Page 1 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.357 OF 2008

State of Rajasthan ….Appellant

Versus

Ramanand …. Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. The respondent was convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 302

and 201 IPC for having committed murder of his wife Anita and daughter

Ekta and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under

Section 302 and 3 years RI for that under Section 201 IPC in Sessions Case

No.62 of 2000. In DB Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2002 preferred by the

respondent, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur by its

judgment and order dated 07.03.2006 acquitted him of the charges under

Sections 302 and 201 IPC but convicted him under Section 306 IPC and

Page 2 2

sentenced him to undergo 5 years RI, which judgment is under challenge in

this appeal by Special Leave.

2.On 21.09.2000 at about 9:11 p.m. a report Ext. D-1 was lodged by the

respondent to the following effect:-

“To

The S.H.O.

P.S. Patan

Sir,

Most respectfully I submit that my wife burnt to death this

evening on 5.30 p.m. I was at my shop and my brother was also

there. My mother and younger brother’s wife had gone to our

house in Bihar. My wife was half mad. She was burnt to death.

When the smoke arose in the house and sounds of the crying

came out of the house, the neighbour came running to my shop

and informed me. I went to the house, went up the stairs and

pushed the door open. I saw my wife and daughter were burnt to

death. The above report is produced. My marriage took place

some 10 years ago on 21.09.2000.

Sd/-

Yours

Ramanand Agrawal

S/o Shri Vishashwar Dayal

R.S. Dabla”

3.The aforesaid report was registered in the Case Diary and appropriate

steps under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were taken by PW14 Tulsi Ram who at the

relevant time was Incharge of Police Station Patan. On the next day at about

6:15 a.m. a written report Ext. P-2 was received from PW2 Rakesh Agrawal,

Page 3 3

brother of deceased Anita that his sister and niece were burnt to death; that

his sister was being harassed for dowry and that the respondent and his

family members were responsible for the deaths of his sister and niece.

4.The report Ext. P-2 was received by PW15 ASI Rajendra Singh,

pursuant to which crime was registered and investigation was undertaken.

Inquest Reports Exts. P-6 and P-7 were prepared regarding the bodies of

Anita and Ekta and they were sent for autopsy. Photographs of the bodies

Exts. P-14 to P-19 were also taken and site plan Ext. P-21 at the place of

occurrence was also prepared. The post-mortem on the bodies was

conducted by a Board consisting of three doctors. As regards Anita, the

report Ext. P-13 had following relevant observations:-

“Fairly built & nourished, P.M. lividity present on back of body.

R.M. present all over the body. Partially burnt clothes are

present on body. No smell like kerosene like substance. The

whole body has burns (Post mortem in nature) except back of

trunk and hips. Burns limited upto skin only. Hair of head &

pubic area are partially burnt and axillary hair are totally burnt.

Face is swollen. Tongue is protruded-swollen. Eyes are partially

open conjuctive having patechial hemorrhage. Both hands are

clinched. Bloody froth is coming out of both nostrils and

mouth.”

“In the opinion of the medical board the cause of death is

Asphyxia due to strangulation (throatling)

- Burns are post-mortem in nature as there is no blister

formation, no line of redness and no signs of inflammation.”

The report Ext. P-12 regarding Ekta made following observations:-

Page 4 4

“Fairly built & nourished, P.M. lividity present on back of Body,

R.M. present all over body. Partially burnt clothes are present on

body. No smell like kerosene, like substance. The whole body

has burns (P.M. in nature) except back of trunk and hips. Burns

limited upto skin only. Hair of head burnt partially. Face is

swollen. Tongue is protruded-swollen. Eyes are partially open.

Conjuctive having patechial hemorrhage. Both hands are

clinched. Bloody froth is coming out of both nostrils and

mouth.”

“In the opinion of the Medical Board the cause of death is

Asphyxia due to strangulation (throating). Burns are post

mortem in nature, as there is no blister formation, notice of

redness and no sign of inflammation.”

