Page 1 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1474 of 2010

Karan Singh …Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana & Anr. …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1.This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment

and order dated 6.2.2009 in Criminal Appeal No.226-DB of 2007,

passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, by way

of which the High Court has affirmed the judgment and order dated

8.2.2007, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani in

Sessions Trial No.110 of 8.9.2005, by way of which and whereunder

the Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), and

Page 2 sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of

Rs.25,000/-. In default of payment of such fine, he would further

suffer RI for a period of 3 years.

2.Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal as per the

prosecution are that:-

A.In the intervening night between 6-7.1.2005, Maya Devi

(PW.3), mother of Raj, deceased was irrigating her agricultural fields

alongwith her daughter Birma (PW.4). On hearing the cries of her

daughter Raj, Maya Devi and Birma reached the spot and saw that one

Kalia had caught hold of Raj and Karan Singh, the appellant had put a

rope around her neck and was dragging her deeper into the fields.

Maya Devi (PW.3) raised considerable hue and cry but attracted no

help, and Raj died on the spot as a result of the throttling. In the

morning, Maya Devi (PW.3) went to the place of occurrence

alongwith her son Hariom (a simpleton). There were marks of

dragging in the wheat field. A contusion mark on the neck of deceased

was also clearly visible.

B.Maya Devi (PW.3) went to the police station to file a report.

On her way there, she met some police officials and she informed

2

Page 3 them about the incident, based on which, an FIR was registered on

7.1.2005, under Sections 302/34 IPC at the Police Station, Sadar

Charkhi Dadri.

C.The dead body of Raj was sent for post-mortem. Dr. U.S.

Dasodia (PW.7), conducted the post-mortem on the body of the

deceased and found a ligature mark on her neck. He has opined that

she died due to asphyxia, caused by strangulation which was

sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The time

gap between her injuries and death was only a few minutes, and

between her death and post-mortem, less than 24 hours.

D.The police recorded the statements of various persons including

Maya Devi (PW.3), Birma (PW.4) anlongwith other people. After

completing the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the

appellant. The co-accused Kalia, could not be apprehended and was

declared as a proclaimed offender.

E.The case of the prosecution is that Karan Singh, the appellant,

had a certain dispute with deceased Raj regarding the non-payment of

dues to her to the extent of Rs.47,000/-, as consideration for the sale

of a buffalo by the deceased Raj. Since the appellant had not paid the

3

Page 4 said money, there was a quarrel between them on 3-4.1.2005 as

regards the same, wherein appellant had threatened to kill her. In

furtherance thereof, Raj was murdered by the appellant.

F.The prosecution examined several witnesses including Maya

Devi (PW.3), Birma (PW.4) and Omkar Singh (PW.8). The statement

of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’)

After the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani,

convicted and sentenced the appellant, as has been referred to

hereinabove.

Hence, this appeal.

3.Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for

the appellant has submitted, that the investigation in the instant case,

was tainted. The statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had been

recorded after several months of the incident. Raj, deceased was a

woman who had gotten separated from her husband for the reason that

she had been a woman of easy virtue, and had also been living

separately from her mother and sister. The specific case of Maya

Devi (PW.3), mother of deceased was, that she had gone alongwith

4

Page 5 her daughter to irrigate the fields, though in her cross-examination she

has admitted that the agricultural land had been given to one Khazan,

upon sharing of the agricultural produce (Batai). Birma (PW.4), the

sister of the deceased has deposed that they did not cultivate the land

themselves.

