Balwant Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.

1. Anita, a young married woman, was found murdered in her in laws house on January 28, 1997. At the time of death she was pregnant and the age of male child was approximately 34 to 38 weeks. Anita was married to Balwant Singh (appellant) on May 18, 1996 and most of the time after her marriage she had remained at her parental house. Only two days before her, death i.e. on January 26, 1997 Balwant Singh took her to his house. Balwant Singh was indicted for having committed murder of Anita and vide judgment dated September 10, 1998, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Behror (Alwar) convicted and sentenced him under Section 302 IPC to suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000A, in default to further suffer. One Month Imprisonment. Impugning this judgment, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

2. As per the prosecution story a written report was submitted by informant Basanti Lal Yadav, at police Station Behror on January 29, 1997 at 1.35 A.M. against his son Balwant Singh (appellant) with the averments that his son Balwant Singh was married to Anita (since deceased) on May 18, 1996. Balwant Singh brought Anita from her parental home on January 26, 1997. At about 10 AM on January 28, 1997 when the informant was leaving his house for office, he had noticed some exchange of hot words between Balwant Singh and Anita. Subsequently around 4 PM he received information that Anita was lying unconscious in the house. The informant rushed to his house and on reaching there he found Anita dead. The informant suspected that it was Balwant Singh who had killed Anita.

3. On the basis of the said information a case under Section 302 IPC was registered against the appellant and investigation commenced. Autopsy on the dead body of Anita was conducted. Inquest report and memo of site plan were drawn. The appellant was arrested and at his instance belt allegedly used in commission of the offence got recovered. On completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed and in due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Behror. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as eleven witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the appellant claimed innocence. The appellant himself appeared as a defence witness and raised plea of alibi. In support of his plea, the appellant produced three more defence witnesses, who stated that while appellant was away and Anita was alone in the house two unknown persons visited her. Learned trial Judge on hearing the final submissions, convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above.

4. The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence which broadly speaking is as under:

(i) On the fateful day Anita was last seen with the appellant and the informant Basanti Lal Yadav, the father of appellant, while leaving his house for office, at 10 AM, had noticed some exchange of hot words between the appellant and Anita and she was found dead in the afternoon.

(ii) Balwant and Anita were alone in the first floor of the house and except the old grand-mother of the appellant, no other person was present in the house. Oil) Cause of death of Anita was asphyxia due to strangulation and belt used for being the neck of Anita was recovered at the instance of the appellant.

(iv) Appellant raised false plea of alibi.

5. The learned Senior Advocate, Mr. S.R. Bajwa canvassed that in the event of there being only circumstantial evidence, those circumstances must be proved to be such as to be conclusive of the guilt of the accused and incapable of explanation on any hypothesis consistent with the innocent of the accused. The court should therefore be watchful and ensure that conjectures do not take place of legal proof. It has been the contention of learned counsel that the prosecution has utterly failed to link up the chain and as matter of fact the snap in the chain is not very far to seek. According to learned counsel there is no cogent evidence to connect the appellant with the alleged murder of his own wife Anita. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish motive for the alleged crime. So far as the evidence of last seen is concerned, there is nothing unusual about it. A wife is normally last seen in the company of her husband. The evidence created through alleged information and consequent recovery of belt is per se fake and fabricated. The injuries around the neck of the deceased do not appear to have been caused by using the belt.

6. In order to adjudge as to whether chain of the circumstances has been linked up or not, let us advert to the testimony of witnesses examined at the trial. The evidence of Dr. Virendra Kumar (PW. 6), who performed autopsy, shows that Anita sustained following antemortem injuries:-

(i) Abrasion: 3 x 0.5 cm on anterior aspect of right leg upper part. (ii) Bruise: 3 x 0.5 cm on the right popliteal fossa. (iii) Right upper lid swollen and blue in colour. (iv) Three Abrasions on the neck of sizes:-

(a) 6 x 2 cm on the anterior aspect of middle of neck.

