Page 1 Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 658-659 OF 2010

Ram Chander & Ors. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of Haryana Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1)These appeals are filed against the common final

judgment and order dated 12.08.2008 passed by the

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in

Criminal Appeal Nos. 448-DB and 395-DB of 1998

whereby the Division Bench of the High Court

dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants herein

1

Page 2 and upheld the judgments/orders of conviction and

sentence rendered by the Trial Court.

2)The case of the prosecution is as under:

One Hari Singh (since dead) was married to

Messo (deceased). Out of this wedlock, the couple was

blessed with three daughters, namely, Dholi alias

Krishna, Sumitra and Raj Bala. Raj Bala was aged

around 15 years and the youngest amongst the three

daughters. Both Dholi and Sumitra were married at a

place (village) called Kagdana whereas Rajbala was

unmarried.

3)Hari Singh has two brothers, namely, Sohan Lal

(accused - since dead) and Bhoop Singh. Sohan Lal

has four sons, namely, Ram Chander, Ranbir alias

Randhir, Ram Kumar and Om Parkash (accused-

appellants herein). Messo has one sister Guddi (PW-

9) who is married to Bhoop Singh.

2

Page 3 4)Messo and Raj Bala (mother and daughter) were

living in one house at village Arnianwali. Guddi was

their next-door neighbour. Messo was in search of a

boy for Raj Bala and had selected one boy from a place

called Manak Dewan for which talks had been going

on for the last one month or so from the date of

incident. The engagement ceremony was accordingly

fixed for 22.09.1996 at Arnianwali. Dholi alias Krishna

(married daughter of Messo) had, therefore, come to

her mother’s place at Arnianwali on 19.09.1996 to

help her mother and sister–Raj Bala for the ceremony.

5)On 20.09.1996, around 3 p.m. Sohan Lal along

with his four sons, namely, Ranbir, Ram Chander,

Ram Kumar and Om Parkash, came to the house of

Messo and told her to desist from settling the marriage

of Raj Bala with a boy from Manak Dewan. Sohan Lal

said that they could settle it according to their own

choice. Sohan Lal, who was not happy with the

3

Page 4 marriage proposal, expressed his total unhappiness

and did not want the marriage proposal to fructify. He

then threatened Messo that in case she did not agree

to his proposal then both (Messo and Raj Bala) would

not see the sun the next day. After giving this threat,

Sohan Lal along with his sons (appellants herein) left

the place. Dholi and Guddi were present along with

Messo and Raj Bala when Sohan Lal and his four sons

had come.

6)Messo fearing with the threat of Sohan Lal asked

her daughter Dholi to go immediately to her brother,

Ram Sarup at village Dhigtania which was around 20

KM away from her house and inform him about

happening of such incident with her. Dholi,

accordingly, went there and narrated the incident to

Ram Sarup-her maternal uncle. She then stayed

overnight with Ram Sarup.

4

Page 5 7)On 21.09.1996, in the early hours, when Dholi

and Ram Sarup accompanied by one Om

Prakash-Sarpanch of Village Dhigtania reached to the

house of Messo, they found both, Messo and Raj Bala,

missing from the house. They, therefore, went to the

house of Guddi (PW-9), who was living next to the

house of Messo. They noted that Guddi was weeping

and was in the state of shock.

8)When they inquired from her about the

whereabouts of Messo and Raj Bala, Guddi told them

that Sohan Lal and his four sons had come in the

night and murdered Messo and Raj Bala, burnt their

bodies in house and carried the remains of the dead

bodies and ashes in a cart driven by the tractor from

her house to an unknown place.

9)This led to the registration of FIR bearing No.197

(Ex-PA-1) dated 21.09.1996 by Dholi at Police Station

Nathusari Chopta naming Sohan Lal and his four

5

Page 6 sons (appellants herein) as accused persons for

committing the murder of her mother-Messo and

sister–Raj Bala. The police authorities then started

investigation, visited the spot, recorded the statements

of the witnesses, prepared the spot map, recovered

several articles from the spot and arrested the accused

persons. On being interrogated, the accused made

disclosure statements about the manner in which

ashes/bones of both the deceased were disposed of in

a nearby Canal known as-Sheranwali Canal and also

disclosed the place where the weapons used in

commission of the offence and tractor with cart were

kept. On such disclosure being made, the police made

recoveries of the articles at the instance of the

accused.

