IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2122 OF 2010
MANOJ KUMAR … APPELLANT
Versus
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND … RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
1. The present matter is placed before us by virtue of referral
order dated 22.05.2014 wherein the following question was placed
for reference before us that, “whether the 2nd FIR and the
investigation in pursuance of further information thereof should be
straightway quashed or should it require a scrutiny during trial of
the permissible matter of prejudice, and truthfulness of the evidence
collected on the basis of second FIR.”
2. But it is to be noted that, during the course of arguments
counsels from both the sides admitted that, no second FIR was
1
NONREPORTABLE
registered in the present case. Although the reference was made to
us, to adjudicate the above question of law, basing on the
submissions we can conclude that the issue of second FIR does not
arise in the present matter. Therefore, we are proceeding to
adjudicate the matter on merits.
3. The brief facts of the case necessary for adjudication are as
follows: the accusedappellant used to stay in the same block under
the complainant (PW1) and he used to frequently visit the house of
complainant (PW1). Further he also owned a betel shop in the
vicinity. On the day of incident, i.e. 24.08.1993, both the
complainant and his wife left for their duties, and their daughter
(hereinafter referred as ‘the deceased’) aged around 17 years, was
alone at the house. Thereafter, on finding an opportunity at around
10.45 A.M., the accusedappellant entered the house and tried to
establish forceful physical relations with the deceased and the same
was strongly resisted by her. Thus, a physical altercation broke out
between the two, wherein the accusedappellant strangulated the
deceased by putting the weight of his right hand on the throat of the
deceased. The accusedappellant thereafter orchestrated the entire
incident into a suicide, by hanging the deceased from the roof with
2
the help of a white bedsheet. However, during this incident, two key
witnesses namely Kushalpal and Vinod Kumar (PW2), visited the
house of the complainant (PW1) for some personal work. On their
call at the maindoor, they were addressed by the accusedappellant
who informed them that nobody was present at home and therefore,
considering the accusedpetitioner to be a neighbour, both the
persons left the house without doubting the accusedpetitioner or
suspecting that anything was wrong.
4. Later that day, after returning from duty at around 12:00 noon,
the complainant (P.W1) found the dead body of his daughter
hanging from the roof and informed the police about the same. But
subsequently, on 26.08.1993, Vinod Kumar (PW2), visited the
house of complainant and informed him that on the day of the
incident, at around 11:00 A.M., the accusedappellant came out of
their house on their call and informed them that nobody was at
home. Therefore, the complainant (P.W1) approached the police on
26.08.1993 to inform them about the presence of the accused at the
scene of offence. On the basis of the aforesaid information the First
Information Report No. 221 was registered under Section 302 of
Indian Penal Code against the accusedappellant and the search for
3
the accused was initiated. Simultaneously, on 26.08.1993, the
accused appellant had made an extrajudicial confession before
Sanjay Sharma (PW4); who in turn narrated the entire incident
before the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, investigation was
conducted and after completion of the same, charge sheet was filed
against the accusedappellant.
5. The trial court vide its judgment dated 14.05.1997, convicted
the accused for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced
him to undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/, in
default rigorous imprisonment of 5 years. Aggrieved, the appellant
approached the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.1192 of 2001,
wherein the High Court upheld the order of conviction passed by the
trial court and dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant.
Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the accusedappellant contended that the
High Court gravely erred in convicting the accused for the aforesaid
offence without any incriminating evidence against him. The counsel
emphasized that the conviction was solely based on the extrajudicial confession which is not corroborated by any material
evidence. Moreover, it was also contended that, it is a simple case of
4
suicide but PW1 with the help of the testimonies of PW2 and PW4
has falsely implicated the appellant as an accused and these
testimonies cannot be relied on as they were created as an
afterthought after a delay of 2 days. Lastly, this being a case of
circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances does not prove
the guilt of the accused.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that prosecution
has successfully discharged its burden by placing reliance on last
seen, extrajudicial confession made by the accused, injuries on the
accused, absence of accused from his house at the time of
occurrence and lack of an alibi to prove his presence elsewhere and
the medical evidence. The counsel therefore contends that the High
Court has rightly upheld the conviction of the accused keeping in
view the aforesaid chain of circumstances which proves the guilt of
the accused. Therefore, the counsel pleaded that the appeal of
appellant being devoid of merits should be dismissed without any
indulgence.
8. Heard the learned counsels on merits. Admittedly, since there
is no direct evidence, the present case is based on circumstantial
evidence. Therefore, it is pertinent to focus on facts leading to the
5
completion of the chain of circumstances which proves the guilt of
the accused.
9. The trial court began its analysis of the facts by laying
emphasis on the proximity of the house of the deceased and the
accused so as to prove that access was highly probable considering
the fact that, the accused used to live in the floor beneath that of the
deceased. Admittedly, on the date of incident, the deceased was
alone in the house as her parents and siblings had left for their jobs
and school at around 6:30 a.m. respectively. It is in this scenario
that the evidence of Vinod Kumar (P.W.2) plays a vital role, as it
proves that the accused was present at the scene of the offence.