(b) 5 x 2 cm on the left side of neck extending from mid line.

(c) 4 x 3 cm on the left side of neck lateral to abrasion No. (b).

All the three abrasions were dry, hard and perchanent like, brown in colour. On dissection extravasation of blood was found present into sub cutenedous tissue.

Organs generation (external and internal):

Healthy, pregnant uterus extending above umbilicus having dead male child, had downwards, average built scalp hair well developed, ear cartilage developed, bread niddle present 3-4 mm. in size, plantal and palmer creases present. Scrotum deeply pigmented and adequate sugar present. Gestationai age of child approximately 34 to 38 weeks.

Cause of death was ASPHYXIA due to STRANGULATION. Dr. Virendra Kumar was cross examined at length. A suggestion was also given to him that it could have been a case of suicide but this suggestion did not find his approval.

7. Basanti Lal Yadav (PW. 1) in his deposition stated that Anita was married to his son Balwant on May 18, 1996. She had been to her parental house for the last 2-3 months before Balwant took her on January 26, 1997 to his house. On January 28, 1997 while he was about to leave his house, he found Balwant and Anita laughing and joking. He then gave a word of caution to them. There was no body in the house except his old mother. At about 3- 4 PM he received information in Tehsil that Anita was lying unconscious. On reaching the house he found Anita dead. The prosecution after declaring Basanti Lal Yadav hostile, cross examined him. In his cross examination he however admitted that written report Ex.P-1 was lodged by him.

8. Ishwar Singh (PW. 2), uncle of deceased Anita, deposed that on January 28, 1997 one Ramavtar informed him that Anita was ill and admitted to Kotputli Hospital. When he reached at village Hamidpur, he found people telling that Balwant had killed anita. On being asked as to what had happened, the father of Balwant told him that Balwant had murdered Anita. At the time of death Anita had pregnancy of 7-8 months. In the cross examination counsel for the appellant gave following suggestion to the witness:-

'In fact Anita herself had committed suicide because she became pregnant much before entering into marriage with Balwant Singh'

The witness answered this suggestion in negative. Rohtash (PW. 3), father of the deceased, corroborated the testimony of Ishwar Singh (PW. 2). Ratan Lal (PW. 4) Motbir of seizure memos, stated that pieces of bangles and belt were lying at the place of occurrence itself between the two Costs. Raghu Raj Singh, Investigation Officer (PW. 10) deposed that on the basis of disclosure statement of Balwant Singh (Ex.P-14) recovery of leather belt used in commission of offence, was effected by him vide Ex.P-9. Iron-buckle and leather ring of the belt and pieces of bangles were however seized by him from the place of occurrence.

9. Appellant Balwant Singh who appeared as a witness as DW. 4 in his deposition stated that on January 26, 1996 when he took Anita from her parental house, she had a child in her wonb. On January 28, 1996 he and Anita visited to Narnaul for her check-up by lady Doctor whose name was also Anita. They left the house at 7.00 AM and came back around 11 AM. Finding the meals ready in the house, they decided to eat it. They had shared the meals in one plate while laughing and joking together. Sardar Singh and Sultan cautioned them not to behave casually in the village. After eating the food he left his house on scooter and went to the shop of Jhasla Electronics belonging to one Ramavtar Yadav and remained there upto 5.30 PM. When he left the house his wife was happy. After reaching the house at 5.30 PM, he found people assembled there. Sardara then told him that two boys aged 20 years carne after he left the house. In the cross examination he stated that Narnaul was 20 kms. away from his village and Dr. Anita had checked up his wife by a machine. He further stated that some months back when his wife left for her parental house he could not notice her pregnancy.

10. Sardar Singh (DW: 1) deposed that on the fateful day he along with Sultan, Daya Ram, Tola Panch, Ram Narayan and Umrao were playing cards in the field situated in front of the house of Basanta Patwari. Around 11 PM Balwant and his wife Anita came on the scooter and went inside the house. Around 12.30 PM Balwant left his house. Around 1.30 PM two boys came on a motor-cycle to meet Anita and remained with her about 45 minutes. He brought this fact into the notice of Patwari Basanti Lal Yadav.

