STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH …Appellant Versus RAJ KUMAR ...Respondent - High Court entertained fanciful doubts and rejected the credible evidence of Jeewan Lal (PW-1) on slender grounds. Due to mis-appreciation of evidence, the High Court set aside the conviction and caused a miscarriage of justice. Reasonings of the High Court for acquitting the accused are unsustainable and the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.= The conviction of the respondent under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on him by the trial court are affirmed.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 31 OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1204 of 2015)
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH …Appellant
Versus
RAJ KUMAR ...Respondent
J U D G M E N T
R. BANUMATHI, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal preferred by the State challenges the
judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Criminal
Appeal No.559 of 2008 acquitting the respondent under
Section 302 IPC by setting aside his conviction and the
sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him by the trial
court.
3. Husband of deceased Meena Devi passed away about
eleven years ago prior to the incident. Meena Devi was
residing with her son Jeewan Lal (PW-1), daughter Rekha
Page No. 1 of 13
Devi (PW-2) and accused Raj Kumar (brother-in-law) in the
joint family house. On 23.08.2007 at 08.30 p.m., while
Meena Devi was taking meal along with her family,
respondent-accused came there in drunken condition and
started abusing Meena Devi and her children PW-1 and PW-2
without any reason and threatened to kill them. Barf
Devi-grandmother of PW-1 who was present in the house
took Jeewan Lal (PW-1) to adjoining sleeping room and
bolted the room from outside. She asked Rekha Devi (PW-2)
daughter of deceased to go to the house of her maternal
uncle Anant Ram (PW-3). While being inside the room, PW-1
heard the cries of his mother Meena Devi and from the
window saw the respondent-accused taking her mother
towards the house of another accused Om Prakash. After
few hours, accused opened the door and told him that his
mother had run away from the house and that he should tell
the same to his maternal uncle Anant Ram (PW-3). Under
such threat from respondent-accused and another accused
Ramesh Kumar, PW-1 told his maternal uncle (PW-3) that his
mother had run away from the house. On 24.08.2007 at
Page No. 2 of 13
about 02.00 a.m., Anant Ram (PW-3) came to the house of
accused. Thereafter, PW-1 and PW-3 went to Dharampur
Police Station and informed the police about missing of
Meena Devi. On 25.08.2007, they again went to the police
station Dharampur and at about 11.00-11.30 a.m; at the
time Anant Ram (PW-3) received a phone call from Nek Ram
informing that the dead body of deceased Meena Devi was
found hanging from a tree at Ghat Bahu forest. Thereafter,
PW-1 and PW-3 along with police party went to the spot and
found that the dead body of Meena Devi was hanging from
the branch of a pine tree with a plastic rope, tied around her
neck. Statement of PW-1 was recorded, based on which, case
in FIR No.250 of 2007 was registered under Section 302 IPC
and Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC.
4. Initial investigation was conducted by Sub-Inspector of
Police Sat Prakash (PW-20) and further investigation was
conducted by Inspector of Police LR Thakur (PW-22). PW-22
prepared spot map, inquest and conducted further
investigation. Dr. Vivek Banyal (PW-24) conducted autopsy
and opined that "....death was because of haemorrhagic
Page No. 3 of 13
shock due to rupture of spleen and anti-mortem injuries
suggesting gagging. Hanging was post-mortem". Accused
Raj Kumar was taken to custody on 25.08.2007 and he was
interrogated. Confession statement of accused was recorded
on 27.08.2007 which led to the recovery of a lady shirt from
the room of the house of accused Ramesh Kumar which was
under construction. Upon completion of investigation,
chargesheet was fled against accused Raj Kumar, Ramesh
Kumar, Om Prakash and Barf Devi under Section 302 IPC
and Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC.
5. To bring home the guilt of the accused, in the Sessions
Court, prosecution has examined as many as twenty four
witnesses and marked number of exhibits and material
objects. In the questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the
accused denied all the incriminating circumstances and
evidence and pleaded that he is innocent. The accused has
not offered any explanation on the death of deceased Meena
Devi.
Page No. 4 of 13
6. Based upon the evidence of Anant Ram (PW-3) and
Bhindra Devi (PW-15), the trial court held that Meena Devi
suffered harassment at the hands of her brother-in-law
(respondent-accused). The trial court held that Jeewan Lal
(PW-1) son of the deceased had spoken about the overt act
of the accused in beating the deceased and that the accused
taking away Meena Devi from the house. The trial court held
that no reasonable explanation was forth coming from the
accused for the death of the deceased Meena Devi who was
living jointly with the respondent-accused. On those
fndings, the trial court convicted the respondent-accused
under Section 302 IPC and Section 201 IPC read with Section
34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.
Other accused Ramesh Kumar and Om Prakash were
acquitted. Accused Barf Devi remained absconding.