Vinod Kumar (P.W.2) clearly stated that he had visited the house of
the complainant (P.W.1) and called out his name, although there was
no response for the first time, the accused answered the second call
and informed P.W.2 that there was no one available at home. Owing
to the proximity of both the families, P.W.2 left for his hometown
without any suspicion. It is in this context that the evidence of
complainant (P.W.1) becomes relevant so as to analyse the conduct
of the accused just after the incident. P.W.1 has stated that the
accused and his father were missing from their residence since the
6
time of the offence itself and that they had not even participated in
the cremation ceremony of the deceased. It was only on 27.08.1993
that the accused was apprehended by the police with the help of the
secret informer.
10. Further, both the trial Court and the High Court placed
reliance on the injuries found on the face of the accused. It is
pertinent to note that the accused failed to provide any explanation
as to how he had incurred the aforesaid injuries. Further, the
injuries on the body of the deceased also indicate signs of struggle.
Furthermore, the postmortem suggests that the death of deceased
was not suicidal but rather she was hanged after she had lost
consciousness. All the aforesaid circumstances further substantiate
the voluntary extrajudicial confession of the accused made before
P.W4. Moreover, the fact of the commission of death by hanging
corroborated by the Exhibit P12, (Panchayatnama) which notes that
the deceased was hanging from the roof with the help of a bed sheet.
It is noted that the Exhibit P12, (Panchayatnama) stands proved by
the SubInspector (P.W.8). The extrajudicial confession of the
accused, therefore, finds independent reliable corroboration from the
aforesaid circumstances. (See Ram Singh v. State of U.P., 1967
7
Cri LJ 9) In light of the aforementioned chain of events, there exists
sufficient evidence on record to connect the appellant with the death
of the deceased, the motive of which is apparent.
11. In the absence of any existing enmity between the accused and
the witnesses there exists no ground to question the veracity of the
witnesses or to raise a ground of false implication. Therefore,
considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, we conclude
that the chain of events has been rightly analysed by both the courts
below and the same leads towards proving the culpability of the
accused. (See Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 4 SCC 668)
12. Therefore, after perusal of the material on record we conclude
that, the appeal preferred by the accused, being devoid of any merit
is liable to be dismissed. In light of the same, we uphold the order of
conviction passed by the High Court.
.........................J.
(N.V.RAMANA)
.........................J.
(MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR)
.........................J.
(INDIRA BANERJEE)
New Delhi,
April 05, 2019.
8
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2122 OF 2010
MANOJ KUMAR … APPELLANT
Versus
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND … RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
1. The present matter is placed before us by virtue of referral
order dated 22.05.2014 wherein the following question was placed
for reference before us that, “whether the 2nd FIR and the
investigation in pursuance of further information thereof should be
straightway quashed or should it require a scrutiny during trial of
the permissible matter of prejudice, and truthfulness of the evidence
collected on the basis of second FIR.”
2. But it is to be noted that, during the course of arguments
counsels from both the sides admitted that, no second FIR was
1
NONREPORTABLE
registered in the present case. Although the reference was made to
us, to adjudicate the above question of law, basing on the
submissions we can conclude that the issue of second FIR does not
arise in the present matter. Therefore, we are proceeding to
adjudicate the matter on merits.
3. The brief facts of the case necessary for adjudication are as
follows: the accusedappellant used to stay in the same block under
the complainant (PW1) and he used to frequently visit the house of
complainant (PW1). Further he also owned a betel shop in the
vicinity. On the day of incident, i.e. 24.08.1993, both the
complainant and his wife left for their duties, and their daughter
(hereinafter referred as ‘the deceased’) aged around 17 years, was
alone at the house. Thereafter, on finding an opportunity at around
10.45 A.M., the accusedappellant entered the house and tried to
establish forceful physical relations with the deceased and the same
was strongly resisted by her. Thus, a physical altercation broke out
between the two, wherein the accusedappellant strangulated the
deceased by putting the weight of his right hand on the throat of the
deceased. The accusedappellant thereafter orchestrated the entire
incident into a suicide, by hanging the deceased from the roof with
2
the help of a white bedsheet. However, during this incident, two key
witnesses namely Kushalpal and Vinod Kumar (PW2), visited the
house of the complainant (PW1) for some personal work. On their
call at the maindoor, they were addressed by the accusedappellant
who informed them that nobody was present at home and therefore,
considering the accusedpetitioner to be a neighbour, both the
persons left the house without doubting the accusedpetitioner or
suspecting that anything was wrong.