The Trial Court did not believe the version of events as

provided by Maya Devi (PW.3) and Birma (PW.4), but treated the

case as one of circumstantial evidence. The entire case of the

prosecution is improbable. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

4.On the contrary, Shri Manjit Singh, AAG, appearing for the

State of Haryana, has opposed the appeal contending that the courts

below have recorded concurrent findings of fact. The defence had not

put any question in the cross-examination either to Maya Devi (PW.3)

or Birma (PW.4), regarding the non-payment of the sum of

Rs.47,000/- as consideration for the sale of a buffalo by the deceased

Raj to Karan Singh, appellant, despite the fact that there was ample

evidence on record to show that there had been an altercation

regarding the non-payment of the said amount on 3.1.2005, between

the deceased and the appellant. The appellant had threatened to kill

her. Moreover, this statement stood corroborated by the deposition of

5

Page 6 Omkar Singh (PW.8). In the event that there had been some

impropriety in the course of the investigation, the same had been only

at the behest of the appellant and that too, entirely in his favour and

certainly not in the favour of the prosecution. The appellant has

made a disclosure statement about concealing the rope that had been

used in the crime, but the Investigating Officer has not made any

effort to recover the same. Thus, the appeal is liable to be rejected.

5.We have considered the rival submissions made by learned

counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6.Consistent versions have been provided by the material

witnesses regarding the non-payment of the sum of Rs.47,000/- as sale

consideration for the sale of a buffalo, by the appellant. This version

of events also fully stands established by the evidence provided by

Maya Devi (PW.3) and Birma (PW.4). In his statement under Section

313 Cr.P.C., the defence did not ask any question to test the veracity

of the said statement, either to Maya Devi (PW.3) or to Birma (PW.4).

Mere denial stating that the same is incorrect by the appellant, is not

sufficient and there is no reason to disbelieve the said portion of the

case of the prosecution. It also stands established from the material

6

Page 7 on record, that there had been an altercation between the appellant and

the deceased 2-3 days before the incident, and the appellant had

threatened the deceased with dire consequences. Such version of

events stands further fortified, by the evidence of Omkar Singh

(PW.8).

7.Omkar Singh (PW.8) is an independent witness who has

deposed that on the fateful day, he had gone to bring some vegetables

from a shop. The accused-appellant had then come there from the side

of the Harijan Basti, asking where Raj (prostitute) had gone, and had

stated that he would kill her within 2-3 days. The accused-appellant

had been having illicit relations with the deceased, and at the said

time, the accused had been under the influence of alcohol.

8.None of these witnesses have been properly cross-examined by the

defence. Both the courts though have expressed their anguish

regarding the manner in which the investigation was conducted, they

have convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section

302 IPC, and have awarded appropriate sentences. A large number of

other theories were introduced by the defence stating that the deceased

had been a woman of easy virtue, and that it was for this reason that

7

Page 8 her husband had divorced her, she had settled in the village and had

been living in a separate house, away from her mother’s house, and

that even here, she had been having illicit relationships with a large

number of persons, etc. In relation to the same, a Panchayat was also

conducted, and Maya Devi (PW.3) etc. had been humiliated. Be that

as it may, this kind of theory could not adversely affect the case of the

prosecution.

9.So far as the issue of cultivating the said land is concerned, the

defence had not asked PWs.3 and 4 to furnish any further details

regarding the cultivation of the land, in relation to the terms and

conditions of the Batai, and also regarding who’s duty it was to

irrigate the land, and what the source and means of irrigation were, as

they have claimed to be in the agriculture fields at mid night for

purpose of irrigating the same. Their presence cannot be doubted, as

it is usual for every agriculturist to carry out the task of irrigation,

whenever his/her turn for irrigation arises.

10.As the defence has not put any further question in the course of

the cross-examination of Maya Devi (PW.3) and Birma (PW.4) in this

regard, we are not in a position to grant the benefit of any of these

8

Page 9 issues to the appellant. The theory of political rivalry between certain

persons and the appellant, at whose behest Maya Devi (PW.3) and

Birma (PW.4) had levelled the allegation of such a heinous crime, do

not inspire confidence. The same are thus liable to be rejected.

11.There is adequate evidence on record to show that Rajesh

Kumar, SI (PW.9), who had conducted the investigation at its initial

stage, had not acted in accordance with law and had favoured the

appellant. It was for this reason that the police authorities upon a

complaint made, changed the Investigating Officer, who then

conducted the investigation properly.