10)After completion of the investigation, the case

was committed to the Court of Sessions and the

accused persons were charged for commission of the

6

Page 7 offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 read

with Section 149 and 201 of the Indian Penal

Code,1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

11)On 07.08.1997, Om Parkash-one of the accused

escaped from police custody from Civil Hospital Sirsa.

Proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Criminal

Procedure Code,1973 (for short ‘the Code’) were

initiated against him. He was declared ‘Proclaimed

Offender’ and proceedings under Section 299 of the

Code were ordered to be taken up against him. The

trial of other accused, however, proceeded on merits.

12)The prosecution, in support of his case, examined

as many as 11 witnesses whereas the defence did not

choose to lead any evidence. Proceedings under

Section 313 of the Code were carried out. After

completion of the trial, the Trial Court (Additional

Sessions Judge, Sirsa), vide judgment dated

27.07.1998, convicted Sohan Lal, Ranbir @ Randhir,

7

Page 8 Ram Chander and Ram Kumar for the offences

punishable under Sections 148, 302/149 and

201/149 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of one year each under

Section 148 IPC. Ram Chander and Ranbir @ Randhir

to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302

IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default of

payment, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for a period of one year each. Sohan Lal and Ram

Kumar were sentenced to imprisonment for life under

Section 302/149 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-

each, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each.

All the four accused were sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each

for the offences punishable under Section 201/149

IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run

concurrently.

8

Page 9 13)After arrest of Om Parkash on 22.02.1999, a

separate trial was conducted against him and after its

completion, the Trial Court, by a separate judgment

dated 7/8.08.2000, convicted him for the offences

punishable under Sections 148, 302/149 and

201/149 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for one year under Section 148 IPC

imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000/- with

default clause under Section 302/149 IPC and

rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section

201/149 IPC. All the substantive sentences were

ordered to run concurrently.

14)Against the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 27.07.1998, Sohan Lal, Ram Chander,

Ram Kumar and Ranbir @ Randhir filed Criminal

Appeal No. 448-DB of 1998 before the High Court.

15)Against the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 7/8.9.2000, Om Parkash filed separate

9

Page 10 Criminal Appeal No. 395-DB of 2000 before the High

Court.

16)The appeals were heard together. By impugned

judgment dated 12.08.2008, the High Court dismissed

both the appeals. During the pendency of the appeals

before the High Court, Sohan Lal died, therefore,

appeal against him stood abated.

17)Aggrieved by the said judgment, all the accused

have filed these appeals by special leave before this

Court questioning the legality and correctness of their

conviction and sentence.

18)Heard Mr. Naresh Kaushik, learned counsel for

the appellants (accused) and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen

learned counsel for the respondent- State. We also

perused the written submissions submitted by the

learned counsel for the parties.

10

Page 11 19)Learned counsel for the appellants (accused)

while assailing the legality and correctness of the

impugned order, reiterated the same submissions

which were pressed in service though unsuccessfully

by the appellants before the two courts below resulting

in their conviction.

20)In substance, the submissions were that firstly,

the appellants were falsely implicated in the incident

inasmuch as none of the appellants were connected

with the commission of the offence in question in any

way so also their complicity in the commission of the

offence could not be established by the prosecution for

want of evidence against any of them.

21)The second submission was that neither the

motive for commission of the offence and nor the

presence of any of the appellants either jointly and

individually was proved at the time of the commission

of the offence by the prosecution and the evidence

11

Page 12 adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to

implicate the appellants for commission of the offence.

22)The third submission was that the two Courts

below erred in placing reliance on the evidence of the

so-called eye-witness-Guddi (PW-9) as according to the

learned counsel, her testimony, if scanned properly

would neither inspire confidence and nor will

command creditability due to her close relationship

with the deceased family.

