There is a case for the
appellant that the conduct of P.W.2 in not breaking
5
open the door and only watching the occurrence for
five minutes renders the evidence suspect.
8. We are not persuaded to overturn the
concurrent findings of the courts below
No doubt, the High Court has
taken the view that D.W.1 has not given complaint
to the higher police officers. The High Court no
doubt also finds fault with the first appellant in
6
not disclosing the name of the person with whom his
wife was found to be in a compromising position.
Even proceeding on the basis that he may not have
known the name of the person it still does not
detract from us reposing confidence in the
testimony of the police officer. The presence of
the second appellant and her being apprehended by
the police officers, has been believed by both the
Courts and this is completely inconsistent with the
case set up by the appellants. In such
circumstances, we see no reason to interfere.
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.580 OF 2010
ASHWANI KUMAR & ANR. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF PUNJAB ..RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
K.M. JOSEPH, J.
1. The appeal by special leave is directed
against the judgment of the High court of Punjab &
Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.103 of 2000
dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants,
confirming the conviction and sentence under
1
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The prosecution case is that on 18.9.1998
the Assistant sub-inspector along with Head
Constable of police and other police officials were
on patrol duty and while so at about 1.30 p.m.,
they heard shrieks from one room of the house,
which was bolted from the inside. From the gaps in
the door of that room, the Assistant sub-Inspector
peeped inside the room and found that one man was
sitting on the chest of the lady, who was made to
lie on the ground and he was pressing her neck.
One lady was standing near that place and holding a
pucca brick, in her hand. She gave two blows with
the said brick on the person of the lady lying on
the ground. She told the man, the co-accused that
the said lady who was being assaulted was insulting
her before others who was his wife. She also
exhorted the man that he should finish her,
2
thereupon the man lifted a ‘khurpa’ and gave blows
with it. After killing her, both man and the woman
came out and they proclaimed that they have
accomplished their job. It is this man and woman
who are appellants before us.
4. The murdered lady was the wife of the
first appellant. The prosecution advanced its case
through the sub-inspector who was examined as P.W.2
and Head Constable who was examined as P.W.3 Under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. the first appellant has given
the following written statement:
“On the day of occurrence, I left my house
for going to Amritsar. On the way, I
found that I have left my purse at my
house. As such, I returned back to take
my purse. I saw a man holding my wife in
his arms and my wife also holding him. On
seeing me, he ran away. In a rage, I gave
push to my wife and her head struck
against wall. My wife started saying that
I cannot satisfy her sexually and
continued to say that my six months old
son is not from my loins but is from the
loins of this person. She told that she
will have other child from loins of her
lover also. I lost control over myself and
under this provocation caused injuries to
3
my wife. I had extreme love with my child.
I myself had appeared before police and
informed about the occurrence. The police
made out a false case against me later on
and police men became false witnesses.”
5. The second appellant in her 313 statement
claimed that she was innocent and was not present
at the time of the alleged occurrence.
6. The Trial Court on the basis of the
evidence accepted the prosecution version and
convicted the appellants. The High Court also
reposed confidence in the prosecution version.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants
impugned the prosecution version and drew our
attention to the evidence of D.W.1. D.W.1 has
inter alia stated as follows:
Many persons had collected there at the place.
He asked first appellant as to what he had done,
thereupon the first appellant disclosed that he
suspected that somebody was present in his house
4
along with his wife and the doors were closed and
out of sudden provocation, he had killed his wife.
He informed this incident to C. Karam Singh and SPO
Kultar Singh who came on a scooter at the place of
occurrence. He would say that before their arrival
no other police official arrived at the spot. C.
Karam Singh and SPO Kultar Singh then took the
first appellant to the police station. In his
cross examination he has stated that he did not
move any application regarding this incident to the
higher police authorities or executive authorities.
He denied that ASI who had come as prosecution
witness and other police officials had arrested
both accused. As many as 12 stab wounds have been
noted. This is besides 3 lacerated wounds.
According to the doctor, the death in this case was
due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of stab
injuries which was sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature. There is a case for the
appellant that the conduct of P.W.2 in not breaking
5
open the door and only watching the occurrence for
five minutes renders the evidence suspect.
8. We are not persuaded to overturn the
concurrent findings of the courts below. As
observed by the High Court, there is no motive for
the police officials to falsely implicate the
appellants. The case of the second appellant is
one of alibi. She has not discharged her burden to
show that she was elsewhere. On the other hand,
there is evidence of the police officials that
after committing the crime, the appellants came out
and proclaimed that they have accomplished what
they wanted. They were apprehended. In such
circumstances, we see no reason to allow the
appellants to rely upon the statement of the first
appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C or upon the
deposition of D.W.1. No doubt, the High Court has
taken the view that D.W.1 has not given complaint
to the higher police officers. The High Court no
doubt also finds fault with the first appellant in
6
not disclosing the name of the person with whom his
wife was found to be in a compromising position.
Even proceeding on the basis that he may not have
known the name of the person it still does not
detract from us reposing confidence in the
testimony of the police officer. The presence of
the second appellant and her being apprehended by
the police officers, has been believed by both the
Courts and this is completely inconsistent with the
case set up by the appellants. In such
circumstances, we see no reason to interfere. The
appeal fails and stands dismissed.
…………………………………CJI.
(Ranjan Gogoi)
………………………………………J.
(K.M. Joseph)
New Delhi;
November 28, 2018
7
