Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2001 of 2010
Dr. Sunil Clifford Daniel …Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
…Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and
order dated 1.4.2009, passed by the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 399-DB of 2000, by
which it has affirmed the judgment and order dated 21.8.2000 passed
by the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in Sessions Case No. 28 of 1996,
convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), and
awarded him a sentence to undergo RI for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.2,000/- and in default of this, to undergo further RI for a
period of 3 months. The appellant has further been sentenced to
undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in
default of this, to undergo further RI for a period of 2 months
under Section 201 IPC. It has further been directed that the
sentences would run concurrently.
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as
under:
A. The appellant got married to Dr. Loyalla Shagoufta, deceased, on
29.10.1993. Both of them being qualified doctors, were working in
the Christian Medical College (hereinafter referred to as ‘CMC’),
Hospital Ludhiana. The relationship between the husband and wife
became strained and they have been living separately since June
1994.
B. As per the appellant, a petition for divorce by mutual consent was
filed on 20.2.1996, under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act,
1954 in the Court of the District Judge, Ludhiana, and both parties
therein, appeared before the District Judge, Ludhiana on the first
motion of the case. However, they were asked to wait for the second
motion.
C. On 9.3.1996, the appellant handed over a set of blood stained
clothes to Dr. B. Pawar, the Medical Superintendent, (PW.1),
stating that when he came to his room that day, the same were
found therein. Dr. B. Pawar (PW.1), informed the police about the
said incident on the same date.
D. Dr. Loyalla Shagoufta, wife of the appellant, had informed her
mother Smt. Victoria Rani (PW.2), who was living in Jagadhari,
District Yamunanagar, by way of a telephone call on 6.3.1996, that
she would visit her on 8.3.1996. However, she did not reach
Jagadhari on 8.3.1996. Victoria Rani (PW.2), then came to Ludhiana
on 10.3.1996, and found that her daughter was missing. Smt.
Victoria Rani (PW.2) then lodged FIR No. 16 of 1996 on 10.3.1996,
at 9.40 p.m. wherein being the complainant, she expressed her
apprehension that the appellant herein, had abducted her daughter
with the intention of killing her.
E. In the meanwhile, Dr. Namrata Saran, one of the residents of the
hostel in which the deceased resided, also informed Dr. B. Pawar
(PW.1), Medical Superintendent that the deceased had in fact been
missing from the hostel since 9.3.1996. After an enquiry it came to
light that the deceased was on leave from 9.3.1996 to 16.3.1996.
F. Piara Singh, ASI (PW.13), took up the investigation of the case and
went to the appellant’s hostel, however, his room No.2010, was
found to be locked. A police party searched for the appellant,
among several other places, in the house of Mr. Rana, one of his
relatives, but he could not be traced/found anywhere. Dr. B. Pawar
(PW.1) handed over the blood stained clothes given to him by the
appellant, to the I.O.
G. On 11.3.1996, Vir Rajinder Pal (PW.14), SHO, Police Station,
Ludhiana received a wireless message at 9.00 a.m., from the Police
Chowki at Lalton Kalan, which is about 20 k.m. away from the main
city, informing him that the dead body of a female had been found,
lying in the bushes, near the main road. The Investigating Officer
took Victoria Rani (PW.2) with him, while accompanied by other
police personnel, and recovered the body of the deceased from the
said place.
H. Immediately after the recovery of the dead body, Vir Rajinder Pal
(PW.14), visited the room of the appellant in the hostel and
conducted a thorough search of the same, in the presence of Dr. B.
Pawar (PW.1), Medical Superintendent.
I. The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted by a Medical Board
consisting of three doctors, including Dr. U.S. Sooch (PW.11), on
11.3.1996. He opined that the deceased had died by way of
strangulation and a corresponding ligature mark was found on her
neck. She also had several grievous injuries to her head.
J. On 11.3.1996, the Investigating Officer came to know, in the
course of interrogation that, the appellant had used the car of one
Dr. Pauli (CW.2), and that a blood stained mat was lying in the
dicky of the said car. The police hence took possession of the said
car and mat, and sent the mat for preparation of an FSL report.
K. The appellant was arrested on 11.3.1996, and his room in the
hostel was searched yet again, by one Ashok Kumar, Head Constable
from the Forensic Department, who scraped some blood stained earth
from the floor of the room. He also found a pair of blood stained
white V-shaped, Hawaii chappals. Photographs of the said room were
also taken. During interrogation, the appellant made a disclosure
statement on 13.3.1996 to the effect that he would be able to help
in the recovery of some relevant material from a place where he had
hidden it. The appellant then led the police party to a place
behind Old Jail, Ludhiana. From there, after removing some garbage
etc., one blood stained gunny bag, a blood stained dumb-bell and
one blood stained tie, were recovered.
