LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

It is, thus, clear that the extra judicial confession of Sunil Rai could not be fastened upon the other two appellants for holding them guilty of murder and the High Court was quite wrong in using the confessional statement of Sunil Rai as a circumstance against the other two appellants. 38. Recovery of the bloodstained jacket of Sunil Rai, the third circumstance obviously does not relate to appellant nos.2 and 3 in any 18 manner. Equally, the theft of the money and clothes of Sunil Rai would be no motive for the other two accused to assault Dile Ram, much less to kill him. 39. Thus, seen for any angle the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. The judgments and orders of the High Court and the trial court are completely unsustainable. The two judgments are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges and are directed to be released forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.


                                                                              REPORTABLE


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1254-1255   OF 2011

               (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.7110-7111 of 2010)




Sunil Rai @ Paua & Ors.                                                     .......Appellants


                                              Versus


Union Territory, Chandigarh                                                 .......Respondent





                                        J U D G M E N T


AFTAB ALAM, J.





1.      Leave granted.


2.      The three appellants are serving life sentences for committing murder


of one Dile Ram. They were never on bail and have, thus, completed over


ten years of incarceration. We, therefore, intended to grant leave in the case


and release the appellants on bail. But, the counsel for the respondent stated


that   once   released   on   bail   it   will   be   almost   impossible   to   get   hold   of   the


appellants.   We,   accordingly,   proceeded   to   hear   the   case   on   merits   at   the


stage of special leave itself and at the conclusion of hearing we are dismayed


                                                 2



to   find   that   the   appellants   were   convicted   and   sentenced   on   completely


insufficient evidence.


3.      The   appellants   are   migrant   workers   who   came   to   Chandigarh   from


different parts of the country in search of livelihood and were trying to eke


out a living by working as rickshaw pullers. Appellant no.1, Sunil Rai alias


Paua (accused no.1) had his money and clothes stolen by someone breaking


open the lock of the box under the passenger seat of the rickshaw and the


quarrel that took place, as a result of it, is said to be at the root of the alleged


offence.


4.      According   to   the   prosecution   case,   on   March   29,   2001   at   about


8:30 p.m. Arun Kumar (PW-14), Shailendra Kumar Pandey (PW-9) and one


Jaspreet   Singh   alias   Chikna   were   present   near   the   GPO,   Sector   17,


Chandigarh.   Appellant   no.2,  Sher  Bahadur   alias  Sheru   (accused   no.2)  was


also   present   there.   At   that   time   Sunil   Rai   and   appellant   no.3,   Ram   Lal


(accused no.3) came there. Sunil Rai was agitated as his money and clothes


were   stolen.   He   accused   Sher   Bahadur   of   committing   the   theft   and   an


altercation   took   place   between   them.   Sher   Bahadur   told   Sunil   Rai   that   he


had   not   stolen   his   money   or   the   other   articles   and   it   might   have   been   the


work   of   Dile   Ram.   He   also   told   Sunil   Rai   that   he   would   make   Dile   Ram


return his money and clothes. It was at this stage that Dile Ram also arrived


                                               3



at the scene coming from the side of Jagat Cinema. Sunil Rai caught hold of


Dile   Ram   by   his   neck   and   asked   him   to   return   his   money   and   clothes


otherwise   he   would   kill   him.  A   scuffle   took   place   between   Sunil   Rai   and


Dile Ram but the latter got himself freed and ran away from there. The three


accused went after him yelling and shouting that they would not spare him.


12   hours   later,   at   about   8:30   in   the   morning   of   March   30,   2001,   an


unidentified person was found lying in a badly injured  condition at a spot


near the local bus stand on the rear side of Neelam Cinema,  situate at the


sector   17   market.   There   were   injuries   on   his   head   and   face.   At   the   spot


where he lay there was a pouch of liquor (Ex. P32), a piece of brick (Ex.


P1), a piece of stone (Ex. P2) and another piece of hard concrete. The blood


flowing from the injuries had stained the earth at the spot, a sample of which


was collected and produced in court as Ex. P3.


5.      The injured was sent to hospital where he died. He was later identified


as Dile Ram who, according to the prosecution, was last seen the previous


evening,   fleeing   away   with   the   appellants   in   pursuit   yelling   and   shouting


threats at him.


