CHANDRA BHAWAN SINGH versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH on 1 May 2018

646

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2018] 5 S.C.R.

A

CHANDRA BHAWAN SINGH

v.

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

(Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2018)

BMAY 01, 2018

[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860:

s. 302/34 – Prosecution under – Of four accused –CCircumstantial evidence – Acquittal of one accused and convictionof the rest by trial court – High Court confirmed the conviction ofappellants-accused while acquitting the third accused – On appeal,held: The circumstances of the case set out by the High Court forholding the appellants-accused guilty, establish chain of events andbeing directly connected with the incident, establish involvement ofDthe accused beyond reasonable doubt – The story of suicide set upby the accused is unbelievable on the evidence on record – Theappellants-accused were required to explain the circumstances inwhich the deceased died, which they failed – One of the appellants-accused also failed to adduce any evidence to prove his plea ofEalibi – Conviction confirmed.

Constitution of India:

Art. 136 – Jurisdiction under – In criminal case – Held: Inexercise of jurisdiction u/Art. 136, courts should be slow in interferingwith concurrent findings of facts which are based on dueFappreciation of evidence – Court not to appreciate the evidence denovo unless prima facie shown that courts below did not considerrelevant piece of evidence, or there existed perversity or/andabsurdity in their findings.

Dismissing the appeals, the CourtG

HELD: 1. It is a settled principle of law that when the Courtsbelow have recorded concurrent findings against the accusedpersons which are based on due appreciation of evidence, thisCourt under Article 136 of the Constitution would be slow tointerfere in such concurrent findings and secondly would not H

appreciate the evidence de novo unless it is prima facie shownthat both the Courts below did not either consider the relevantpiece of evidence or there exists any perversity or/andabsurdity in the findings recorded by both the Courtsbelow etc. [Para 31] [652-C-D]

2. The Courts below properly appreciated the evidence andcame to a right conclusion that the appellants were responsiblefor commission of the offence of murder. [Para 30] [652-B]

3. There is evidence to prove the factum of demand of dowry.PW-1, the real brother of the deceased, was the complainant. Hisevidence was rightly relied on by the two Courts below for holdingthat the appellants were persistently making a demand of dowryfrom the deceased and her family members and they used toharass her for such cause. The testimony of PW-1 is natural andconsistent having no material contradiction, Therefore, there isno justification to disbelieve it. So far as the story of suicide setup by the appellants is concerned, it is wholly unbelievable onthe evidence brought on record. [Paras 33 and 34] [652-F-G]

4. The circumstances set out by the High Court for holdingthe appellants guilty cannot be faulted with. These circumstancesdo establish the chain of events and being directly connectedwith the incident in question, establish the involvement of theappellants in commission of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.The test laid down to prove the guilt by circumstantial evidencein the present case is fully satisfied by the circumstances againstthe appellants. [Para 37] [653-H; 654-A]

5. Both the appellants-accused in their statements recordedunder Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 failedto give any explanation when asked about the circumstances inwhich the incident occurred in their house. When the incidentadmittedly occurred in their house, the appellants were requiredto explain the circumstances in which the deceased died. They,however, failed to give any explanation. Appellant-accused ‘T’also failed to adduce any evidence to prove his plea of alibi.[Paras 39 and 40] [654-C-D, E]

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo. 654 of 2018.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo. 654 of 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.05.2014 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1114/1986

WITH

B

Criminal Appeal No. 655 of 2018.

Nagendra Rai, Sr. Adv., Shekhar Prit Jha, Akhand Pratap Singh,Ms. Aditi Mittal, Bahul Kalra, Ms. Meghna Sharma, Advs. for theAppellant.

CRatnakar Dash, Sr. Adv., Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, SameerSingh, Advs. for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.D2. These appeals are filed by the accused persons against the D2. These appeals are filed by the accused persons against thefinal judgment and order dated 20.05.2014 passed by the High Court ofJudicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.1114 of 1986 wherebythe High Court dismissed the appeal in respect of the appellants-accusedand affirmed the judgment and order dated 07.05.1986 passed by theAdditional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Sessions Trial No. 291 ofE1984.