4. Later that day, after returning from duty at around 12:00 noon,
the complainant (P.W1) found the dead body of his daughter
hanging from the roof and informed the police about the same. But
subsequently, on 26.08.1993, Vinod Kumar (PW2), visited the
house of complainant and informed him that on the day of the
incident, at around 11:00 A.M., the accusedappellant came out of
their house on their call and informed them that nobody was at
home. Therefore, the complainant (P.W1) approached the police on
26.08.1993 to inform them about the presence of the accused at the
scene of offence. On the basis of the aforesaid information the First
Information Report No. 221 was registered under Section 302 of
Indian Penal Code against the accusedappellant and the search for
3
the accused was initiated. Simultaneously, on 26.08.1993, the
accused appellant had made an extrajudicial confession before
Sanjay Sharma (PW4); who in turn narrated the entire incident
before the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, investigation was
conducted and after completion of the same, charge sheet was filed
against the accusedappellant.
5. The trial court vide its judgment dated 14.05.1997, convicted
the accused for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced
him to undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/, in
default rigorous imprisonment of 5 years. Aggrieved, the appellant
approached the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.1192 of 2001,
wherein the High Court upheld the order of conviction passed by the
trial court and dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant.
Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the accusedappellant contended that the
High Court gravely erred in convicting the accused for the aforesaid
offence without any incriminating evidence against him. The counsel
emphasized that the conviction was solely based on the extrajudicial confession which is not corroborated by any material
evidence. Moreover, it was also contended that, it is a simple case of
4
suicide but PW1 with the help of the testimonies of PW2 and PW4
has falsely implicated the appellant as an accused and these
testimonies cannot be relied on as they were created as an
afterthought after a delay of 2 days. Lastly, this being a case of
circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances does not prove
the guilt of the accused.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that prosecution
has successfully discharged its burden by placing reliance on last
seen, extrajudicial confession made by the accused, injuries on the
accused, absence of accused from his house at the time of
occurrence and lack of an alibi to prove his presence elsewhere and
the medical evidence. The counsel therefore contends that the High
Court has rightly upheld the conviction of the accused keeping in
view the aforesaid chain of circumstances which proves the guilt of
the accused. Therefore, the counsel pleaded that the appeal of
appellant being devoid of merits should be dismissed without any
indulgence.
8. Heard the learned counsels on merits. Admittedly, since there
is no direct evidence, the present case is based on circumstantial
evidence. Therefore, it is pertinent to focus on facts leading to the
5
completion of the chain of circumstances which proves the guilt of
the accused.
9. The trial court began its analysis of the facts by laying
emphasis on the proximity of the house of the deceased and the
accused so as to prove that access was highly probable considering
the fact that, the accused used to live in the floor beneath that of the
deceased. Admittedly, on the date of incident, the deceased was
alone in the house as her parents and siblings had left for their jobs
and school at around 6:30 a.m. respectively. It is in this scenario
that the evidence of Vinod Kumar (P.W.2) plays a vital role, as it
proves that the accused was present at the scene of the offence.
Vinod Kumar (P.W.2) clearly stated that he had visited the house of
the complainant (P.W.1) and called out his name, although there was
no response for the first time, the accused answered the second call
and informed P.W.2 that there was no one available at home. Owing
to the proximity of both the families, P.W.2 left for his hometown
without any suspicion. It is in this context that the evidence of
complainant (P.W.1) becomes relevant so as to analyse the conduct
of the accused just after the incident. P.W.1 has stated that the
accused and his father were missing from their residence since the
6
time of the offence itself and that they had not even participated in
the cremation ceremony of the deceased. It was only on 27.08.1993
that the accused was apprehended by the police with the help of the
secret informer.
10. Further, both the trial Court and the High Court placed
reliance on the injuries found on the face of the accused. It is
pertinent to note that the accused failed to provide any explanation
as to how he had incurred the aforesaid injuries. Further, the
injuries on the body of the deceased also indicate signs of struggle.
Furthermore, the postmortem suggests that the death of deceased
was not suicidal but rather she was hanged after she had lost
consciousness. All the aforesaid circumstances further substantiate
the voluntary extrajudicial confession of the accused made before
P.W4. Moreover, the fact of the commission of death by hanging
corroborated by the Exhibit P12, (Panchayatnama) which notes that
the deceased was hanging from the roof with the help of a bed sheet.
It is noted that the Exhibit P12, (Panchayatnama) stands proved by
the SubInspector (P.W.8). The extrajudicial confession of the
accused, therefore, finds independent reliable corroboration from the
aforesaid circumstances. (See Ram Singh v. State of U.P., 1967
7
Cri LJ 9) In light of the aforementioned chain of events, there exists
sufficient evidence on record to connect the appellant with the death
of the deceased, the motive of which is apparent.
11. In the absence of any existing enmity between the accused and
the witnesses there exists no ground to question the veracity of the
witnesses or to raise a ground of false implication. Therefore,
considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, we conclude
that the chain of events has been rightly analysed by both the courts
below and the same leads towards proving the culpability of the
accused. (See Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 4 SCC 668)
12. Therefore, after perusal of the material on record we conclude
that, the appeal preferred by the accused, being devoid of any merit
is liable to be dismissed. In light of the same, we uphold the order of
conviction passed by the High Court.
.........................J.
(N.V.RAMANA)
.........................J.
(MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR)
.........................J.
(INDIRA BANERJEE)
New Delhi,
April 05, 2019.
8