11. Sultan Singh (DW. 2) toed the testimony of Sardar Singh whereas Ramavtar (DW. 3) deposed that on the fateful day Balwant came to his shop around 1.30 PM and remained there till the evening. In the cross examination he admitted that Balwant's elder brother got married with his sister's daughter,

12. Salient features of the case, noticed by us, may be summarized thus:-

(i) After her marriage with Balwant Singh on: May 18, 1996, Anitaremained most of the time at her parental house. Balwant Singh didnot pursuade her to reside with him.

(ii) On January 26, 1997 Balwant Singh took Anita to his house from her parental house. Anita had pregnancy of over eight months and Balwant Singh knew that delivery could be expected at any moment.

(iii) According to Balwant Singh while Anita left some months back for her parental house, he could not notice from her appearance that she was pregnant.

(iv) On January 26, 1997 Anita came to her husband house and only after two days i.e. on January 28, 1997 she was found dead.

(v) As per FIR Basanti Lal Yadav, while leaving for the office at 10 AM, saw Balwant Singh and Anita exchanging hot words.

(vi) Initial defence of the appellant Balwant Singh as introduced to Ishwar Singh (PW. 2) and Dr. Virendra Kumar (PW. 6) was that Anita had committed suicide as she became pregnant much before entering into marriage but subsequently appellant adopted new theory of defence according to which two boys visited Anita and remained in the house for 45 minutes. Thus an attempt was made to create impression that those two boys were responsible for her death.

(vii) Basanti Lal Yadav had seen Anita and Balwant Singh together in the house at 10 AM whereas Balwant Singh deposed that he and Anita were not in the house at 10 AM and came back to the house around 11 AM after visiting the Doctor at Narnaul.

(viii) Sardar Singh (DW. 1) and Sultan (DW. 2) also stated that Anita and Balwant Singh came back to the house on a scooter at 11 AM. Both these witnesses deposed that two unknown boys visited Anita before her death.

(ix) Doctor Anita of Narnaul was not examined by the appellant, even prescription slip and check-up report were not produced.

(x) As per the deposition of Ramavtar Yadav (DW. 3) Balwant Singh used to attend his shop at 9 AM but on the fateful day he came to the shop around 1.30 PM.

(xi) While lodging FIR, Basanti Lal Yadav did not hesitate to name his son Balwant Singh as an accused.

(xii) Cause of death of Anita was asphyxia due to strangulation and at the time of her death male child of the age of about 38 weeks was found dead in her womb.

(xiii) Belt allegedly used in the commission of offence was recovered at the instance of Balwant Singh.

13. It is well settled that an accused can be condemned a convict only on clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence and if only a chain of circumstantial evidence has been so forged as to rule out the possibility of any other reasonable hypothesis excepting the guilt of the accused. We have therefore to see whether the evidence adduced at the trial can be regard sufficient to base the conviction of the appellant.

14. The first circumstantial evidence against the appellant is that deceased Anita was last seen with him. Basanti Lal Yadav categorically deposed that while leaving his house for office he had seen Anita and Balwant laughing and joking and he had cautioned them. Although in FIR Basanti Lal stated that at 10 AM he had noticed some exchange of hot words between Balwant and Anita. Basanti Lal Yadav is the father of the appellant and we see no reason to disbelieve his testimony. While considering the contention of learned counsel that there is nothing unusual about it as wife is normally last seen in the company of her husband. We have also to take into consideration the surrounding circumstances. The marriage of appellant and Anita, as already noticed, had been taken place on May 18, 1996 and before Balwant took Anita to his house on January 26, 1997 she had been to her parental house for the last 2-3 months. Anita was pregnant and found dead on January 28, 1997. When some months back Anita proceeded to her parental house the appellant could not notice from her appearance that she was pregnant. From the autopsy report of Anita it appears that at the time of her death, she had in her womb a dead male child of the age of about 38 weeks. Initial defence of the appellant as introduced to Ishwar Singh (PW. 2) and Dr. Virendra Kumar (PW. 6) was that Anita had committed suicide as she became pregnant much before entering into marriage. In view of initial defence adopted by the appellant we are of the view that circumstances of last seen assumes importance. As per his own admission the appellant was with Anita till 12.30 PM on the fateful day. Anita was last seen alive only by Basanti Lal Yadav at 10 AM with the appellant.