3. In order to appreciate the issues involved in the appeals, it isnecessary to set out the facts of the case.

4. Four persons, namely, (1) Tribhuwan Singh (appellant), (2)FChandra Bhawan Singh (appellant) (3) Smt. Makoi Devi and (4) JwalaSingh were prosecuted for committing murder of one lady by name“Satyawati”.

5. The Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur by his judgment dated07.05.1986 in Sessions Trial No. 291 of 1984 acquitted one accused-GJwala Singh but convicted the remaining three accused. Tribhuwan Singhwas convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and sentenced him to undergoimprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default of paymentof fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Smt. Makoi Devi was convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and was H

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Chandra Bhawan Singhwas convicted under Section 32/34 IPC and was sentenced to undergoimprisonment for life and further convicted under Section 201 IPC andwas sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. All thesentences of Chandra Bhawan Singh would run concurrently.

6. The aforementioned three-convicted accused felt aggrieved oftheir respective conviction and sentence awarded by the AdditionalSessions Judge filed appeal in the High Court. The High Court, byimpugned judgment, allowed the appeal in respect of one accused –Smt. Makoi Devi and accordingly acquitted her from the charges leveledagainst her but dismissed the appeal in respect of remaining two accusedpersons, namely, (1) Tribhuwan Singh and (2) Chandra Bhawan Singhand accordingly confirmed their conviction and the sentence awardedby the Additional Sessions Judge.

7. The remaining two accused felt aggrieved by their respectiveconviction and award of sentence filed separate special leave petitionsin this Court.

8. So far as SLP(Crl.) No. 7049 of 2014 is concerned, it is filed byChandra Bhawan Singh whereas SLP(Crl.) No. 7664 of 2014 isconcerned, it is filed by Tribhuwan Singh.

9. In both these special leave petitions, the challenge is to theimpugned judgment of the High Court, which has confirmed theirconviction and sentence.

10. In short, the case of the prosecution is as under:

11. All the four accused named above are the members of onefamily. Smt. Makoi Devi is the mother of Tribhuwan Singh and ChandraBhawan Singh. In other words, Tribhuwan Singh and Chandra BhawanSingh are real brothers being the two sons of Smt. Makoi Devi.

12. The deceased-Satyawati was the wife of Tribhuwan Singh.Their marriage was performed in the year 1981. Satyawati stayed in hermatrimonial home with her husband for 8 days and then returned to herparents’ house.

13. It is the case of the prosecution that the members of Satyawatiin-laws family, which included the four accused named above, wereharassing her while she was staying in her in-laws house for not bringing A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Aany dowry in her marriage. The family members had been demanding“motor cycle” in dowry. Due to constant harassment given to her by theaforementioned four accused persons, it had become unbearable for herto stay in the house and, therefore, she returned to her parents’ houseand started living with her parents.

B14. On 15.03.1984, Jwala Singh and Chandra Bhawan Singh wentto Satywati’s parents’ house and brought Satyawati back to her in-lawshouse. On 18.03.1984 (after 3 days), Satyawati was found dead in herin-laws house. She died due to gun shot injuries.

15. Chandra Bhawan Singh-the elder brother of Tribhuwan SinghClodged a FIR in the Police Station, Kishanpur on the same day, i.e.,18.03.1984, informing therein that Satyawati committed suicide in thehouse by gun shot injuries and that her dead body was lying in thecourtyard of the house. One FIR was also lodged by village Pradhan. Itwas registered as FIR No. 30/1984 (GD No. 14/84) at PS Kishanpur.The brother of the deceased-Rajender (PW-1) lodged the FIR on theDsame day stating therein that all the four accused named above havekilled his sister because of non-fulfillment of their demand for dowry.

