt can be justified only when all

the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be

not compatible with the innocence of the accused or the

guilt of any other person.

25) Following tests laid down in Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of

A.P.1 also need to be kept in mind:

“10. (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;

(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;

(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively,

1 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 407 Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 22 of 35 should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and

(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only e consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.”

26) Sir Alfred Wills in his book Wills’ Circumstantial Evidence

(Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be

observed in the case of circumstantial evidence:

“(1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum;

(2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability;

(3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence, the best evidence must be adduced with the nature of the case admits;

(4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt; and

(5) if there by any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted.”

27) In the present case, the circumstances which have been weighed

by the courts below in arriving at the finding of guilt of the Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 23 of 35 appellant are the following:

(i) The appellant and deceased were alone together in a lonely

house belonging to a third party which were lying vacant

and was at the advance stage of construction.

(ii) Post-mortem report suggested that cause of death of Pooja

was Asphyxia and ligature marks were found over her neck.

(iii) Though, both the appellant and Pooja consumed copper

sulphate, the quantity consumed by the appellant was much

less because of which he was in full senses and he could

go out and draw attention of a neighbour towards the

incident by pelting stones at his house.

(iv) When the condition of Pooja, as a consequence of

consuming poison, had deteriorated there was no reason

for her to hang herself.

(v) The High Court has queried as to how could a lonely girl

after consuming poison fathom strength to hang herself.

(vi) The statement of the appellant that Pooja herself brought

copper sulphate from the place in which they were housed

was highly unbelievable. The High Court has queried that

being a stranger in the house of a third person how she

could arrange it.

Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 24 of 35

(vii) Since in the said house only Pooja and the appellant were

there, it is the appellant who was supposed to explain the

circumstances because of the legal position contained in

Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which the appellant has

failed to do.

(viii) We may remark, at the outset, that observation of the High

Court that the appellant did not discharge the burden cast

upon him by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not

correct. The appellant has given his explanation to each

and every circumstance in his statement under Section 313,

Cr.P.C. He has also cross-examined the prosecution

witnesses on this aspect. Apart from his own oral statement,

there could not have been any other evidence and it was

not possible for him to produce any other witness as well,

when this fact is accepted that there was no third person

available. It would be a different issue as to whether his

statement is worthy of any credence and that aspect shall

be discussed later at an appropriate stage. What is

emphasized here is that primary burden always remains on

the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused, which

is not only cardinal principle of the criminal jurisdiction, but

also enshrined in Section 101 of the Evidence Act.

Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 25 of 35

Therefore, in the first instance, the matter needs to be

examined from the angle as to whether the prosecution has

been able to prove the guilt. While doing so, it can be

discussed as to those facts which were within the special

knowledge of the appellant, whether his explanation in this

behalf is convincing or not.

28) Having said so, we would like to start with the purported suicide

note (Ex. P-3) as that is the most material piece of evidence if that

is in fact the suicide note of deceased, no further discussion is

needed because it is sufficient to prove the innocence of the

appellant. It is not in dispute that this note was found in the

notebook belonging to Pooja. It was found at the time of inquest

proceedings and was specifically taken into possession by the

Police Officer (PW-16). The said suicide note is discarded by the

courts below believing the statements of mother, father and aunt

of deceased to the effect that it is not in the handwriting of Pooja.

While taking this course of action, both the courts below

conveniently ignored the pertinent statement made by

Investigating Officer, Suresh Saini (PW-16) that “it is correct that

none of witnesses told me that this that (sic.) Ex P-3 suicide note

is not in the handwriting of Puja alias Daisy. Witnesses stated

Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 26 of 35 that it is in the handwriting of Puja only.”

29) Thus, when the suicide note was recovered in the presence of

PW-12 (father of the deceased) and was seized by the I.O. at

that point of time, family members of Pooja did not deny that the

same was not in the handwriting of the deceased. On the

contrary, this very I.O. has further mentioned in his deposition that

these witnesses had stated that this note was in the handwriting

of Pooja only. Following deposition of PW-12 in this behalf, in

fact, clinches this aspect of the issue:

“Word Daisy written in suicide note Exh. P.3 regarding which I ensured from witnesses and from the investigation that this Daisy is another name of Puja. It is correct that no witness told me this about Exh. P.3 suicide note that it was not in the handwriting of Puja alias Daisy. Witnesses stated that it is in the handwriting of Puja only. It is also correct that none of witnesses Manju Bhatnagar, Pramod Bhatnagar, Devender Mohan Bhatnagar, Pramila told me that Daisy is not the other name of Puja and none of the aforesaid witnesses denied the fact of Exh. P-3 written in the handwriting of Puja.