5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against six

persons including the present respondent. The charges were framed against

the respondent, his mother Narangi Devi and brother Vinod Kumar for the

offences under Sections 498A, 302/34, 201 IPC while his other brothers

Mukesh Kumar, Moolchand and Mahesh Kumar were charged for the

offences under Section 201/511 IPC. They were tried in the court of

Additional Sessions Judge, Neemka Thana, in Sessions Case No.62 of 2000.

The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses. PWs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, namely,

father, brother, mother, cousin and brother-in-law respectively of deceased

Anita did not support the case of prosecution as regards demands of dowry or

harassment. PW7, Nandlal, neighbour also turned hostile but in

cross-examination stated that when the cries were heard coming from the

Page 5 5

house, he was amongst the persons who had gone to the house and opened the

door. According to him the door was bolted from inside. PW10 Dr. Surendra

Kumar Meena, one of the members of the Board which conducted

post-mortem proved report Exts. P-12 and P-13 and stated that the cause of

death was asphyxia because of strangulation and that Anita and Ekta were

done to death first and thereafter their bodies were sought to be set on fire.

PW12 Mahesh Sharma, photographer proved photos Exts.P-14 to P-19.

PW14 Sub-Inspector Tulsi Ram in answer to queries in the cross-examination

stated, “Before the registration of First Information Report, Ramanand had

given me an application. This application is attached with the case diary.

Aforesaid application was made under Section 174 of Cr.P.C, which is

Ext.D-1”. Similarly PW15, Sub-Inspector Rajendra Singh in his

cross-examination stated; “Before going to spot report Ext. D-1 had already

been received. The report was submitted before S.H.O.”

6.After considering the material on record including the medical

evidence, the trial court found that both Anita and Ekta were killed by

strangulation and that the case was of culpable homicide. As regards the

involvement of the accused in the crime in question, it was observed that

there was nothing on record to suggest the involvement of accused

Nos.2 to 6. Further, all the relations of deceased Anita having turned hostile

Page 6 6

and not supported the case of prosecution as regards demands of dowry, no

offence under Section 498A was found to be have been established. The trial

court further observed that motive for the crime was also not established and

in any case the death of Anita had occurred 10 years after the marriage.

While acquitting rest of the accused, the trial court convicted the respondent

under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced him to suffer life

imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and to suffer three years imprisonment

under Section 201 IPC.

7.The respondent, being aggrieved filed DB Criminal Appeal No.20 of

2002 in the High Court which found that charge under Section 302 IPC was

not established against the respondent. However, it was of the view that the

circumstances on record clearly showed that the respondent was guilty of the

offence under Section 306. Thus, while acquitting the respondent of the

charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC it convicted him under Section 306

IPC. The respondent having remained in custody for more than five years

and four months, the sentence was reduced by the High Court to the period

already undergone.

8.This appeal, at the instance of State of Rajasthan challenges the

correctness of the decision of the High Court. Relying on the decision of

Page 7 7

this Court in Sumer Singh v. Surajbhan Singh

1

Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain,

learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent contended that he was

entitled to submit that the respondent ought to be acquitted of all the

charges.

9.The medical evidence on record is very clear and precise that deaths

were as a result of strangulation. Having gone through the post-mortem

report, the testimony of PW10 Dr. Surendra Kumar Meena and the

photographs Exts.P14 to P19, it is very clear that the deaths of Anita and

Ekta were not as a result of burn injuries. They died of strangulation and

their bodies were sought to be set afire in order to create an impression as if

they had died of burn injuries. The finding by the trial court was therefore

completely correct. It is impossible to assume how Anita could have

strangulated herself and then attempted to set herself afire. The view taken

by the High Court is, therefore, wholly unjustified. Consequently there

could not have been conviction of the respondent under Section 306 IPC.

10.The question then arises whether the respondent was guilty of the

offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 201 IPC. The fact that the

deaths are as a result of culpable homicide is beyond any doubt but the

1

(2014) 7 SCC 323

Page 8 8

question is whether the respondent could be said to be author of the crime.