L. The said recovered articles alongwith the clothes etc., found
on the body of the deceased at the time of the post-mortem, and the
blood stained clothes given by the appellant to Dr. B. Pawar
(PW.1), which were subsequently handed over to the Investigating
Officer, were sent for FSL report.
M. The FSL and serological report was then received, and it revealed
that, all the articles recovered by the police during
investigation, including the blood stained floor of his room, a
part of the Hawaii chappals, and the recovered tie, contained human
blood, with the sole exception of the mats found in the dicky of
the car. The blood stains herein, had dis-integrated and it was
therefore not possible to ascertain whether the same also contained
human blood.
N. The police completed the investigation of the case and submitted a
charge sheet against the appellant. The case was converted from one
under Section 364, to one under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The
appellant was thus charged, but as he pleaded not guilty, he
claimed trial. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses and two court
witnesses were also examined under Section 311 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter called as `Cr.P.C.’).
O. After the conclusion of the trial and appreciation of the evidence
in full, the learned Sessions Judge, vide judgment and order dated
21.8.2000 found the appellant guilty on both counts and hence
awarded him the aforementioned punishments.
P. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.399-DB of
2000 before the High Court, which was dismissed by the impugned
judgment and order dated 1.4.2009.
Hence, this appeal.
3. Mrs. Kanchan Kaur Dhodi, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, submitted that the investigation was not conducted
fairly. She stated that the appellant herein, had no motive
whatsoever to commit the murder of his wife, and that they were
going to separate very soon, as both parties had filed an
application seeking divorce, by mutual consent. Further, no
recovery was made from the room of the appellant in the hostel,
rather the objects recovered had been planted. The appellant did
not make any disclosure statement. Thus, even the recovery made
from the place in close vicinity of the Old Jail, was not made in
accordance with law, as there was no independent witness with
respect to the said recoveries, and the recovery memo also, was
never signed by the appellant. It is therefore, a case of
circumstantial evidence. The courts below failed to appreciate that
the chain of circumstances is not complete. Hence, the appeal
deserves to be allowed.
4. Per contra, Shri Jayant K. Sud, AAG, appearing for the State of
Punjab, has opposed the appeal, contending that the circumstances
in the present case, point towards the guilt of the appellant
without any exception. The deceased was surely killed in the room
of the appellant. Recoveries were clearly made in view of the
disclosure statement made by the appellant. Law does not require
the recovery memo to be signed by the accused. He also stated that
the appellant disappeared after the said incident and could only be
arrested after a period of two days. It is the appellant alone who
could explain the circumstances surrounding the purpose for which
he had borrowed the car of Dr. Pauli (CW.2), and why he had wanted
to hire a taxi to go to Jagadhari, as admittedly, his relations
with his wife had been very strained. The appeal clearly lacks
merit and is therefore liable to be dismissed.
5. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and perused the records.
6. Dr. U.S. Sooch (PW.11), was among the members of the Board of
Doctors, who conducted the post-mortem of the body of the deceased
on 11.3.1996, at 5.00 p.m. and found the following injuries on her
person:
“1. Well defined ligature mark 9” x 3.4” placed horizontally
on the front of neck and both lateral sides of the neck, in the
middle of neck and on the right side of the neck reaching below
the lobule of the right ear. On exploration of the ligature the
subcutaneous tissue was ecchymosed with laceration of underneath
muscles and the hyoid bone was fractured. The larynx and trachea
were congested.
2. An abrasion ½ ” x ½” on the tip of the chin.
3. Abrasion ¾” x ½” and 1” below the angle, of left mandible.
4. Lacerated wound 2, ½” x 1” x bone deep obliquely placed on
the right fronto parietal region and 1” inside the hair line
near the midline.
5. Lacerated wound with badly crushed margins 2, ½” x ½” bone
deep on the right occipital region.
6. Defused swelling 3” x 2” on the right occipital region
across the midline.
Therefore, it is evident from the aforementioned injuries, as
also from the medical report, that the deceased Loyalla Shagoufta was,
without a doubt, a victim of homicide.