23)The fourth submission was that apart from the

evidence of Guddi (PW-9), no independent eye-witness

to the incident was examined by the prosecution,

therefore, it is not safe to rely on the uncorroborated

testimony of Guddi (PW-9) for sustaining the

appellants’ conviction.

24)The fifth submission was that when the

prosecution claimed that on the strength of disclosure

statement of one accused, they recovered “Ashes and

12

Page 13 Bones" from the canal, this itself renders the case of

the prosecution wholly unacceptable because ashes

could never be recovered from canal.

25)The sixth submission was that it looked highly

improbable that no villager could witness the incident

except Guddi(PW-9). This, according to learned

counsel, is sufficient to hold that the prosecution

failed to establish the complicity of the appellants in

commission of the crime.

26)The seventh submission was that no expert

opinion was obtained to find out as to whether bones

recovered were human bones or animal bones?

27)It is basically these submissions, which were

elaborated by the learned counsel for the appellants

with reference to the evidence on record.

28)In reply, learned counsel for the respondent

supported the impugned order and contended that

13

Page 14 since both the Courts below, on proper appreciation of

evidence, have held that the appellants were involved

in the commission of the offence in question and

committed brutal murder of two innocent ladies,

mother and daughter, and further both the Courts

have given cogent reasons while rejecting their

submissions and hence there arises no reason to

interfere in the impugned order.

29)Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no

merit in the appeals.

30)At the outset, we may take note of one legal

principle consistently reiterated by this Court since

inception that it is not the function of this Court to

re-assess evidence and an argument on a point of fact

which did not prevail with the Courts below cannot

avail the appellants in this Court (see observation of

learned Judge – Saiyid Fazl Ali, J. while speaking for

14

Page 15 the Bench in the case of Lachhman Singh and others

vs State (AIR 1952 SC 167).

31)Here is a case where the Trial Court and the High

Court, on appreciating the entire oral evidence,

recorded categorical concurrent findings of fact against

the appellants (accused) about their complicity in

commission of crime in question which resulted in

killing of mother and her unmarried daughter.

32)Both the Courts below held that firstly, it were

the appellants who had come to the house of Messo

(mother) and threatened her that she (Messo) should

not pursue her daughter, Raj Bala's marriage with the

boy from Manak Diwan, otherwise both will not see the

sun the next day. Secondly, noticing that both did not

pay any heed to the threat, the appellants came to

Messo’s house in the midnight with a pre-determined

mind to eliminate Messo and Raj Bala. Thirdly, the

appellants accomplished their plan by mercilessly

15

Page 16 killing Messo and Raj Bala with the use of gandasa

when both were in fast asleep. Fourthly, the

appellants first caught hold of Messo and chopped her

head with Gandasa and then did the same to Raj Bala

and then put them on a cot and put mattresses and

wood sticks over their bodies and poured

kerosene/diesel and set their bodies to fire. Fifthly,

the appellants then removed the ashes and bones from

the place of occurrence in a tractor and all this was

witnessed by Guddi (PW-9) who was living as next door

neighbour of the deceased. Sixthly, Guddi (PW-9) was

a reliable eye-witness whose evidence did not suffer

from any infirmities or/and inconsistencies.

Seventhly, the ashes, human bones, plastic bags,

Gandasa used in execution of the offence were

recovered from the canal and house at the instance of

the respective appellants on the strength of individual

disclosure statements made during their interrogation.

Eighthly, the defence did not adduce any evidence to

16

Page 17 demolish the case of the prosecution and nor

statements of the accused made under Section 313 of

the Code, in any manner, could demolish the case of

the prosecution on any material points. Ninthly, the

case set up by the prosecution was proved with the aid

of evidence adduced by witnesses, namely, PW-1 to

PW-11.