15. The second circumstance against the appellant is that when Basanti Lal Yadav left his house for office at 10 AM, only Balwant Singh, Anita and old grand-mother remained in the house. Appellant himself admitted in his deposition that when he left the house at 12.30 PM Anita and old grand-mother were there. From the testimony of Basanti Lal Yadav and appellant it is established that on the fateful day Anita was alone in the company of appellant and old grand-mother of the appellant was so infirm that neither she could hear nor see anything.

16. The third circumstance against the appellant is that death of Anita was caused due to strangulation and belt used for tying the neck of Anita was recovered at the instance of the appellant. We have already considered the testimony of Dr, Virendra Kumar (PW. 6) and the autopsy report of Anita and it is apparently clear that cause of death of Anita was asphyxia due to strangulation. So far as recovery of belt at the instance of the appellant is concerned it may be noticed that Ratan Lal (PW. 4) stated that pieces of bangles and belt were lying at the place of occurrence itself but the Investigating Officer Raghu Raj Singh (PW. 10) deposed that on the basis of disclosure statement (Ex.P- 14) of the appellant, belt used for committing the offence got recovered by him vide seizure memo (Ex.P-9) from the place shown in the disclosure statement. We have closely scanned the statements of Ratan Lal (PW. 4) and Raghu Raj Singh (PW. 10). We find testimony of Ratan Lal quite casual. In re-examination when belt was shown to Ratan Lal, he could not identify it and deposed that he was not in a position to say as if it was the same belt or not. Obviously no reliance can be placed on such testimony. Contention of the learned Senior counsel is that it is not safe to rely upon the statement of the Investigation Officer. We find no substance in this submission. The evidence of I.O. Raghu Raj Singh (PW. 10) is convincing. Raghu Raj Singh had no enmity with the appellant. The Investigation commenced against the appellant on the basis of the FIR lodged by his father. It is well settled that if the evidence of Investigation Officer who recovered the material object is convincing, the evidence as to recovery need not be rejected on the ground that seizure witnesses do not support the prosecution version. In NCT of Delhi v. Sunil (1), Hon'ble Supreme Court indicated that 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. From the evidence disclosed above it is apparent that the third circumstance has been well established by the prosecution.