7. Dr. B. Pawar (PW.1), Medical Superintendent, deposed to the extent
that the deceased was supposed to be on leave from 9.3.1996 to
16.3.1996, and that on the date of the said incident, she was not
present in her hostel. Further, the appellant had reported to him,
that when he came back to his room, he had found some blood
stained clothes therein. The clothes were thereafter collected in a
bag, and were kept in the office of Dr. B. Pawar (PW.1), and the
possession of the same, was subsequently taken, by the police.
8. Smt. Victoria Rani (PW.2), mother of the deceased supported the
case of the prosecution. She deposed that her daughter’s marriage
with the appellant had been quite strained, since no child could be
born out of the wedlock and hence, they had started living
separately. Her daughter had informed her by way of a telephone
call, that she would visit Jagadhari on 7.3.1996, but she never
came. Therefore, the complainant, Victoria Rani (PW.2), came to
Ludhiana to search for her daughter, but she was found to be
missing. Thus, she submitted a complaint to the police, on the
basis of which, an FIR was lodged, wherein, she expressed her
doubts with regard to the intention of the appellant, as in her
opinion, he had been wanting to get rid of her daughter, and
therefore, he could have kidnapped her for the purpose of killing
her and fulfilling his purpose, once and for all.
9. Some of the witnesses, particularly Sarabjit Singh (PW.7), Security
Guard of the hospital, Anil Kumar (PW.9), a Cook, working in the
canteen of the Junior Doctor’s Hostel and Joginder Singh (PW.12),
did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.
However, the evidence of Kirpal Dev Singh (PW.8), is highly
relevant. He deposed in court that he was providing services of a
taxi and would park the same in the premises of CMC Hospital,
Ludhiana. On 8.3.1996, the Canteen Contractor Joshi, had asked him
to talk to Dr. Sunil of CMC, who wished to hire his taxi to go to
Jagadhari. Accordingly, he went to speak to the appellant and
became aware of the fact that the appellant wished to travel to
Jagadhari on 9.3.1996. He then went to the appellant’s hostel with
his taxi on 9.3.1996, but was told by him that his wife had
presently gone to collect her salary from Lalton Kalan and
therefore, asked him to come again at 10.00 a.m. Thus, the said
witness went to the doctor’s place again, at 10.00 a.m. but he was
yet again asked to come later, this time at 11.30 a.m. It was then,
that the said witness told the doctor that he was no longer
willing to go to Jagadhari and he may engage another taxi, for this
purpose.
10. Piara Singh, ASI (PW.13), deposed that he came to know about the
said incident and henceforth went to CMC Hospital, Ludhiana, on
10.3.1996, after receiving the complaint made by Victoria Rani
(PW.2). However, he found room No. 2010 of the said hostel occupied
by the appellant to be locked from the outside. He then went
alongwith a police party, to the room of the deceased but found
that, this too had been locked from the outside. The witness then
attempted to search for the appellant, and for this purpose, he
also went to the house of Mr. Rana, who was a relative of the
appellant and was living in close proximity to the hospital in
Ludhiana itself, but the appellant could not be found either here.
He continued his search at various other places, including hotels
but was unable to find the accused.
On 11.3.1996, he stated that he had accompanied Vir Rajinder Pal
(PW.14), and had therefore participated in the recovery of the dead
body of deceased Dr. Loyalla Shagoufta from Lalton Kalan. He further
deposed that on 13.3.1996, one gunny bag, one iron dumb bell and one
tie were recovered in the presence of panch witness, Randhir Singh.
A disclosure statement was also made by the appellant, in his
presence to the effect that, these articles were related to the
murder of the deceased and he had offered to help recover the same.
11. After recording the evidence led by the prosecution, the statement
of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The
appellant denied all the allegations made by the prosecution and
pleaded innocence. He stated that the blood stained clothes had
been left in the balcony of his room, when he was not present
therein and that he had produced the said clothes before Dr. B.
Pawar (PW.1), Medical Superintendent, prior to the lodging of the
FIR.
12. Vir Rajinder Pal (PW.14), supported the case of the prosecution in
full, giving complete details from the very beginning of the
incident, as he was posted as the SHO, Police Station, Ludhiana on
10.3.1996. He deposed regarding the recoveries made from the room
of the accused, after the checking of the room and the preparation
of seizure memos. The keys of the car parked in the premises of CMC
hospital, one blood stained mat, duly attested by the panch
witnesses, and a photocopy of the registration certificate of the
said car, were taken into possession, as also the recovery of the
blood stained clothes, which were handed over to him by Dr. B.