The entire case of the prosecution on this count rests purely on

circumstantial evidence. It is true that the deaths have occurred in a room

occupied by the respondent along with wife, Anita and daughter Ekta. But

no witness has been examined to suggest that the respondent was at or

around his residence at the relevant time. The marriage was more than 10

years old and as such no statutory presumption on any count could be

drawn, more particularly, when none of the prosecution witnesses had

supported the case of prosecution as regards demands of dowry and

harassment. Apart from strangulation marks nothing was found in the

post-mortem report regarding any other bodily injury. The absence of any

evidence as regards dowry or related harassment also nullifies the element

of presence of any motive on part of the respondent. None of the

prosecution witnesses alleged anything against the respondent nor are there

any other supporting circumstances such as discovery of any relevant fact.

11.We are, therefore, left with the only material, namely Ext.D-1 which

was the reporting made by the respondent. It undoubtedly shows that the

respondent himself had opened the door and found the bodies of Anita and

Ekta lying with injuries. In the face of Ext.D-1 it is not possible to accept

the assertion that the door was locked from inside and was pushed open by

Page 9 9

PW7 and others. Locking of door from inside would have been consistent

with the theory of suicide but that theory stood demolished as a result of

medical evidence. We are, therefore, persuaded to accept what emerges

from Ext.D-1 that the respondent himself had opened the door and found the

bodies having burnt.

12.Relying on Section 162 Cr.P.C. Mr. Jain, learned senior Advocate

submitted that Ext.D-1 could not be relied upon and read against the

respondent. The terms of Section 162 are quite clear and govern cases where

statements are made to a police officer “in the course of an investigation”

under Chapter XII of Cr.P.C. Statement Ext.D-1 was neither given in the

course of an investigation, nor could it be termed as a confession. Further,

the cross-examination of PWs14 and 15 would show that the respondent

stood by and relied upon that statement. We do not see any difficulty why

statement Ext.D-1 could not be read in evidence.

13.However, that by itself does not establish beyond any doubt that it

was the respondent alone who was responsible for having caused the deaths

of Anita and Ekta. Even if the circumstance emerging from Ext.D-1 is taken

to be against the respondent, that by itself without any connecting material

on record, is not sufficient to bring home the case against the respondent.

Page 10 10

14. Mr. Jain, learned Senior Advocate is right in his submission that in a

case where the prosecution is coming up against the acquittal of the accused

and is praying for conviction on a graver charge, the accused is entitled to

plead for acquittal. While considering similar plea for acquittal, though this

Court negated the plea on facts, the legal position was summed up by this

Court in Chandrakant Patil v. State

2

as under:

“7. Powers of the Supreme Court in appeals filed under Article

136 of the Constitution are not restricted by the appellate

provisions enumerated under the Code of Criminal Procedure

or any other statute. When exercising appellate jurisdiction, the

Supreme Court has power to pass any order. The aforesaid legal

position has been recognized by a Constitution Bench of this

Court in Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh

3

and later

followed in a series of decisions (vide Arunachalam v. P.S.R.

Sadhanantham

4

, Delhi Judicial Service Assn. v. State of

Gujarat

5

).

….

9. It is now well nigh settled that Supreme Court’s powers

under Article 142 of the Constitution are vastly broad-based.

That power in its exercise is circumscribed only by two

conditions, first is, that it can be exercised only when Supreme

Court otherwise exercises its jurisdiction and the other is that

the order which Supreme Court passes must be necessary for

doing complete justice in the cause or matter pending before

it…………”

2

(1998) 3 SCC 38

3

AIR 1954 SC 520

4

(1979) 2 SCC 297

5

(1991) 4 SCC 406

Page 11 11

15. In view of medical evidence on record, the deaths could never be

termed as a case of suicide and consequently the conviction of the

respondent under Section 306 was wholly unjustified. At the same time

there is nothing on record to conclusively establish that the respondent was

the author of the crime. The circumstances on record do not rule out every

other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. However strong the

suspicion be, in our view, the respondent is entitled to benefit of doubt and

cannot be convicted under Section 302 IPC.

16. Thus, while rejecting this appeal, we acquit the respondent of the

charge under Section 306 IPC. The appeal is disposed of in these terms.

………………………J.

(Adarsh Kumar Goel)

……………………… J.

(Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi,

April 11, 2017