6.      The three accused were put on trial for the murder of Dile Ram before


the   Sessions   Judge,   Chandigarh,   who   by   judgment   dated   June   12,   2006


passed in Sessions Case no.02 of July 30, 2001 convicted all of them under


                                             4



section 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code and by orders dated June


13 & 15, 2006, sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine


of Rs.5,000/- each with the direction that in default of payment of fine they


would undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. The appellants went to the


High   Court   in   two   separate   appeals,   one   by   Sunil   Rai   (Criminal   Appeal


no.580-DB   of   2006)   and   the   other   by   the   other   two   appellants   (Criminal


Appeal no.523-DB of 2006). Both the appeals were heard together and were


dismissed   by   a   division   bench   of   the   High   Court   by   judgment   and   order


dated March 5, 2008. The matter is now before this Court in appeal by grant


of special leave.


7.     From the ante mortem injuries on the body of Dile Ram as coming to


light from the medical evidence and the objective findings at the spot where


the body was found lying, it is quite clear that his death was homicidal. But,


the question remains regarding the culpability of the three appellants.


8.     It may be stated at the outset that there is no ocular evidence of the


commission   of   the   offence   and   the   prosecution   case   is   based   entirely   on


circumstantial   evidence.   There   are   four   circumstances   relied   upon   by   the


prosecution and accepted by the trial court and the High Court to hold the


appellants guilty of the offence. These are as under:


                                                  5



       I.   The   deceased   was   last   seen   being   chased   by   the   appellants


       yelling   at   him   and   shouting   that   they   would   not   spare   him


       (paragraphs 20 and 21 of the High Court judgment).


       II.   Sunil   Rai   made   an   extra   judicial   confession   before   PW-10,


       Chander Shekhar, President of the Rickshaw Pullers' Union telling


       him that he along with Sher Bahadur and Ram Lal hit Dile Ram


       with   brickbats   and   stones   at   about   9:00pm   in   the   night   between


       March   29   and   30,   2001,   causing   injuries   to   him   that   led   to   his


       death (paragraphs 22, 23 and 24 of the High Court judgment).


       III. The recovery of the blood-stained jacket (Ex. P8) of Sunil Rai,


       appellant no.1 from under the seat of the rickshaw on the basis of


       the disclosure statement (Ex. PU) made by him and that was seized


       under   seizure   memo   (Ex.   PV)   (paragraph   27   of   the   High   Court


       judgment).


       IV.  There  was  motive  for  the  accused  to  beat   and  even  kill   Dile


       Ram (paragraph 25 of the High Court judgment).


9.         Let   us   now   examine   the   evidences   in   support   of   each   of   the   four


circumstances enumerated above.


10.    On the issue of last seen, the prosecution examined Shailendra Kumar


Pandey as PW-9, Arun Kumar as PW-14 and Harish Kumar Bansal as PW-


                                                            6



15. Though Jaspreet Singh had also been cited earlier as one of the witnesses


on this point, he was not examined before the Court.


11.       PW-9,   in   course   of   his   examination-in-chief   stated   that   as   he   (Dile


Ram) was able to free himself from the hold of Sunil Rai:


          "Dile   Ram   ran   towards  Jagat   Theatre.   Pauya   and   Sheru   and

          Ram Lal ran after Dile Ram."

         

In cross examination he stated as follows:


          "Dile Ram went towards  Neelam Theatre  whereas Sheru and

          Pauya went towards Jagat theatre."


In reply to a question by the court, he said:


          "Chikna and Arun ran towards Jagat theatre. Pauya, Sheru and

          Ram Lal ran after the deceased towards Neelam theatre."