I conducted investigation till the time of getting suspended on 14.02.1996. It is correct that commission of offence found under Section 306 IPC till the time of arrest of accused and he was arrested under this Section only. It is correct that after arrest of accused supplementary statement of Smt. Pramila Bhatnagar were taken on 23.12.1995 and kept in the file. It is correct that after recording supplementary statement of Pramila Bhatnagar, same were kept in the file. It is correct that Pramila Bhatnagar admitted in her statements that Exh. D-6 Exh. D-11 are in the handwriting of Puja. I do not remember that I had asked Pramila Bhatnagar or not regarding handwriting

Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 27 of 35 of Exh. P.3 that this handwriting is of Puja.”

[Emphasis supplied]

30) In view of the above, statements of the family members of

deceased in the court to the effect that Ex.P-3 was not in the

handwriting of the Pooja does not inspire confidence and appears

to be an afterthought. In fact, it appears that there was no

controversy regarding this aspect in the mind of I.O. It is for this

reason that neither any effort was made to have the comparison

of the writing on Ex. P-3 with the admitted handwriting of Pooja

nor was any expert opinion taken thereupon. In any case, this

appears to be a big flaw in the investigation inasmuch as even if

there was any controversy, such an evidence should have been

collected by the prosecution. Failure to do so, coupled with the

statement of I.O. leaves no manner of doubt Ex. P-3 is in the

handwriting of Pooja. That is sufficient to hold that it was a case of

suicide and not murder. It may also be mentioned that after

collecting the aforesaid evidence, the I.O. had initially charged the

appellant with the offence under Section 306, IPC, i.e., abetment

to suicide. This is sufficient to extend the benefit of doubt to the

appellant.

31) That apart, conduct of the appellant on the day of incident, when

examined in the aforesaid background, creates a dent in the Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 28 of 35 prosecution case. In this behalf, the learned counsel for the

appellant drew our attention to the following acts of the appellant

on that day.

32) The deceased and appellant had gone to the place of incident

together. It is not even the case of the prosecution that appellant

abducted deceased and forcibly took her to the place of incident.

This can also be seen in light of prior affair of the parties.

33) Since the parties are in love with each other and families are

against it, they decided to get married. It is established that

deceased was wearing bindi, make-up, sindoor (vermillion) and

12 red bangles. From the place of incident from the place of

incident following articles were removed – Bindi, Vermillion,

bangles, rose garland, make up material, metal glass, one

tumbler containing copper sulphate water, fruit juice (8-9/AD).

34) Both appellant and deceased thereafter consumed poison

however, the appellant stopped short whi8le drinking poison and

wanted to be alive. The appellant made effort to save deceased

and came out of the house, raised alarm, and called for help from

PW-4 – Vinod Gupta (neighbour) and told him to call his brother –

Ashok. PW-4 in addition to Ashok, also called PW-1 (owner of the

house where incident took place). The said facts are

Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 29 of 35 corroborated by PW-4 and PW-1.

35) The appellant made sure that deceased was taken to hospital for

save her. The said fact is corroborated by the statement of Pw-13

– Karni Singh – who stated that he took appellant and deceased

to the hospital. PW-13 also stated that Ashok told him appellant

and deceased had affair.

36) If appellant’s intention was to commit murder of the deceased and

escape, he could have just left the deceased at the spot and

deceased would have died of poisoning. It was pointless and futile

for appellants to additionally hang deceased. Moreover, if such

was the intention of the appellant, he would not have called for

help or raised alarm with neighbours. The appellant also would

not have committed t he murder in the place where he worked

and operated from.

37) If appellant’s intention was to commit murder, he could have run

away from the spot of incident as admittedly, there is no

eyewitness of the whole incident.

38) If appellant’s intention was to commit murder, he would not have

directed his brother – Ashok to call for deceased’s parents, which

he admittedly did.

Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 30 of 35

39) Admittedly appellant also consumed poison and was in hospital

for 50 days. Appellant is also convicted for Section 309 IPC for

attempting to commit suicide.

40) We have pointed out above that the High Court had made two

observations as reasons in support of the conclusion that it is the,

appellant who committed murder. First reason was that it was

highly unbelievable that Pooja could arrange the poison from a

house belonging to a stranger. Second reason was that after

consuming poison, a lonely girl could not fathom strength to hang

herself. These are mere conjectures. There had to be a positive

evidence that the appellant had administered poison to the

deceased, which is missing. Moreover, following circumstances

are assumed by the High Court, which are again unwarranted.