33)As observed supra, the aforementioned nine main

findings of the Sessions Court were affirmed by the

High Court after appreciating the oral evidence. These

findings of fact being concurrent in nature are usually

binding on this Court. This Court, being the last

Court of appeal, does not re-visit and re-appreciate the

entire oral evidence de novo in its jurisdiction under

Article 136 of the Constitution unless there are strong

and prima facie reasons to do so pointing out therein

any apparent legal and jurisdictional error prejudicing

any rights of the accused.

17

Page 18 34)However, since this Court granted leave to file

appeal to the appellants against the impugned order of

the High Court and hence we considered it just and

proper to have a re-look to the evidence of material

witnesses with a view to find out whether the

concurrent findings of the two Courts below are based

on proper appreciation of evidence or any of these

findings call for any interference.

35)As mentioned above, the only eye-witness to the

incident in question is Guddi (PW-9). Both the Courts

below found her testimony to be natural, credible and

consistent.

36)Guddi (PW-9) is the real sister of the deceased

Messo and she was living next to the house of Messo.

She, in her evidence, narrated in detail her family tree

and their inter se relations including her relation with

the accused family.

18

Page 19 37)She stated that Sohan Lal-one of the accused

(since dead) was her husband's (Bhoop Singh’s) real

elder brother and the accused are Sohan Lal and his

sons. She stated that Sohan Lal and his sons

(appellants) had come to Messo's house in the

afternoon on the date of incident (incident had

occurred in midnight the same day) and held out a

threat to her and Raj Bala that marriage proposal of

her daughter with the boy from Manak Diwan should

not be materialized and if it is not cancelled then she

and her daughter will not see the sun the next day.

She stated that Sohan Lal gave this threat to Messo in

her presence and in presence of Dholi (PW-8) who had

come to Messo to extend help for engagement

ceremony of Raj Bala.

38)She stated that Messo on hearing the threat

asked Dholi-her daughter to go to her maternal uncle

19

Page 20 (Ram Sarup) - who was the resident of nearby village

and bring him with her, if possible.

39)She stated that Dholi immediately left to the

house of Ram Sarup and on reaching there she told

him about the incident. Dholi stayed back overnight

with Ram Sarup.

40)She then stated that during mid-night hours, she

heard some noise in the house of Messo. She,

therefore, woke up and came out to find out the cause

of noice. She stated that between her house and the

house of Messo, there is one common wall with

sufficient space, which enables anyone to peep

through easily in both the houses.

41)She stated that she came near to the joint wall

and through space in the wall saw that Ram Chander

(accused) and Randhir (accused) were holding

Gandasas in their hands whereas Sohan Lal (accused)

and Om Prakash (accused) had caught hold of Masso's

20

Page 21 hand and legs and Ram Chander (accused) with his

gandasa gave blow on Messo's neck, which completely

severed Messo's neck from her body.

42)She stated that Ram Kumar (accused) then

caught hold of Raj Bala who was on a separate cot and

Ranbir (accused) with his gandasa gave blow on Raj

Bala's throat due to which her neck was completely

severed from her body. The accused persons then put

both the bodies on one cot along with their severed

heads and put mattresses on the dead bodies. Sohan

Lal then put some wood sticks by the side of the cot

and poured two tins of diesel/kerosene on the cot and

set the cot ablaze with matchstick.

43)She stated that Ranbir (accused) then came to

her (Guddi‘s) house and took their tractor and camel

cart to Messo's house. He dumped ashes, bones and

other burnt material in the tractor and proceeded with

the tractor to an unknown place. She stated that

21

Page 22 before leaving, Ram Chander plastered the place of

occurrence with mud and cow-dung and cleaned the

place. She stated that she told about this incident to

Bhoop Singh but on hearing it, he ran away out of

fear.

44)She stated that next morning when Ram Sarup,

Dholi and Om Prakash-Sarpanch came, she narrated

the entire incident to them, which eventually led to

filing of FIR by Dholi immediately in the concerned

nearby Police Station naming therein the appellants as

the culprits of commission of the offence.