7. In the appeal preferred by the accused, the High Court
observed that Jeewan Lal (PW-1) son of the deceased, while
deposing as witness before the court in narrating the whole
incident, had made improvements and hence, PW-1 is not a
reliable witness. The High Court further held that there were
Page No. 5 of 13
bald assertions regarding dispute, but no specifc motive was
attributed to the accused for committing murder of the
deceased Meena Devi. Observing that the case of
prosecution suffers from serious infrmities, the High Court
allowed the criminal appeal fled by the respondent-accused
thereby setting aside the conviction and the sentence of life
imprisonment imposed upon him. Being aggrieved, the
State is before us.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the impugned judgment and materials on record.
9. Prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence.
It is well settled that in a case based on circumstantial
evidence, the circumstances from which an inference of guilt
is sought to be drawn must be cogently and frmly
established and that those circumstances must be
conclusive in nature unerringly pointing towards the guilt of
the accused. Moreover all the circumstances taken
cumulatively should form a complete chain and there should
be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved
Page No. 6 of 13
circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis
of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his
innocence.
10. In a case, based on circumstantial evidence, the
inference of guilt can be drawn only when all the
incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be
incompatible with the innocence of the accused. In Trimukh
Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681, it
was held as under:-
"12. ...........The normal principle in a case based on
circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from
which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be
cogently and frmly established; that those circumstances
should be of a defnite tendency unerringly pointing
towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances
taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that
there is no escape from the conclusion that within all
human probability the crime was committed by the
accused and they should be incapable of explanation on
any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused
and inconsistent with their innocence."
The same principle was reiterated in State of Rajasthan v.
Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC 254, Ganesh Lal v. State of
Rajasthan (2002) 1 SCC 731, State of Maharashtra v.
Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471 and State of Tamil Nadu v.
Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679.
Page No. 7 of 13
11. After death of her husband, Meena Devi was living with
her children viz. Jeewan Lal (PW-1) and Rekha Devi (PW-2)
along with the accused Raj Kumar in the joint family. In their
evidence, PW-1 and PW-2 clearly stated that on 23.08.2007,
respondent came in drunkard condition and threatened to
kill them. Jeewan Lal (PW-1) who is the son of deceased
Meena Devi clearly stated that he had heard the cries of his
mother and also seen accused taking his mother towards the
house of accused Om Parkash. On 25.08.2007, body of
Meena Devi was found hanging from a pine tree in the
nearby forest. PW-24-Dr. Vivek Banyal who conducted the
autopsy has clearly said that "anti-mortem injuries were
caused due to gagging and hanging process of dead body
was post-mortem".
12. In his evidence, Jeewan Lal (PW-1) stated that he was
threatened by the accused Om Parkash to make telephonic
call to his maternal uncle Anant Ram (PW-3) that Meena Devi
had run away from the house and under such threat Jeewan
Lal (PW-1) informed Anant Ram (PW-3) accordingly. After
Anant Ram (PW-3) came to the village at 02.00 a.m. on
Page No. 8 of 13
24.08.2007, PW-1 and PW-3 went to P.P. Dharampur and
informed them about missing of Meena Devi. Meena Devi
was living with her brother-in-law/accused along with her
children. If Meena Devi was so missing, the natural conduct
of the accused was to inform the police and also Anant Ram
(PW-3). But that was not done. In view of Section 106 of the
Evidence Act, burden is cast upon the accused, being the
inmate of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how
Meena Devi died. No reasonable explanation is forthcoming
from the accused as to why he had neither lodged the
complaint nor informed the police about the missing of
Meena Devi. The respondent-accused being inmate of the
house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering
no explanation. This is a strong militating circumstance
against the respondent indicating that he might be
responsible for the commission of the offence.
13. The motive attributed to the accused is that he had
frequently quarrelled with the deceased and also assaulted
her. A dispute is also suggested pertaining to the land of one
Swami who wanted to give his property solely to the
Page No. 9 of 13
deceased Meena Devi which was not acceptable to the
accused. Yet another motive attributed to the accused was
his greed for the fxed deposit of Rs.1,20,000/- which had
become due payable to the deceased on 13.08.2007. PW-15
Bhindra Devi, sister-in-law of the deceased in her evidence
had clearly stated that as and when Meena Devi visited her
house, Meena Devi used to tell her about the suffering
meted out to her by the accused Raj Kumar. Further, Bhindra
Devi (PW-15) had clearly spoken about the motive
attributed to the accused. From the evidence of PW-15, it is
brought out that the accused Raj Kumar is a chronic
drunkard. On previous occasion, respondent-accused had
beaten Meena Devi and he had entered into compromise
with Meena Devi by assuring her that he would not beat her
in future. Evidence of PW-15 as to the motive attributed to
the accused was not properly appreciated by the High Court.