“i. Deceased might have fallen in love with appellant while she was a teenager, but at the age of 23 years having ambition to become IAS officer, it cannot be believed that she wanted to marry appellant.

ii. Possibility cannot be ruled out that appellant was desperately wanting to marry deceased and took her lonely place. When deceased did not agree, appellant first offered poison with Thums-up and later ties cable wire to the neck of the deceased and pushed her head on the wall. The appellant later put vermillion and bangles on the body of the deceased.”

41) Coming to the cause of death, learned counsel for the appellant Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 31 of 35 had argued before us, as well as in the High Court, that as per

Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology there are 16 main

distinctions in death caused by hanging or strangulation.

According to medical evidence second ligature mark was ending

towards back of the neck and it was oblique going upwards and

ligature mark was shining. The hyoi bone was intact there was no

fracture of larynx and trachea. There were no scratches,

abrasions and bruises on face, mouth and ears. There were no

abrasions and ecchymosed around about the edges of ligature

mark. Subcutaneous tissues under ligature mark were white,

hard and glistering. There were no injuries to muscles of neck.

The saliva was dribbling. If the death would have been

strangulation then fracture of larynx and trachea and hyoi bone

was a must there should have scratches abrasions and fingernail

marks and bruises on the face neck and other parts of the body.

Saliva would not have dribbling, ligature mark would have been

horizontal and not oblique it would have lower down in the neck

and not upwards to the chin. There should have been abrasions

and ecchymosed round about the edges of the ligature marks.

Subcutaneous tissues should have ecchymosed there should

have been some injuries to muscles of neck carotid arteries,

internal coat should have been ruptured, whereas there was no

Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 32 of 35 such rupture. The prosecution failed to prove that the cause of

death was homicidal. Dr. S.K. Pathak (PW-3) did not say that

death was homicidal in nature. Post-mortem Report (Ex. P-4)

also does not say that it was homicidal.

42) This aspect is not even dealt with by the High Court. Further, the

alleged weapon, i.e., cable wire was not sent to CFSL and to any

scientific laboratory to confirm fingerprints of the appellant. All the

aforesaid factors amply demonstrate that the prosecution has not

been able to bring out and prove the guilt of the appellant beyond

reasonable doubt. There are lurking doubts in the story of the

prosecution and many missing links which are pointed out above.

43) In the case of Bodhraj Alias Bodha and Ors. Vs. State of

Jammu & Kashmir2, this Court after quoting number of earlier

judgments, held as under:

“10. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (See Hukum Singh V. State of Rajasthan; (1977) 2 SCC 99, Eradu V. State of Hyderabad; AIR 1956 SC 316 Erabhadrappa V. State of Karnataka; (1983) 2 SCC 330, State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi (1985) Suppl. SCC 79, Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1987) 1 SCC 1 and Ashok Kumar Chatterjee Vs. State of M.P., 1989 Suppl. (1) SCC 560). In Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621 it was laid down that where

2 2002 (8) SCC 45 Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 33 of 35 the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect lf the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring home the offences beyond any reasonable doubt.

11. We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C. Chenga Reddy V. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193, wherein it has been observed thus; (SCC pp. 206-07, para 21)

21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature.

Moreover, all the circumstances shall be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.”

44) We are, therefore, of the opinion that prosecution has not been

able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

As a consequence, this appeal is allowed setting aside the

conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. The

appellant shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other

case.

.............................................J. (A.K. SIKRI)

.............................................J. (ASHOK BHUSHAN)

NEW DELHI;

JUNE 09, 2017.

Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 34 of 35

ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.4 SECTIONS II

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Criminal Appeal No. 1074/2007

SATISH NIRANKARI Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondent(s)

[HEARD BY HON'BLE A.K. SIKRI AND HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]

Date : 09/06/2017 This appeal was called on for judgment today.

For the Appellant(s) Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, AOR

For the Respondent(s) Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv.

for Mr. Milind Kumar,AOR

Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri pronounced the

judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr.

Justice Ashok Bhushan.

For the reasons recorded in the Reportable

judgment, which is placed on the file, the appeal is allowed

setting aside the conviction of the appellant under Section

302 of the IPC. The appellant shall be released forthwith,

if not wanted in any other case.

(H.S. Parasher) (Parveen Kumar) Court Master AR-cum-PS

Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007 Page 35 of 35