16. On 19/20.04.1984, all the four accused persons were arrested.In the investigation, the police recovered the Gun at the instance ofTribhuwan Singh from his house, which was alleged to be used inEcommission of the offence. The post mortem of the dead body wasperformed which disclosed that Satyawati was murdered. The policethen made further investigation, collected evidence, obtained ballisticreport from the experts and recorded the statements of the accusedpersons and other witnesses.

F

17. On 09.06.1984 the police filed Challan. The case wascommitted to the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur for trial. TheAdditional Sessions Judge framed charges against the four accusedpersons for commission of the offences punishable under Sections302/34 and 201 of IPC read with Section 4 of the DP Act. The prosecutionGexamined six witnesses to prove their case.

18. By order dated 07.05.1986, the Additional Sessions Judgeacquitted Jwala Singh finding no evidence against him but convictedTribhuwan Singh (husband), Smt. Makoi Devi (mother-in-law) andChandra Bhawan Singh (brother-in-law) and sentenced them to undergolife imprisonment for killing Satyawati.H

19. Thribhuwan Singh, Smt Makoi Devi and Chandra BhawanSingh felt aggrieved and filed appeal in the High Court at Allahabadagainst their conviction and sentence awarded by the Additional SessionsJudge.

20. By impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appealfiled by Tribhuwan Singh and Chandra Bhawan Singh and accordinglyupheld their conviction and sentence. However, the High Court acquittedSmt. Makoi Devi (mother-in-law) from all the charges finding no evidenceagainst her.

21. It is against this judgment, the accused Tribhuwan Singh andChandra Bhawan Singh have filed the present two appeals by way ofspecial leave in this Court.

22. So far as acquittal of Jwala Singh and Smt. Makoi Devi isconcerned, it has attained finality because the State did not file any appealin the High Court and nor in this Court.

23. Heard Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned senior counsel for theappellants(accused) and Mr. Ratnakar Dash, learned senior counsel forthe respondent(State).

24. Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned senior counsel for theappellants(accused) while assailing the legality and correctness of theimpugned judgment contended that firstly, the conviction of both theappellants, though concurrent in nature, is neither factually and nor legallysustainable.

25. In the Second place, he contended that since the entire caseof prosecution is founded on circumstantial evidence, it was necessaryfor the prosecution to have adduced evidence to prove the completechain of events. Learned counsel contended that there is no evidencemuch less sufficient evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove thechain of events leading to the guilt of committing the murder of Satyawatiby the appellants and hence the conviction is bad in law.

26. In the third place, learned counsel to support his secondsubmission took us through the evidence with a view to show that chainof events to prove the guilt qua the appellants is not established.

27. In the fourth place, learned counsel contended that thecircumstances appearing in the case from the evidence would show thatSatyawati committed suicide.

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A28. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent (State) supportedthe reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by both the Courts belowand prayed for dismissal of the appeals calling for no interference in theconcurrent findings of both the Courts below.

29. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalBof the record of the case, we find no merit in the appeals.

30. In our opinion, both the Courts below properly appreciated theevidence and came to a right conclusion that the appellants wereresponsible for commission of the offence of murder of Satyawati.

31. It is a settled principle of law that when the Courts belowChave recorded concurrent findings against the accused persons whichare based on due appreciation of evidence, this Court under Article 136of the Constitution of India would be slow to interfere in such concurrentfindings and secondly would not appreciate the evidence de novo unlessit is prima facie shown that both the Courts below did not either consider Dthe relevant piece of evidence or there exists any perversity or/andabsurdity in the findings recorded by both the Courts below etc.

32. We, however, made endeavour to peruse the evidence with aview to find out as to whether the concurrent findings of both the Courtsbelow have any kind of infirmity or/and whether the concurrent findingsEare capable of being legally and factually sustainable in law or need tobe reversed. Having gone through the evidence, we are of the view thatthe findings are legally and factually sustainable.