                                                                               (emphasis added)


12.       It needs to be recalled here that the spot where Dile Ram was found


next morning lying in an injured condition, was near the local bus stand, on


the rear side of Neelam Cinema. It has also come on record that the place


where   the   quarrel   took   place   between   the   accused   and   the   Dile   Ram   and


from where Dile Ram ran away, allegedly being chased by them, is at a large


square and Neelam theatre and Jagat theatre are at its two opposite ends, at a


distance   of   about   1km   from   each   other.   Sub-Inspector,   Ramesh   Chand


Sharma, PW-17 in his deposition said:


                                             7



        "... It is correct that if one comes from Jagat Theatre and goes

        to   Neelam   Theatre   he   has   to   pass   police   post   of   Neelam

        Chowki. Subway of Neelam is at a distance of 50 yards from

        the   police   post.   Some   one   always   remains   at   police   post   of

        Neelam.   After   8/9p.m.   only   1/2   persons   remain   in   the   police

        post. It is wrong to say that 12 persons remain deputed at the

        police post...."




13.     Thus, the first statement of PW-9 suggests that the deceased and the


accused   had   gone   in   the   direction   completely   opposite   to   where   his   body


was found 12 hours later. His second statement is that the deceased and the


accused  had  gone in opposite directions.  His  third statement,  in answer to


the court question, is of course that the deceased and the accused had gone in


the direction of Neelam Cinema. It is also to be noted that in his first two


statements he only mentions the names of accused nos.1 and 2, that is, Sunil


Rai and Sher Bahadur but does not name Ram Lal whom he mentions only


in his third statement in reply to the question by the court.


14.     The High Court has tried to explain the vacillating statements of PW-


9 by observing as follows:


        "It appears that Shailender Kumar Pandey, PW9, inadvertently

        made  a statement  that Dile Ram (deceased) ran towards Jagat

        Cinema,   instead   of   Neelam   Cinema   and   the   accused   chased

        him.   Such   a   minor   discrepancy,   cannot   be   given   any   weight,

        since a period of more than one year, and four months, from the

        date   of   altercation,   referred   to   above,   had   lapsed   when

        Shailender   Kumar   Pandey   PW9   appeared   in   the   court   as   a

        witness."


                                                   8



15.     To   our   mind   the   vacillations   in   the   deposition   of   PW-9   cannot   be


brushed aside as "minor discrepancy" especially when it is to form the basis


for life sentences to three persons.


16.     With all the inconsistencies, on the issue of last seen PW-9 happens to


be the best prosecution witness and the position becomes far worse when we


come to the other two witnesses. PW-14 was first examined on January 14,


2003. In course of his examination-in-chief, he stated as follows:


        "... all of a sudden Diley Ram freed himself from the clutches

        of Pauya and ran towards Neelam Cinema located in sector 17.

        All the three accused i.e. Pauya alias Sunil Rai, Sheru and Ram

        Lal also chased Diley Ram and as they were chasing they said

        they will kill him...."


17.     His cross examination did not take place on that date but it was done


later on April 8, 2003. In cross examination he stated as follows:


        "... The deceased was under the influence of liquor on the day

        of   occurrence   and   some   others   had   also   taken   liquor.   It   is

        correct   that  Dilay   Ram  was  insisting   for  more   liquor  whereas

        the others were saying that they will not consume liquor. Dilay

        Ram was demanding money for buying more liquor. Then they

        all   left   that   place.  Dilay   Ram   left   towards   Neelam   theatre

        and   the   accused   present   in   the   court   went   towards   Jagat

        theatre...."

                                                                                  (emphasis added)


18.         After  his cross examination,  the prosecution declared  him `hostile'


and   filed   a   petition   seeking   permission   to   cross   examine   him.   The   court


allowed the petition by order dated July 11, 2003 and granted permission to


                                                9



the prosecution to cross examine PW-14, whereupon his cross examination


by the prosecution took place on September 18, 2003. In this round he again


went back to his earlier statement and stated as follows:


        "... Dilay Ram ran towards Neelam Theatre and all the accused

        present in the court today ran after him...


        ...   I   say   that   deceased   ran   towards   Neelam   theatre   and   the

        accused followed him. It is correct that earlier I had mentioned

        in my statement regarding Jagat Theatre."


19.     The only explanation for these contrary statements appears to be that


each time during the gap between his depositions in court he came under the


influence of the one or the other side and made the statements to please the


respective sides. To us, he is not a trustworthy witness and we are unable to


place any reliance on his testimony.