12.The investigation into a criminal offence must be free from any

objectionable features or infirmities which may give rise to an

apprehension in the mind of the complainant or the accused, that

investigation was not fair and may have been carried out with some

ulterior motive. The Investigating Officer must not indulge in any

kind of mischief, or cause harassment either to the complainant or to

the accused. His conduct must be entirely impartial and must dispel

any suspicion regarding the genuineness of the investigation. The

Investigating Officer, “is not merely present to strengthen the case of

9

Page 10 the prosecution with evidence that will enable the court to record a

conviction, but to bring out the real unvarnished version of the truth.”

Ethical conduct on the part of the investigating agency is absolutely

essential, and there must be no scope for any allegation of mala fides

or bias. Words like ‘personal liberty’ contained in Article 21 of the

Constitution of India provide for the widest amplitude, covering all

kinds of rights particularly, the right to personal liberty of the citizens

of India, and a person cannot be deprived of the same without

following the procedure prescribed by law. In this way, the

investigating agencies are the guardians of the liberty of innocent

citizens. Therefore, a duty is cast upon the Investigating Officer to

ensure that an innocent person should not suffer from unnecessarily

harassment of false implication, however, at the same time, an

accused person must not be given undue leverage. An investigation

cannot be interfered with or influenced even by the courts. Therefore,

the investigating agency must avoid entirely any kind of extraneous

influence, and investigation must be carried out with equal alacrity

and fairness irrespective of the status of the accused or the

complainant, as a tainted investigation definitely leads to the

miscarriage of criminal justice, and thus deprives a man of his

10

Page 11 fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Thus, every investigation must be judicious, fair, transparent and

expeditious to ensure compliance with the rules of law, as is required

under Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution. (Vide: Babubhai v.

State of Gujarat & Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 254).

13.In Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1998 SC

1850, this Court observed, that if primacy is given to a designed or

negligent investigation, or to the omissions or lapses created as a

result of a faulty investigation, the faith and confidence of the people

would be shaken not only in the law enforcing agency, but also in the

administration of justice.

A similar view has been re-iterated by this Court in Amar

Singh v. Balwinder Singh & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 1164.

Furthermore, in Ram Bali v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR

2004 SC 2329, it was held by this Court that the court must ensure

that the defective investigation purposely carried out by the

Investigating Officer, does not affect the credibility of the version of

events given by the prosecution.

11

Page 12 14.Omissions made on the part of the Investigating Officer, where

the prosecution succeeds in proving its case beyond any reasonable

doubt by way of adducing evidence, particularly that of eye-witnesses

and other witnesses, would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution,

for the reason that every discrepancy present in the investigation does

not weigh upon the court to the extent that it necessarily results in the

acquittal of accused, unless it is proved that the investigation was held

in such manner that it is dubbed as “a dishonest or guided

investigation”, which will exonerate the accused. (See: Sonali

Mukherjee v. Union of India, (2010) 15 SCC 25; Mohd. Imran

Khan v. State Government (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 192;

Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., AIR 2011 SC

1403; Gajoo v. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 9 SCC 532; Shyamal

Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2012 SC 3539; and Hiralal

Pandey & Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 2012 SC 2541).

Thus, unless lapses made on the part of Investigating authorities

are such, so as to cast a reasonable doubt on the case of the

prosecution, or seriously prejudice the defence of the accused, the

court would not set aside the conviction of the accused merely on the

ground of tainted investigation.

12

Page 13 15.This Court in Dayal Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal,

(2012) 8 SCC 263, has laid down certain norms for taking stern action

against an Investigating Officer, guilty of dereliction of duty or

misconduct in conducting investigation, and held that the State is

bound to initiate disciplinary proceedings against such officers even

ignoring the law of limitation, and even if such officer has retired.