Pawar (PW.1). He further deposed with regard to how the appellant
was arrested as also about the items that were recovered from his
body, the recovery of the blood stained floor from the appellant’s
room and the V-shaped pair of Hawaii chappals. The articles were
all sealed and sent for FSL. He finally deposed regarding the
manner in which the body was recovered, how the panchnama of
recovery was prepared, and also about the manner in which, the post-
mortem was conducted.
13. Dr. Pauli (CW.2), deposed that on 9.3.1996, he was contacted by
the appellant at 6.00 p.m. and was told by him that his wife was
missing, as a result of which, the appellant was in need of his car.
Dr. Pauli (CW.2), therefore, gave his car to the appellant, bearing
registration No. CH01-5653. The appellant returned after a duration of
1½ hours, parked the car outside the hostel, and handed over the key
to the said witness. The possession of the said car was taken by the
police on 11.3.1996, and the blood stained rubber mat was then
recovered from the dicky of the car. The said mat was sealed and taken
away by the Investigating Officer (PW.14).
14. The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record came
to the following conclusions:
“However, various pieces of circumstantial evidence
discussed above i.e. blood scratching lifted from the
hostel room in occupation of accused production of various
blood stained clothes by the accused before the Medical
Superintendent of the Hospital and the recovery of blood
stained neck tie and dumb-bell on the basis of a disclosure
statement suffered by the accused and the blood stained car
mat recovered in the case leave no manner of doubt that Dr.
Mrs. Loyalla Shagoufta was first done to death in the
hostel room no. 2010 in occupation of the accused by
strangulating her as well as causing various injuries to
her and thereafter the accused appeared to Dr. Pauli CW.2
to remove the traces of evidence appearing against him and
was liable for the murder of Dr. Mrs. Loyalla Shagoufta
deceased as well as for causing dis-appearance of the
evidence.
Dr. Loyalla Shagoufta in fact appeared to have been
murdered in the hostel room in occupation of the accused.
Various blood stains recovered from that room are a clear
pointer to the fact that she was murdered in that room.
None else could commit the crime in that room except with
the knowledge and consent of the accused when the accused
alone was in occupation of that room and was responsible
for the crime committed in that room. Production of various
blood stained clothes by the accused before the Medical
Superintendent of the Hospital also goes to show that he
was fully involved in the crime. On the fateful evening he
also borrowed car from Dr. Pauli CW.2, which was used by
him in removal of the dead body from the place of crime and
the recovery of a blood stained mat from that car also goes
to show that he in fact removed the dead body in that car.
All this shows that he in fact murdered his wife Dr. Mrs.
Loyalla Shagoufta and later on removed her dead body to
cause dis-appearance as well as for causing dis-appearance
of the evidence against him.”
So far as the motive is concerned, the court came to the
conclusion that there was sufficient motive to kill the deceased, as
the appellant wanted to now get rid of the deceased. More so, the
appellant could not explain how the deceased happened to meet her
death in his room. The court noted that though there were minor
discrepancies in the story, the same were not fatal to the case of the
prosecution and added that the case of the prosecution was fully
supported by the FSL report and therefore, on such grounds,
convicted the appellant.
15. The High Court concurred with the finding of the trial court
observing as under:
“Non-production of copy of Divorce Petition shows that the
appellant-accused had the motive to eliminate the deceased.
Admission of the appellant-accused before Dr. B. Pawar that
blood stained clothes were found lying in his room and
later on change of stand when examined under Section 313
Cr.P.C. that the blood stained clothes were lying in the
balcony of the Junior Doctor’s Hospital show that the
prosecution story inspires confidence. Firstly, Dr.
Shagoufta was murdered. Blood stained clothes were
recovered from the room and by arranging car of Dr. Pauli
dead body was thrown in the area of village Lalton Kalan.
Dead body lying near the road is suggesting that the
appellant-accused was in hurry to dispose of the dead body,
that is why, after 1½ hours key of the car was returned to
Dr. Pauli. Tie, dumb-bell and gunny bag were recovered as
per disclosure statement and the recovered articles were
found to be stained with blood. On 9.3.1996, Dr. Yogesh
through Sarabjit Singh, Security Guard summoned the
appellant-accused to Operation Theatre, but nothing on the
file that the appellant-accused had attended the Operation
Theatre to assist Dr. Yogesh. PW.7 Sarabjit Singh had gone
to the room of the appellant-accused with the request that
services of the appellant-accused are needed in the
Operation Threatre. Sarabjit Singh is not related to the
deceased. So, there was no idea to disbelieve him.