45)Dholi (PW-8) corroborated the evidence of Guddi

(PW-9) on material points such as (1) all the accused

visiting Messo's house and giving threat in her

presence to Messo and Raj Bala, (2) Raj Bala's

marriage proposal with a boy from Manik Dewan (3)

She having left to her uncle's place at the request of

her mother Messo to inform him about the incident (4)

22

Page 23 her family relations with the accused and with other

family members and lastly, what Guddi (PW-9) told her

about the entire incident and the manner in which it

was accomplished by the accused on her reaching the

house next day morning with Ram Sarup and Om

Prakash.

46)Ram Sarup (PW-10) also corroborated the version

of Guddi (PW-9) and Dholi (PW-8) on all material

points. He stated that when he along with Dholi and

Om Prakash went to Guddi, she was weeping and

frightened. On being consoled, she narrated the entire

incident (mentioned above) to them.

47)The evidence of the Investigating Officer

Hardawari Lal (PW-11) and Kiran Kumar (PW-7) who

was the Scientific Assistant (Forensic Science

Laboratory) proved that the blood stains were found on

the walls and earth and also fresh mud and cow-dung

was found on the walls and when it was removed,

23

Page 24 blood stains were noticed on the bricks of the wall.

Kiran Kumar (PW-7) also corroborated the existence of

joint wall with sufficient space available in the

common wall as stated by Guddi (PW- 9).

48)The evidence of Investigating Officer (PW-11) also

proved the recoveries of articles on the basis of

disclosure statements made by respective appellants

(accused). The seized articles were proved and

exhibited.

49)It is with this evidence, the question arises as to

whether the two Courts below were justified in placing

reliance on the evidence of Guddi (PW-9) for resting

the appellant's conviction?

50)On scanning the aforementioned evidence, we are

of the considered opinion that both the Courts below

were justified in accepting the evidence of Guddi

(PW-9) for resting the appellants’ conviction upon it.

We, while concurring with the reasoning and the

24

Page 25 conclusion of both the Courts below, give our reasons

infra. In our view, the following facts are proved with

the aid of evidence.

51)First, Guddi (PW-9) was next-door neighbour to

the house of both the deceased where the incident

took place. Second, she was closely related to the

deceased family and the family of the accused. Third,

she knew the accused persons and the family

members of the deceased very well much prior to the

date of incident being a part of the same families.

Fourth, she was fully aware of the marriage issue of

Raj Bala. Fifth, she was present at the time of threat

given by Sohan Lal and his sons (accused) to Messo.

Sixth, she was able to see the incident graphically due

to sufficient space available in the common wall.

Seventh, Scientific Assistant, Kiran Kumar (PW-7) on

inspection of the place of occurrence proved that the

common wall has space. He said " there was open

25

Page 26 space between this wall and the room". Eighth, it also

corroborates with the evidence of Hardawari

Lal(PW-11) and the spot map (EX-PU) of the place of

incidence that the wall and the open space therein did

exist; Ninth, Guddi's narration of entire incident is so

graphic that it looks natural. It also shows how

confidently she was able to narrate the role of every

accused in commission of the offence. Tenth, the

existence of blood stains on wall and earth coupled

with fresh mud and cow dung put on the walls/earth

duly proved by Hardawari Lal, Investigating

Officer(PW-11) and Kiran Kumar (PW-7) corroborates

Guddi's statement that "Ram Chander - one of the

accused before leaving the place of occurrence cleaned

the place with mud and cow-dung". Eleventh, it is not

possible to give description of an incident in such

graphic manner and that too by a middle aged

illiterate housewife unless she had actually seen such

incident and why should Guddi (PW-9) give evidence

26

Page 27 against the appellants and falsely implicate them when

there is no evidence to prove their previous animosity;

Twelfth, motive to eliminate the two deceased was

proved by Guddi against the appellants and lastly,

nothing could be brought out to shake her testimony

in cross-examination.

52)The submission of learned counsel for the

appellants that since Guddi (PW-9) was in close

relation with the deceased persons, she should not be

believed for want of evidence of any independent

witness, deserves to be rejected in the light of the law

laid down by this Court in Dalbir Kaur and Ors. vs.