33. We find that there is evidence to prove the factum of demandof dowry. Rajender(PW-1) is the real brother of the deceased. He wasthe complainant. His evidence was rightly relied on by the two CourtsFbelow for holding that the appellants were persistently making a demandof dowry (motor cycle) from Satyawati and her family members andthey used to harass her for such cause. The testimony of PW-1 is naturaland consistent having no material contradiction, we, therefore, find nojustification to disbelieve it. The same deserves to be accepted.G34. So far as the story of suicide set up by the appellants isconcerned, it is, in our view, wholly unbelievable on the evidence broughton record.

35. First, it is not possible rather difficult for a person to commitsuicide by using DBBL Gun; Second, it has come in evidence that thereH

were as many as 7 gun shot injuries noticed on the body of Satyawati.In our view, It is not possible for a person to commit suicide by firingseven gun shots one after the other on his/her body with the use ofDBBL Gun in hands. However, one can commit suicide by firing oneshot with a pistol. Such was, however, not the case of the appellants.

36. Coming to the involvement of the appellants in commission ofthe offence, we find that the High Court relied on the followingcircumstances appearing against the appellants for holding them guiltyof commission of the offence of murder of Satyawati. Thesecircumstances are extracted hereinbelow:

“Here prosecution has discharged its part of the burdenby leading evidence of which it was capable by substantiatingthe fact (i) that there has been demand of dowry (ii) deceasedhas been taken to her in laws house (iii) at the time of death,deceased has been staying with her in laws and appellantsare the inmates of the house (iv) death in question has takenplace inside the house (v) injuries caused clearly reflectsthat it is case of murder (vi) story of suicide set up byappellant No.3 was not at all supported by medical evidence(vii) DBBL gun has been used in the commission of offenceand once chain of events are clearly linked up then in viewof Section 106 of Evidence Act, as young bride in questionhas been killed inside the house, then there iscorresponding burden on the inmates of the house to givecogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. Theinmates of the house cannot get away by simply keepingquiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premisethat the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon theprosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused tooffer any explanation. The principle is that when anincriminating circumstance is put to the accused and saidaccused does not offer any explanation which on the face ofit is found false or untrue, then the same becomes additionallink in the chain of circumstances to make it complete.”

37. In our considered opinion, the aforementioned sevencircumstances set out by the High Court for holding the appellants guiltycannot be faulted with. These seven circumstances do establish the chainof events and being directly connected with the incident in question, A

B

C

DEF

GH

Aestablish the involvement of the appellants in commission of the offencebeyond reasonable doubt. In our opinion, the test laid down to prove theguilt by circumstantial evidence in this case is fully satisfied by theaforementioned seven circumstances against the appellants.

38. That apart, we also find from the evidence that ChandraBBhawan Singh-the appellant herein was the first to lodge the FIR aboutthe incident wherein he stated that Satyawati has committed suicide.Apparently, this fact proves that first, he was present in the house whereSatyawati was found dead and second, he falsely stated that Satyawaticommitted suicide because he wanted to divert the attention of the policefrom the reality. As held above, no evidence was led to prove that it wasCa case of suicide.

39. We also find that both the accused (appellants herein) in theirstatements recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973 failed to give any explanation when asked about the circumstancesin which the incident occurred in their house. When the incident admittedlyDoccurred in their house, the appellants were required to explain thecircumstances in which Satyawati died. They, however, failed to giveany explanation.

40. We also find that Tribuhuwan Singh said that he was not presentin the house at the time of the occurrence and on that day he was inEAllahabad. He also failed to adduce any evidence to prove this fact.

41. We are, therefore, of the considered view that both the Courtsbelow rightly held the appellants guilty for commission of the offence inquestion and, therefore, we find no good ground to take a different viewthan what is taken by the two Courts below.

F

42. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals fail and areaccordingly dismissed.

G

Kalpana K. Tripathy

Appeals dismissed.

H