As per post-mortem examination, death was due to
strangulation as well as by causing various injuries. Neck
tie recovered as per disclosure statement suffered by the
appellant-accused was found to be stained with blood.”
16. The instant case is a case of blind murder and is based
entirely on circumstantial evidence, as there is no eye-witness to the
said incident.
17. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984
SC 1622, it was held by this court that, the onus is on the
prosecution to prove, that the chain is complete and that falsity or
untenability of the defence set up by the accused, cannot be made the
basis for ignoring any serious infirmity or lacuna in the case of the
prosecution. The Court then proceeded to indicate the conditions which
must be fully established before a conviction can be made on the basis
of circumstantial evidence. These are:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is
to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances
concerned ‘must’ or ‘should’ and not ‘may be’ established;
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say,
they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis
except that the accused is guilty;
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency;
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
the one to be proved; and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent
with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all
human probability the act must have been done by the
accused”.
Thus, in a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution
must establish each instance of incriminating circumstance, by way of
reliable and clinching evidence, and the circumstances so proved must
form a complete chain of events, on the basis of which, no conclusion
other than one of guilt of the accused can be reached. Undoubtedly,
suspicion, however grave it may be, can never be treated as a
substitute for proof. While dealing with a case of circumstantial
evidence, the court must take utmost precaution whilst finding an
accused guilty, solely on the basis of the circumstances proved before
it.
18. Admittedly, the appellant, after handing over the said blood
stained clothes to Dr. B. Pawar (PW.1), on 9.3.1996, became
untraceable as a result of which, he could only be arrested on
11.3.1996, at 6.00 p.m. Though this circumstance was not taken into
consideration by the courts below, the learned standing counsel
appearing for the State has relied upon it very strongly indeed before
us.
19. This Court has considered this issue time and again and held
that the mere act of absconding, on the part of the accused, alone
does not necessarily lead to a final conclusion regarding the guilt of
the accused, as even an innocent person may become panic stricken and
try to evade arrest, when suspected wrongly of committing a grave
crime; such is the instinct of self-preservation. (See: Matru v. State
of U.P., AIR 1971 SC 1050; State thr. CBI v. Mahender Singh Dahiya,
(2011) 3 SCC 109; and Sk. Yusuf v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2011 SC
2283).
In view of the above, we do not find any force in the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the State.
20. In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great
significance and importance, for the reason that the absence of
motive would put the court on its guard and cause it to scrutinize
each piece of evidence very closely in order to ensure that
suspicion, emotion or conjecture do not take the place of proof.
21. In Subedar Tewari v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1989 SC 733,
this Court observed as under:
“The evidence regarding existence of motive which operates
in the mind of an assassin is very often than (sic) not
within the reach of others. The motive may not even be
known to the victim of the crime. The motive may be known
to the assassin and no one else may know what gave birth to
the evil thought in the mind of the assassin.”
22. Similarly, in Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1994
SC 2420, this court held as under:
“In a case of circumstantial evidence, the evidence
bearing on the guilt of the accused nevertheless becomes
untrustworthy and unreliable because most often it is only
the perpetrator of the crime alone who knows as to what
circumstances prompted him to adopt a certain course of
action leading to the commission of the crime. Therefore,
if the evidence on record suggest sufficient/necessary
motive to commit a crime it may be conceived that the
accused had committed it.”
23. Thus, if the issue is examined in light of the aforesaid
settled legal proposition, we may concur with the courts below on the
said aspect.
24. In Jackaran Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1995 SC 2345, this
Court held that:
“The absence of the signatures or the thumb impression of
an accused on the disclosure statement recorded under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act detracts materially from the
authenticity and the reliability of the disclosure
statement.”
25. However, in State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram, AIR 1999 SC 1776,
this Court examined the said issue at length and considered the
provisions of Section 162(1) Cr.P.C., Section 162(1) reads, a
statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an
investigation done, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person
making it. Therefore, it is evident from the aforesaid provision,
that there is a prohibition in peremptory terms and law requires that
a statement made before the Investigating Officer should not be
signed by the witness. The same was found to be necessary for the
reason that, a witness will then be free to testify in court,
unhampered by anything which the police may claim to have elicited
from him. In the event that, a police officer, ignorant of the
statutory requirement asks a witness to sign his statement, the same
would not stand vitiated. At the most, the court will inform the
witness, that he is not bound by the statement made before the
police. However, the prohibition contained in Section 162(1) Cr.P.C.
is not applicable to any statements made under Section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter called ‘Evidence Act’), as
explained by the provision under Section 162(2) Cr.P.C. The Court
concluded as under:
“The resultant position is that the Investigating Officer
is not obliged to obtain the signature of an accused in any
statement attributed to him while preparing seizure memo
for the recovery of any article covered by Section 27 of
the Evidence Act. But if any signature has been obtained by
an Investigating Officer, there is nothing wrong or illegal
about it.”