20.     PW-15 did not at all support the prosecution case on the point of last


seen   and   he   did   not   even   identify   the   accused   present   in   court.   He   was


declared   hostile   by   the   prosecution.   There   is   one   thing,   however,   quite


significant   about   PW-15.   In   cross   examination   by   the   defence,   it   was


suggested that he was a tout and a stock witness for the police. In reply to


the suggestion, he stated as under:


        "... It is wrong to say that I am a police tout. It is correct that I

        have been shown as a witness in case FIR.52 dt.12.8.2K under

        NDPS   Act.   It   is   correct   that   I   also   appeared   as   a   prosecution

        witness   registered   under   NDPS   Act   under   FIR   No.228

        dt.15.5.2000.   It   is   correct   that   both   these   cases   were


                                               10



        investigated   by   S.I.   Ramesh   Chand.   It   is   correct   that   the   spot

        where the injured was running does not have any light point. I

        have not seen any person hitting the injured."


21.     Ramesh Chand Sharma, S.I. was the investigating officer of the case


before the investigation was taken over by DSP Arjun Singh Jaggi, PW-20.


Ramesh Chand Sharma was examined in the case as PW-17.


22.     On a careful consideration of the evidences of PWs 9, 14 and 15, we


are   unable   to   see   how   the   accused   can   be   said   to   be   connected   with   the


commission  of  the  offence  on  the   basis  of the  quarrel   that  is  said   to  have


taken place in the evening of March 29, 2001 between Sunil Rai and Dile


Ram. On the basis of the depositions of PWs 9 and 14 what can be said to


have been established is only that while they were all present near the GPO,


Sector   17,   a   quarrel   and   a   scuffle   had   taken   place   between   Sunil   Rai   and


Dile   Ram   whom   he   accused   of   stealing   his   money   and   clothes.   But   the


further story that when Dile Ram freed himself from the grip of Sunil Rai


and ran away from there to-wards Neelam Cinema he was pursued by all the


accused   who   were   shouting   that   they   would   not   spare   him   is   completely


unacceptable on the basis of their evidences. The failure to establish that part


of   the   story   leaves   a   wide   gap   in   the   prosecution   case   and   weakens   it


considerably.


                                                11



23.       Coming now, to the extra judicial confession said to have been made


by Sunil Rai before Chander Shekhar, President, Rickshaw Pullers' Union,


Sunil   Rai,   in   his   statement   under   section   313   of   the   Code   of   Criminal


Procedure,   of   course,   denied   having   made   any   confessional   statement.


Chander  Shekhar  was  examined as   PW-10.  In  the examination-in-chief  he


stated that on April 1, Sunil Kumar went to him at about 3 in the afternoon


and disclosed  that he along with some  others had committed  a blunder by


killing Dile Singh in course of a fight. He added that Sunil disclosed to him


that Jaspreet Singh and Sher Bahadur had also joined him in assaulting the


deceased.


24.       It is, thus, evident that in course of his examination-in-chief, he was


trying to implicate Jaspreet Singh (who was not an accused in the case) and


was trying to save Ram Lal who, according to the prosecution, was accused


no.3.


25.       At that stage he was declared hostile and on being cross examined by


the   prosecution,   he   said   that   Sunil   had   told   him   that   he   along   with   Sher


Bahadur and Ram Lal had caused injuries to Dile Ram by hitting him with


brickbats and stones.


26.       In   further   cross   examination   by   the   defence,   he   admitted   that   Sunil


was   not   known   to   him   personally   but   all   rickshaw   pullers   were   known   to


                                              12



him as he was the President of one of the three Unions of Rickshaw Pullers


of Chandigarh. In cross examination by the defence, he once again replaced


Ram Lal by Jaspreet Singh and stated that Sunil Rai had disclosed to him


that he along with Sher Bahadur and Jaspreet Singh had thrown stones at the


deceased   causing   injuries   to   him   leading   to   his   death.   Evidently,   PW-10


does not have much regard for truthfulness.


27.     Admittedly, the alleged confessional statement was oral and it was not


recorded   in   writing.   Admittedly,   Sunil   Rai   had   no   personal   acquaintance,


much   less   any   intimacy   with   PW-10.   An   extra   judicial   confessional


statement   made   orally   before   a   person   with   whom   the   maker   of   the


confession has no intimate relationship is not a very strong piece of evidence


and in any event it can only be used for corroboration (See  S. Arul Raja  v.