14. Jeewan Lal (PW-1) has clearly spoken as to the attack
on Meena Devi by the accused on the night of 23.08.2007
and the subsequent threat to PW-1 by the accused and one
Om Prakash. The trial court which had the opportunity of
Page No. 10 of 13
seeing and observing demeanour of the witnesses held that
Jeewan Lal (PW-1) is a trustworthy witness. While so, the
High Court was not right in doubting the version of Jeewan
Lal (PW-1) on the ground that PW-1 made improvements in
his version. In his statement (Ex.P/A) dated 25.08.2007,
Jeewan Lal (PW-1) did not disclose the participation qua
accused Nos. 2 and 3 namely Ramesh Kumar and Om
Parkash in the commission of the offence. Evidence of
Jeewan Lal (PW-1) cannot be doubted simply because names
of Ramesh Kumar and Om Prakash were not mentioned in his
statement recorded on 25.08.2007 immediately after
bringing down the hanging body of Meena Devi from the
tree. The circumstances in which PW-1 was placed at that
time, is to be kept in view. PW-1 was only aged nineteen
years. On the night of 23.08.2007, he had heard the cries of
his mother at the time when she was beaten. PW-1 and
PW-3 had been searching for Meena Devi for more than
twenty four hours that is from 24.08.2007 to 25.08.2007,
only to fnd her dead. PW-1 was already threatened by
accused Om Parkash to inform Anant Ram (PW-3) that Meena
Page No. 11 of 13
Devi had run away. On 25.08.2007, when PW-1's
statement was recorded, he must have been in trauma and
fear psychosis. In such circumstances, omission to mention
the names of Om Parkash and Ramesh Kumar in his
statement (Ex.P/A) does not render PW-1's evidence
untrustworthy. Upon proper appreciation of the evidence,
the trial court observed that evidence of PW-1 inspires
confdence of the court. While so, in our view, the High
Court ought not to have doubted the version of PW-1 and his
credibility.
15. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the
approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read
as a whole appears to be truthful in the given circumstances
of the case. Once that impression is formed, it is necessary
for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly
keeping in view the drawbacks and infrmities pointed out in
the evidence and evaluate them to fnd out whether it is
against the general tenor of the prosecution case. Jeewan
Lal (PW-1) is the son of the deceased Meena Devi residing
with her and the accused in the same house, and a natural
Page No. 12 of 13
witness to speak about the occurrence. Evidence of PW-1 is
cogent and natural and is consistent with the prosecution
case. The High Court was not right in doubting the evidence
of PW-1 on the ground of alleged improvements made by
Jeewan Lal (PW-1) and rejecting his evidence on the premise
that there were certain improvements.
16. As pointed out by the Sessions Judge, deceased Meena
Devi was last seen alive in the company of accused Raj
Kumar and the accused did not satisfactorily explain the
missing of deceased Meena Devi and the same is a strong
militating circumstance against the accused. Meena Devi
who was residing in the same house with the accused and
was last seen alive with the accused, it is for him to explain
how the deceased died. The accused has no reasonable
explanation as to how the body of Meena Devi was found
hanging from the tree. As held in Kashi Ram case, it is for
the accused to explain as to what happened to the
deceased. If the accused does not throw light on the fact
which is within his knowledge, his failure to offer any
Page No. 13 of 13
explanation would be a strong militating circumstance
against him.
17. As pointed out earlier, in his questioning under Section
313 Cr.P.C., the accused simply denied the evidence of
incriminating circumstance put to him and pleaded that he is
innocent. A feeble attempt was made by the defence to
suggest that the deceased consumed poison and committed
suicide. Viscera of deceased Meena Devi was sent to FSL
Tungand. As per FSL report, no poison was detected in the
viscera of the deceased. In our considered view, the trial
court rightly rejected the plea suggested by the defence.
18. As pointed out earlier, in a catena of judgments, this
Court held that when conviction is based on circumstantial
evidence, there should not be any gap in the chain of
circumstances; the accused is entitled to the beneft of
doubt. In the present case, by cogent and convincing
evidence, prosecution has established the circumstances:- (i)
Motive (evidence of PW-15); (ii) accused beating the
deceased and taking her away (Evidence of PW-1); (iii) Death
Page No. 14 of 13
of Meena Devi is homicidal (evidence of PW-24); (iv) Conduct
of accused in not reporting to the police about missing of the
deceased Meena Devi; and (v) Absence of explanation from
the accused as to the death of the deceased. The
circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are proved by
cogent and reliable evidence. The circumstances
cumulatively taken form a complete chain pointing out that
the murder was committed by the accused and none-else.
19. In the appeal, the High Court has not properly
appreciated the evidence and intrinsic worth of testimony of
prosecution witnesses and the formidable circumstances
established by the prosecution against the accused. The
High Court entertained fanciful doubts and rejected the
credible evidence of Jeewan Lal (PW-1) on slender grounds.
Due to mis-appreciation of evidence, the High Court set
aside the conviction and caused a miscarriage of justice.
Reasonings of the High Court for acquitting the accused are
unsustainable and the impugned judgment cannot be
sustained.
Page No. 15 of 13
20. In the result, the impugned judgment is set aside and
the appeal is allowed. The conviction of the respondent
under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment
imposed on him by the trial court are affirmed. The
respondent shall be taken into custody to serve the
remaining sentence.
…....………………………..J.
 (R. BANUMATHI)
…....………………………..J.
 (UDAY UMESH LALIT)
New Delhi;
January 8, 2018
Page No. 16 of 13