26. In Golakonda Venkateswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR
2003 SC 2846, this court once again reconsidered the entire issue, and
held that merely because the recovery memo was not signed by the
accused, will not vitiate the recovery itself, as every case has to
be decided on its own facts. In the event that the recoveries are made
pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused, then, despite the
fact that the statement has not been signed by him, there is certainly
some truth in what he said, for the reason that, the recovery of the
material objects was made on the basis of his statement. The Court
further explained this aspect by way of its earlier judgment in
Jackaran Singh (supra) as, in this case, there was a dispute regarding
the ownership of a revolver and the cartridge recovered therein. The
prosecution was unable to lead any evidence to show that the crime
weapon belonged to the said appellant and observations were made by
this Court in the said context. The court held as under:
“The fact that the recovery is in consequence of the
information given is fortified and confirmed by the
discovery of wearing apparel and skeletal remains of the
deceased which leads to believe that the information and
the statement cannot be false.”
27. In view of the above, the instant case is squarely covered by
the ratio of the aforesaid judgments, and the submission advanced in
this regard is therefore, not acceptable.
28. Most of the articles recovered and sent for preparation of FSL
and serological reports contained human blood. However, on the rubber
mat recovered from the car of Dr. Pauli (CW.2) and one other item,
there can be no positive report in relation to the same as the blood
on such articles has dis-integrated. All other material objects,
including the shirt of the accused, two T-shirts, two towels, a track
suit, one pant, the brassier of the deceased, bangles of the deceased,
the under-garments of the deceased, two tops, dumb bell, gunny bag,
tie etc. were found to have dis-integrated.
29. A similar issue arose for consideration by this Court in Gura
Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2001 SC 330, wherein the Court,
relying upon earlier judgments of this Court, particularly in Prabhu
Babaji Navie v. State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 51; Raghav Prapanna
Tripathi v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 74; and Teja Ram (supra)
observed that a failure by the serologist to detect the origin of the
blood due to dis-integration of the serum, does not mean that the
blood stuck on the axe would not have been human blood at all.
Sometimes it is possible, either because the stain is too
insufficient, or due to haematological changes and plasmatic
coagulation, that a serologist may fail to detect the origin of the
blood. However, in such a case, unless the doubt is of a reasonable
dimension, which a judicially conscientious mind may entertain, with
some objectivity, no benefit can be claimed by the accused, in this
regard.
30. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed very heavy
reliance on the judgment of this Court in Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna
Kartalla v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2008 SC 1184, wherein it was
held that in case the Forensic Science Laboratory Report/Serologist
Report is unable to make out a case, that the blood found on the
weapons/clothes recovered, is of the same blood group as that of the
deceased, the same should be treated as a serious lacuna in the case
of the prosecution.
The appellant cannot be allowed to take the benefit of such an
observation in the said judgment, for the reason that in the
aforementioned case, the recovery itself was doubted and, in addition
thereto, the non- matching of blood groups was treated to be a lacunae
and not an independent factor, deciding the case.
31. A similar view has been reiterated in a recent judgment of this
court in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2008, Jagroop Singh v. State of
Punjab, decided on 20.7.2012, wherein it was held that, once the
recovery is made in pursuance of a disclosure statement made by the
accused, the matching or non-matching of blood group (s) loses
significance.
32. In John Pandian v. State represented by Inspector of Police,
Tamil Nadu, (2010) 14 SCC 129, this Court held:
“….The discovery appears to be credible. It has been
accepted by both the courts below and we find no reason to
discard it. This is apart from the fact that this weapon
was sent to the forensic science laboratory (FSL) and it
has been found stained with human blood. Though the blood
group could not be ascertained, as the results were
inconclusive, the accused had to give some explanation as
to how the human blood came on this weapon. He gave none.
This discovery would very positively further the
prosecution case.”