State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 8 SCC 233 paragraphs 48-56). In this case with


PW- 10 appearing particularly anxious to implicate Jaspreet Singh in place


of   Ram   Lal,   it   further   loses   any   credibility.   Further,   in   the   confessional


statement allegedly made before PW-10 there is an inherent improbability.


The "disclosure" made by Sunil Rai before PW-10 did not indicate the place


where the assault on Dile Ram took place but it gave the time of the assault


as   9.00pm.   In   the   evidence   of   PW-17   it   has   come   that   Neelam   Police


Chowki is at a distance of 50 yards from the Neelam sub-way. The police


                                             13



post is naturally manned twenty four hours even though, according to PW-


17, after 8-9 pm only one or two persons remain on the post. The occurrence


took place on March 29. At the end of March, 9.00pm is not a very late hour


when an occurrence of this kind taking place near the local bus stand and the


parking place for rickshaws, behind a cinema theatre and at a distance of no


more than 50 yards should normally go completely unnoticed by any one,


including the policemen at the police post.


28.     For   the   aforesaid   reasons   we   find   it   impossible   to   rely   upon   the


evidence of PW-10 and, thus, goes the extra judicial oral confession by Sunil


Rai.


29.     This leaves us with the remaining two circumstances,  that is to say,


the recovery of the bloodstained jacket of Sunil Rai from under the seat of a


rickshaw   and   motive.   According   to   the   report   of   the   Central   Forensic


Science Laboratory (Ext. PA) the pair of pants, shirt, vest, and under-pants


taken off from the body of Dile Ram were stained with human blood of  'B'


group; the blood group of the sample of blood taken from the deceased was


also `B'. And the stains on the jacket recovered from under the seat of the


rickshaw were also of the same group of human blood. The report  further


indicated that though there were stains of human blood on the piece of brick


and the sample of earth collected from the spot where the body of Dile Ram


                                               14



was   found   it   was   not   possible   to   ascertain   the   blood   group.   The   piece   of


concrete and the stone piece had no blood stains.


30.     No effort was made to take the blood sample of Sunil Rai and it is not


known what is his blood group. Moreover, the jacket was recovered from a


rickshaw standing out in the open where it was accessible to anyone. In the


aforesaid circumstances, the recovery of the bloodstained jacket, on its own


is a circumstance too fragile to bear the burden of the appellants' conviction


for murder.


31.     Likewise, the fact that Sunil Rai had got his money and clothes stolen


and he believed that Dile Ram had committed the theft, normally, cannot be


said to make out sufficient motive for him to kill Dile Ram. In any event,


motive alone can hardly be a ground for conviction.


32.     On the materials on record, there may be some suspicion against the


accused   but   as   is   often   said   suspicion,   howsoever,   strong   cannot   take   the


place   of   proof.   We,   therefore,   find   and   hold   that   the   conviction   of   the


appellants   is   based   on   completely   insufficient   evidence   and   is   wholly


unsustainable.


33.     It is seen above that the quality of the prosecution evidence is too poor


to satisfactorily establish any of the first three circumstances for holding the


appellants   guilty   of   the   offence   of   murder.   As   none   of   the   three


                                               15



circumstances were sufficiently proved, there is no question of taking them


as   links   forming   an   unbroken   chain   that   would   lead   to   the   only   possible


inference regarding the appellant's guilt. But before parting with the records


of the case, we must sadly observe that so far as appellant nos.2 and 3 are


concerned,  it's  a  case   of  no evidence  inasmuch as   apart  from  the  first  the


remaining three circumstances are not relatable to them at all.