16.In the instant case, the Trial Court and the High Court have

elaborately examined the grievances raised by the complainant

regarding the tainted investigation carried on by the first Investigating

Officer, Shri Rajesh Kumar, and the High Court has commented on

the same as under:

“It is well established on record that SI Rajesh Kumar

had not conducted the investigation properly and he was

favourably inclined to the appellant and therefore,

spoiled the case. Detailed reasons have been recorded by

learned trial court in paragraph 19 of its judgment

manifesting that the appellant had influence over the

police. We agree with the said reasoning of the trial

court which is also apparent from the contentions

advanced by learned State counsel, as noticed

hereinabove. There were marks of dragging the deceased

as mentioned in the inquest report, but still SI Rajesh

Kumar did not depict the said marks in the rough site

plan Ex.P-25 prepared by him. He also did not avail of

the services of dog squad or crime team of the Forensic

Science Laboratory. Shutter of shop, where the deceased

used to reside, had also been broken, but the

13

Page 14 Investigating Officer did not care to get the same

photographed nor mentioned the same anywhere in the

investigation proceedings. Therefore, the complainant

cannot be made to suffer for the lapse of the

Investigating Officer…….The complainant is a widow

having seven daughters and only one son, who is also

simpleton. The deceased was also a divorcee and was

living alone in the house (shop) in the fields in her

parental village…….The complainant Maya Devi, who is

mother of the deceased, is a widow and illiterate rustic

villager, whereas the deceased was divorcee. On the

other hand, the appellant is an influential person and

was Sarpanch at the time of occurrence. The

complainant named the appellant and his co-accused

Kalia in the FIR itself. However, distorted version was

recorded in the FIR and when the complainant party

received copy of FIR on 26.1.2005 (as stated by Birma

Devi PW.4), they learnt of the same and then they

approached the Superintendent of Police (SP), who also

did not take any action because the appellant, along with

Member Legislative Assembly, had met the SP.

Thereafter, with change of SP, the complainant party

again approached the new SP and it was only thereafter

that on 18.2.2005, correct statements of Maya Devi and

Birma Devi were recorded. The appellant was so much

influential that even thereafter, he was not arrested for

more than four months and in fact, SI Rajesh Kumar did

not arrest him and the next Investigating Officer ASI

Raghbir Singh arrested the appellant on 24.6.2005. The

appellant had been named in the FIR on 7.1.2005, but

still SI Rajesh Kumar did not even join him in

investigation and did not interrogate him, what to talk of

arresting him. The statements of Maya Devi and Birma

Devi, therefore, cannot be discarded in view of the

manner in which SI Rajesh Kumar was conducting the

investigation from the very beginning.”

14

Page 15 17.After considering the entire evidence on record, the High Court

has concurred with the findings recorded by the Trial Court as under:

(i)There is no reason for the false implication of the

appellant, who being the Sarpanch of the village was an

influential person.

(ii)Omkar Singh (PW.8) was an independent witness and

there was no ground to disregard his testimony.

(iii)Abadi was at some distance from the place of occurrence.

Therefore, the hue and cry raised by Raj-deceased, and

subsequently by Maya Devi (PW.3), could not have attracted

the attention of any person.

(iv)No attempt was made by the defence to falsify the

allegation of the non payment of the sum of Rs.47,000/-, as

consideration for the sale of a buffalo by the deceased to the

appellant.

18.In view of the above, we do not find any force in the appeal, which

lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.

19.Before parting with the case, we feel it necessary to bring the

matter to the notice of the administration of the State of Haryana that

15

Page 16 in spite of the fact that certain serious findings have been recorded by

the Trial Court, as well as by the High Court regarding the unfair

investigation conducted by Shri Rajesh Kumar, who was the SHO of

the Police Station, Sadar Dadri on 7.1.2005, but for the reasons best

known to the administration, no action was taken against him. We

have no words to express our anguish, and fail to understand under

what circumstances the State authorities have adopted such an

indifferent attitude where a helpless divorcee has been murdered, and

her widowed mother has been crying and running from pillar to post

to secure justice, but the administration did not feel it necessary to

wake up from its deep slumber. We request the learned Chief

Secretary of the State of Haryana to examine the case, and proceed in

accordance with law. A copy of the judgment be sent by the registry

directly to the Chief Secretary, Haryana.

………………………………J.

(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

………………………………J.

(DIPAK MISRA)

New Delhi,

May 28, 2013

16