(Emphasis added)
33. In view of the above, the Court finds it impossible to accept
the submission that, in the absence of the report regarding the origin
of the blood, the accused cannot be convicted, upon an observation
that it is only because of lapse of time that the classification of
the blood cannot be determined. Therefore, no advantage can be
conferred upon the accused, to enable him to claim any benefit, and
the report of dis-integration of blood etc. cannot be termed as a
missing link, on the basis of which, the chain of circumstances may be
presumed to be broken.
34. When the appellant herein made a disclosure statement, a
panchnama was prepared and recovery panchnamas were also made. The
evidence on record revealed that the same were duly signed by two
police officials, and one independent panch witness, namely, Randhir
Singh Jat, who was admittedly, not examined. Therefore, a question
arose regarding the effect of non-examination of the said panch
witness, and also the sanctity of the evidence, in respect of recovery
made only by two police officials.
35. The issue was considered at length by this Court in State,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil & Anr., (2001) 1 SCC 652, wherein this
Court held as under:
“….But if no witness was present or if no person had
agreed to affix his signature on the document, it is
difficult to lay down, as a proposition of law, that the
document so prepared by the police officer must be treated
as tainted and the recovery evidence unreliable. The court
has to consider the evidence of the investigating officer
who deposed to the fact of recovery based on the statement
elicited from the accused on its own worth.
We feel that it is an archaic notion that actions of
the police officer should be approached with initial
distrust………At any rate, the court cannot start with the
presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a
proposition of law the presumption should be the other way
around. That official acts of the police have been
regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and
recognised even by the legislature. Hence when a police
officer gives evidence in court that a certain article was
recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by
the accused it is open to the court to believe the version
to be correct if it is not otherwise shown to be
unreliable. It is for the accused, through cross-
examination of witnesses or through any other materials, to
show that the evidence of the police officer is either
unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a
particular case. If the court has any good reason to
suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police the
court could certainly take into account the fact that no
other independent person was present at the time of
recovery. But it is not a legally approvable procedure to
presume the police action as unreliable to start with, nor
to jettison such action merely for the reason that police
did not collect signatures of independent persons in the
documents made contemporaneous with such actions.”
36. One Randhir Singh Jat had been the Panch witness for the
disclosure Panchnama and Recovery Panchnama. He has not been examined
by the prosecution. No question was put to the Investigating Officer
(PW.14), in his cross-examination, as to why the prosecution had
withheld the said witness. The I.O. was the only competent person to
answer the query. It is quite possible that the witness was not alive
or traceable.
37. It is obligatory on the part of the accused while being examined
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to furnish some explanation with respect to
the incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the Court
must take note of such explanation even in a case of circumstantial
evidence, to decide as to whether or not, the chain of circumstances
is complete. The aforesaid judgment has been approved and followed in
Musheer Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 748. (See also:
The Transport Commissioner, A.P., Hyderabad & Anr. v. S. Sardar Ali &
Ors., AIR 1983 SC 1225).
?38. This Court in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, (2000) 1 SCC 471,
held that, when the attention of the accused is drawn to such
circumstances that inculpate him in relation to the commission of the
crime, and he fails to offer an appropriate explanation or gives a
false answer with respect to the same, the said act may be counted as
providing a missing link for completing the chain of circumstances. We
may hasten to add that we have referred to the said decision, only to
highlight the fact that the accused has not given any explanation
whatsoever, as regards the incriminating circumstances put to him
under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
39. In view of the above, a conjoint reading of the complete
evidence and material on record, suggests as under:
(i) The deceased Loyalla Shagoufta had informed her mother residing
in Jagadhari, on 6.3.1996 that she would reach there on 7.3.1996.
However, she did not make it there. Therefore, Victoria Rani (PW.2),
that is, mother of the deceased, came to Ludhiana to search for her
daughter on 10.3.1996.
(ii) On 9.3.1996, the appellant handed over certain blood stained
clothes to Dr. B. Pawar (PW.1), Medical Superintendent, stating that
he had found the same, in his room, when he returned from the
hospital. Dr. B. Pawar (PW.1), informed the police about the said
incident, on the same date.
(iii) On 10.3.1996, Victoria Rani (PW.2), filed a complaint about the
incident and an FIR was lodged. The Investigating Officer went to the
room of the appellant, as well as of the deceased, in their respective
hostels but the rooms were found to be locked from the outside. He
then made an attempt to search for the appellant at the residence of
his relative Mr. Rana, and also in other dhabas and hotels, but was
unable to trace him, despite his efforts to do so.