34.     The   second   circumstance   in   the   case   as   noted   above   was   the   extra


judicial confession made by Sunil Rai, appellant no.1. It is seen above that


PW-10,  before whom the confession  was allegedly  made,  tried  his  best to


shield Ram Lal and to implicate in his place Jaspreet Singh. Nonetheless, the


High Court deemed fit to use the extra judicial confessional statement made


orally by Sunil Rai as substantive evidence not only against him but against


appellant nos.2 and 3 as well. In our view, the High Court was completely


wrong in using the alleged confessional statement made by Sunil Rai against


appellant   nos.2   and   3.   For   taking   into   consideration   the   confessional


statement of Sunil Rai against the other two appellants the High Court has


relied upon two decisions of this Court. One in  Ammini  v.  State of Kerala


(1998) 2 SCC  301 and the other  in  Prakash Dhawal  Khairnar  v.  State of


Maharashtra,   (2002)   2   SCC   35.   In   our   view,   both   the   decisions   have   no


application   to   the   facts   of   this   case.   In   both   cases   the   confessions   were


                                              16



neither   oral   nor   extra   judicial.   In   both   cases   confessional   statements   were


made before a Magistrate and were reduced to writing. In Prakash Dhawal


Khairnar, the Judicial Magistrate, first class, before whom the maker of the


confession   was   produced   not   only   gave   him   the   due   warning   but   also


allowed him 24 hours time to think over the matter. It was only after he was


produced the following day that the Magistrate recorded his statement under


section   164   of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure.   In  Prakash   Dhawal


Khairnar, the confessional statement was not retracted either.


35.      In  Ammini,   the   facts   were   entirely   different   from   the   present.   The


accused   had   entered   into   a   conspiracy   in   pursuance   of   which   several


unsuccessful attempts were earlier made before the victims were eventually


killed. In the trial for the crime the accused were charged separately under


section   120-B,   apart   from   section   302   read   with   section   34   of   the   Penal


Code.   One   of   the   charges   being   under   section   120-B,   the   confessional


statement by one accused was used against the others on the basis of section


10 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the present case there was no allegation of


any conspiracy  and there was no charge under section 120-B of the Penal


Code.


36.      In  Prakash Dhawal Khairnar  too, one of the charges against the two


accused  being father and son was under section 120-B of the Penal Code.


                                              17



But the son, the maker of the confession was acquitted of the charge under


section   120-B   of  the   Penal  Code.   In  that   circumstance,   the   question   arose


whether the confessional statement of the son could be used against the other


co-accused,   his   father   for  maintaining   his   conviction   under  section   302  of


the   Penal   Code.   This   Court   pointed   out   that   the   conviction   of   the   father


under   section   302   of   the   Penal   Code   was   based   on   a   number   of


circumstantial   evidences   that   were   independently   established   and   the


confessional   statement   of   the   son   was   not   used   as   a   substantive   piece   of


evidence. In paragraph 20 of the judgment, this Court observed as follows:


        "20.   In   this   case,   the   High   Court   has   not   relied   upon   the

        confessional   statement   as   a   substantive   piece   of   evidence   to

        convict Accused 1. It has been used for lending assurance to the

        proved   circumstances.   The   High   Court   held   that   the   proved

        circumstances   would   not   involve   Accused   2   for   the   offence

        punishable   under   Section   302   IPC   and   the   circumstantial

        evidence   does   not   establish   that   there   was   any   common

        intention   or   conspiracy   between   the   father   and   the   son   to

        commit the offence...."


37.     It is, thus, clear that the extra judicial confession of Sunil Rai could


not   be   fastened   upon   the   other   two   appellants   for   holding   them   guilty   of


murder   and   the   High   Court   was   quite   wrong   in   using   the   confessional


statement of Sunil Rai as a circumstance against the other two appellants.


38.     Recovery   of   the   bloodstained   jacket   of   Sunil   Rai,   the   third


circumstance   obviously   does   not   relate   to   appellant   nos.2   and   3   in   any


                                              18



manner. Equally, the theft of the money and clothes of Sunil Rai would be


no motive for the other two accused to assault Dile Ram, much less to kill


him.


39.     Thus,   seen   for   any   angle   the   conviction   of  the   appellants   cannot   be


sustained. The judgments and orders of the High Court and the trial court are


completely unsustainable. The two judgments are set aside. The appellants


are acquitted of the charges and are directed to be released forthwith unless


required in connection with any other case.


40.     In the result the appeals are allowed.





                                                              .........................................J

                                                                (AFTAB ALAM)





                                                              .........................................J

                                                                (R.M. LODHA)


New Delhi,

July 4, 2011.