17. The last and probably the most formidable circumstantial evidence against the appellant is his plea of alibi which was found false by the learned trial court. As earlier seen, the appellant stated that on January 28, 1997 he and Anita left the house at 7 AM and proceeded on scooter to Narnaul for check-up of Anita by Dr. Anita and came back to the house at about 11 AM, where they found their meals ready. He and Anita together ate the food in one plate. At that time nobody was there in the house except his old grand-mother. He then left the house around 12.30 PM leaving Anita happy. Appellant does not say that his father Basanti Lal Yadav was also in the house. The explanation offered by the appellant has been belied by the evidence of appellant's own father Basanti Lal Yadav who stated that while going to the office he had seen the appellant and Anita together in the house and cautioned them. Not only from this angle but the plea of alibi of the appellant appears to be untrue from another angle also. Initially the defence of the appellant as introduced to Ishwar Singh (PW. 2) and Dr. Virendra Kumar (PW. 6) was that Anita herself committed suicide because she became pregnant prior to her marriage. Subsequently the defence theory was changed and according to which two unknown boys visited Anita and remained in the house for 45 minutes. Appellant himself stated this fact and examined Sardar Singh (DW. 1) and Sultan (DW. 2) to support this version. We do not find ring of truth in the testimony of Sardar Singh and Sultan. They appear to us as liars because firstly, they say that Balwant and Anita came back to house at 11 AM and secondly they deposed that when Basanti Lal Yadav came to the house after receiving the information of Anita's death, they had told him that two boys visited Anita. Had they informed Basanti Lal Yadav about the visit of two boys why would he name his son as accused in the FIR? From the statement of Ramavtar Yadav (DW. 3) it appears that about one month back the appellant had started learning wire-binding work at his shop. The appellant used to visit the shop at 9 AM and remained there till the evening but on the date of incident, the appellant came to the shop at 1.30 PM. Appellant himself admitted that he reached at the shop of Ramavtar around 1.30 PM. For not going the shop of Ramavtar at 9 AM the appellant gave explanation that he had gone to Narnaul for check-up of Anita, and this explanation was belied by the evidence of Basanti Lal Yadav. Neither Dr. Anita of Narnaul was examined by the appellant to probabilse his defence nor any documentary evidence was produced, it is inexplicable as to why the appellant, who had knowledge that Anita had pregnancy of over eight months and delivery could be expected at any moment left her alone. A husband who loves his wife would never leave her alone in such a situation.

18. It is well settled that in a case of circumstantial evidence when the accused offers an explanation and that explanation is found to be untrue then the same offers and additional link in the chain of circumstances to complete the chain, (Vide Swapan Patre v. State of W.B. (2), State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (3), Anthony D'Souza v. State of Karnataka (4), and Alamgir v. State of (NCT Delhi) (5). In the instant case the false explanation offered by the appellant can be counted as providing 'a missing link' for completing the chain.

19. Learned Senior counsel further contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish motive for the alleged crime. We have examined the material on record from this angle also. In a criminal trial failure to prove a motive does not necessarily mean that there was no motive for the crime. The circumstances of an act being apparently motiveless is not a ground from which the existence of a powerful or irresistible influence or homicidal tendency can be inferred. Motives exist unknown and innumerable which might prompt the act. Mysterious is the working 6f human mind. It is, indeed, a fact that motive underlies almost every offence, but the motives of men are often deep unfathomable and their number is ligion. The motive behind a crime is a relevant fact of which evidence can be given. The circumstances proving the guilt of the accused are however not weakened at all by the fact that the motive has not been established. It often happens that only the culprit himself knows what moved him to a certain course of action. In Mani Kumar Thapa v. State of Sikkim (6), their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that if the prosecution is able to establish beyond all reasonable doubt from other circumstantial evidence that it was the accused alone who could have committed the murder, the absence of the motive will not hamper a safe conviction.

20. It is interesting to note that though no motive was ascribed by the prosecution as to why the appellant took the unnatural step of killing his wife, materials on record indicate that the appellant was under the impression that his wife Anita became pregnant as a result of sexual intercourse committed by some other person prior to her marriage. This suspicion as appeared in the conscious portion of his psychic apparatus came in to light when the prosecution witnesses Ishwar Singh (PW. 2) and Dr. Virendra Kumar (PW. 6) were asked in the cross examination that Anita herself committed suicide because she became pregnant prior to her marriage. It may, therefore, be safely inferred that believing that his wife Anita was going to deliver a child, conceived through some other person, the appellant committed the offence in question in order to get rid of her and her unborn child.

21. In the ultimate analysis we find a combination of facts creating a network through which there is no escape for the appellant. The evidence collected by the prosecution is qualitatively such that on every reasonable hypothesis the conclusion is that appellant is guilty. We find that the chain of circumstantial evidence against the appellant is complete and incapable of any explanation or any other hypothesis then of the guilt of the appellant. Learned trial judge in our considered view, has not committed any error in convicting and sentencing the appellant and we confirm the impugned finding.

22. For the reasons aforementioned we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.