(iv) On 11.3.1996, Dr. Namrata Saran, informed Dr. B. Pawar (PW.1)
that the deceased had been missing from the hostel since 9.3.1996.
On the same day, Vir Rajinder Pal (PW.14), SHO, received a
wireless message from the Police Chowki at Lalton Kalan, that the dead
body of a female was lying in the bushes near an area of thoroughfare,
closeby. He then rushed to the place alongwith Victoria Rani (PW.2),
and recovered the dead body of the deceased and went on to prepare the
panchanama etc. The room of the appellant was searched, but no
recovery was made from the room.
(v) During the course of the investigation, Vir Rajinder Pal
(PW.14), SHO, realised that the appellant had borrowed the car of Dr.
Pauli (CW.2). Thus, the said car which was parked in the same
compound, was taken into possession by the police, and a mat having
blood stains on it, was recovered and sealed.
(vi) On 12.3.1996, experts were called and the room of the appellant
was searched. Blood stains were found on the floor, which were scraped
off and alongwith the same, a pair of V-shaped Hawaii chappals, also
having blood stains on them, were recovered. The said articles were
sealed.
(vii) The appellant was arrested on 11.3.1996, as he was produced by
Joginder Singh (PW.12), and made a disclosure statement in the
presence of police officials and also one Randhir Singh, the panch
witness, and the panchnama was prepared and in it, he stated that, he
would help in the recovery of articles, used while committing the
murder of the deceased. On the basis of the said disclosure
statement, he led the police party to the Old Ludhiana Jail and aided
in making recoveries of a gunny bag, a dumb bell and one tie, as the
same had been hidden below garbage and bushes. The same were duly
recovered and panchnama was prepared. All the materials so recovered
were then sent for FSL/serological report, and the report received
stated that all the said articles contained human blood etc. except
for a few, wherein the blood had dis-integrated and as a result of
this, no report could be submitted.
(viii) On 11.3.1996, the dead body of the deceased, was sent for post-
mortem examination by a Board of doctors including Dr. U.S. Sooch
(PW.11), and various articles of the deceased, including her bangles
etc. were taken into possession by the police.
(ix) In his statement, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant
changed the version of his story, from the one given to Dr. B. Pawar
(PW.1), stating that blood stained clothes handed over by him, were
found in the balcony, interconnecting various rooms, as against his
original statement wherein he had disclosed that he had found them in
his room. He could not furnish any explanation with respect to how
the blood stained clothes were found in his room.
(x) Kirpal Dev Singh (PW.8), a taxi driver, though did not identify
the appellant in court, yet was not declared hostile by the
prosecution, deposed that, on being asked by the canteen contractor
Joshi, he had gone to meet the appellant on 9.3.1996, who told him
that he wanted to go to Jagadhari. At that time, he was told to come
later, as the wife of the appellant had purportedly gone to collect
her salary from Lalton Kalan. Admittedly, the appellant and his wife,
the deceased were living separately and they did not have a cordial
relationship. In such a fact-situation, the appellant would not have
hired a taxi to go to Jagadhari. More so, if the deceased was living
separately, it was not possible for the appellant to say that his wife
had gone to Lalton Kalan, to collect her salary. The evidence of Dr.
Pauli (CW.2), makes it clear that the appellant had in fact taken his
car, used it for one and a half hours, and then brought the same
back, and parked it in the hostel compound, after which he handed over
the keys for the same to Dr. Pauli (CW.2).
(xi) The nature of the injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report
makes it crystal clear that the deceased died of strangulation i.e.
asphyxia, and she also had several injuries to her head, which could
have been caused by a dumb bell, which was one of the materials
recovered and found to have blood stains on it.
(xii) As the appellant had a strained relationship with his wife, he
no doubt wanted to get rid of her. Although he has claimed that the
petitions for divorce by mutual consent were pending before the court,
he has never submitted any documents with respect to this before the
court. Thus, inference may be drawn that the appellant did in fact
wish to get rid of his wife.
(xiii) As the recoveries of the blood stained gunny bag, dumb bell,
tie etc. were made on the basis of the disclosure statement of the
appellant himself, the chain of circumstances is therefore, complete.
40. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere
with the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. The appeal
lacks merit and is therefore, dismissed accordingly.
………………………………………J. (Dr. B.S.
CHAUHAN)
……………..………………………………………J. (FAKKIR
MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA)
New Delhi,
September 14, 2012
-----------------------
35