State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 158, and Harbans

Kaur and Anr. vs. State of Haryana, (2005) 9 SCC

195, which lays down the following proposition:

“There is no proposition in law that relatives

are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. On

the contrary, reason has to be shown when a

plea of partiality is raised to show that the

witnesses had reason to shield actual culprit

and falsely implicate the accused.”

27

Page 28 53)In NamdeoVs.State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14

SCC150, this Court further held:

“38. ………. it is clear that a close relative

cannot be characterised as an “interested”

witness. He is a “natural” witness. His

evidence, however, must be scrutinised

carefully. If on such scrutiny, his evidence is

found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently

probable and wholly trustworthy, conviction

can be based on the “sole” testimony of such

witness. Close relationship of witness with

the deceased or victim is no ground to reject

his evidence. On the contrary, close relative

of the deceased would normally be most

reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely

implicate an innocent one.”

54)We follow and apply this well settled principle of

law for rejecting the submissions of learned counsel

for the appellants.

55)In the light of aforementioned twelve reasons, we

are of the view that Guddi (PW-9) was rightly held to

be an eye-witness and the two Courts rightly relied

upon her sworn testimony for sustaining the

appellants’ conviction.

28

Page 29 56)This takes us to the next argument of learned

counsel for the appellants. It was urged that the

alleged recovery of articles on the strength of

disclosure statement of the accused and in particular

the "ashes and the bones" from the canal is not

possible. We do not agree.

57)In our view, there is no evidence to prove the fact

as to whether the canal from where the recovery of

ashes and bones was made had any water therein or

not at the relevant time. We do not find that any

question was put to any witness on this issue and

secondly, no independent evidence was brought on

record to prove as to whether the canal was full of

water or had no water therein. In any event, one could

not dispute that bones were recovered from the canal.

In the absence of any evidence, which could otherwise

be led in any form, this submission at this stage is,

therefore, not acceptable.

29

Page 30 58)This takes us to the next argument of learned

counsel for the appellants. Learned Counsel urged

that why the prosecution did not examine any

independent witness from the village other then Guddi

(PW-9).

59)We find no merit in this submission for more

than one reason. First, no such argument was

advanced before the two courts below. Second, the

incident had taken place during midnight when all the

villagers were fast asleep. Third, no evidence was

adduced to prove that near the place of incident, there

were many houses and lastly, had the injury been

caused by the Gun Shot, it would have created some

noise in the nearby locality and attract the attention of

the villagers. Such was, however, not the case because

the weapon used in commission of the offence was

‘Gandasa’.

30

Page 31 60)In our considered opinion, the disclosure

statements made by the accused during their

interrogation on the basis of which the recoveries of

articles were made such as - gandasa, bones, ashes,

blood stained bricks and earth, tractor with cart, two

plastic cans smelling diesel oil, which were duly

proved by the Investigating Officer are sufficient to

sustain the conviction when it is examined in the

context of oral evidence. Merely because no expert

opinion was obtained to prove as to whether bones

recovered were human or animal bones, in our view,

would not weaken the case of prosecution in the light

of overwhelming evidence available on record to prove

the complicity of the appellants.

61)It is the consistent view of this Court that minor

discrepancies, even if noticed, would not affect the

prosecution case, if there is a sufficient independent

evidence to sustain the conviction. (See – Vijay @

31

Page 32 Chinee vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 8 SCC

191, Paras 23 & 23). In this case, the evidence

adduced was found sufficient to sustain the conviction

and we find no good ground to take a different view

from the one taken by the two Courts below and

concur with their findings and views by giving our own

reasons mentioned supra.

62)In view of foregoing discussion, the appeals are

found to be devoid of any merit. The appeals thus fail

and are accordingly dismissed. In case if any of the

appellants is on bail, his bail bond stands cancelled

and he is directed to be taken into custody forthwith to

undergo remaining period of sentence awarded to him

by the Sessions Court.

………..................................J.

[A.K. SIKRI]

.……...................................J.

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

New Delhi,

January 02, 2017

32