Sultan Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
penal code, 1860 - section 302--murder--circumstantial evidence--accused charged with murder of his wife--evidence that accused used to beat his wife--on visit of relatives of wife, accused stating that his wife was missing for about more than a month--no steps taken by him to find her whereabouts--when a missing report was lodged with police by the paternal relations of the wife, accused making a request to ex-sarpanch, a relative of wife, to arrange hushing up the matter and also making confession that he had killed his wife--prosecution proved the guilt of the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence. - - he also made an offer for payment of money if they so like. however, he stated that they were good friends. in our view, the decision of the apex court in bhajan singh's case referred to above is clearly distinguishable as in the instant case the extra judicial confession has been made before p. 8 sangram singh an ex-sarpanch and a good friend of p. there could be no better person that p. in the instant case the confession has been made before sangram singh a person of status in the village and also a good friend of p. we are satisfied that the extra judicial confession made by the appellant before p. it is also submitted that the doctor, who performed the autopsy failed to send the dead body to the professor of anatomy, who might have been in a position to express opinion after examining the bones. a ribbon has also been found in the plait (balo ki choti) which clearly shows that the dead body was of a female. this clearly shows that smt. bidam kanwar was not liked by the appellant sultan singh and he wanted to get rid of her. the learned sessions judge was perfectly justified in holding the appellant guilty for murder of his wife.n.n. mathur, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4th december, 1995 passed by sessions judge, merta convicting the appellant for offence under section 302 i.p.c. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rs. 200/-; in default of payment to further undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment. he has also been convicted for offence under section 201 i.p.c. and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of rs. 100/-. both the sentence have been ordered to run concurrently.2. briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 25th august, 1994, p.w. 4 narpat singh submitted a missing written report at police station, merta road stating that his sister bidam kanwar was married to sultan singh about 15 years back. in february, 1994 deceased bidam kanwar was sent to her in-law house. about a month back when harnth singh went to collect her, but no satisfactory reply was given, about her, availability. dungar singh the elder brother of appellant sultan singh told him that she left the house and has not returned. he also stated that they were under the impression that she has gone to her parents house. after four days, he himself went to the house of sultan singh and he was also given the same answer by dungar singh in presence of appellant sultan singh. an attempt was gain made by sending p.w. 15 gopal singh. at this stage dungar singh advised him to drop the matter. he also made an offer for payment of money if they so like. dungar singh also suggested that if any body ask them, about smt. bidam kanwar they should say that she has died and similarly if any body ask them they would reply that she has gone to village bassi (parental house). on 23.8.1994 sultan singh and dungar singh met them but they did not disclose as to what has really happened to mst. bidam kanwar. on this information police registered a missing report. on 8.9.1994, p.w. 4 narpat singh submitted a written report addressed to dy. superintendent of police, merta city stating that on 7.9.1994 his maternal uncle p.w. 13 kushal singh and p.w. 8 sangram singh ex-sarpanch came to his house and disclosed that on 6.4.1994 appellant sultan singh visited the house of sangram singh and asked him to persuade the family members of bidam kanwar not to further proceed in the matter and drop the complalnt made before the police. he also made a confession that the bidam kanwar has been killed by him. he also confessed that a wrong has been committed by him and he was prepared to do whatever they say. he also proposed to transfer the entire land of his share in the name of his son nandu singh residing in village mai rajanpura danta ramgarh. he (narpat singh) expressed suspicion that his sister mst. bidam kanwar might have been killed by appellant sultan singh, his brother dungar singh and his wife mst. meera kanwar. on this information police registered a case for offence under section 302/201/34 i.p.c. and proceeded with investigation. the appellant was apprehended on 11.9.1994 vide ex. p. 39. in pursuance of the information given by the appellant the dead body of mst. bidam kanwar was exhumed from the house of appellant vide, ex. p. 30 in presence of p.w. 17 b.d. yaday sub-divisional magistrate, merta. the police prepared the inquest and sent the dead body for post mortem. after usual investigation police lald charge-sheet against the appellant for offence under sections 302 & 201 i.p.c.3. the appellant denied the charge levelled against him and clalmed trial. the prosecution in support of the case examined 19 witnesses and produced certain documents. the appellant in his statement under section 313 of the code of criminal procedure denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against him. the defence examined d.w. 1 bhaduda. the trial court found the following piece of circumstances proved against the appellant:(i) extra judicial confession of appellant sultan singh before p.w. 8 sangram singh and p.w. 13 kushal singh;(ii) recovery of the dead body of deceased smt. bidam kanwar in pursuance of information given by the appellant under section 27 of the evidence act;(iii) conduct of the appellant in not making any inquiry with respect to the disappearance of his wife.the trial court held that the prosecution has satisfactorily established the chain of circumstantial evidence against the appellant with regard to his involvement in the murder of mst. bidam kanwar. accordingly the learned judge convicted and sentence the appellant as noticed above.4. assailing the conviction, it is submitted by shri doongar singh learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court committed error in relying on the alleged extra judicial confession made by the appellant before p.w. 8 sangram singh. it is submitted that sangram singh was not known to the appellant and as such there was no reason for the accused appellant to blur out the so called extra judicial confession before him. as regards the recovery of the dead body, it is contended that there is no evidence to show that the skeleton exhumed was that of mst. bidam kanwar. it is also submitted that simple recovery of a dead body in pursuance of the information given by the accused cannot lead to the inference that appellant committed the murder. it is further submitted that the dead body has been recovered from the house, which was not in exclusive possession of the appellant, but his brother dungar singh and his wife meera were also residing therein. as regards the conduct, it is submitted that whenever any member of the victim's family namely harnath singh, gopal singh visited them and inquired about mst. bidam kanwar the reply was given by dungar singh and not the appellant. on the other hand the learned public prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial court.5. we have scanned. scrutinised and evaluated the prosecution evidence exhaustively and considered the rival contentions. before dealing with the contentions raised and each of the circumstances, we may indicate the nature of the prosecution evidence.p.w. 1 smt. baya, p.w. 2 heera ram, p.w. 3 hanumang singh, p.w. 5 kalyan singh, p.w. 6 bhanwaroo ram, p.w. 7 mohan singh, p.w. 9 chetram, p.w. 10 rampal and p.w. 11 kanwari lal have not supported the prosecution case and as such they have been declared hostitle. however, the fact that large number of witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile is not going to help appellant in any way as there is sufficient evidence on record to bring home the guilt of the accused. there is no ocular evidence connecting the appellant with the crime. thus, the entire case rests on the curcumstantial evidence. there is an evidence of p.w. 8 sangram singh and p.w. 13 kushal singh of extra judicial confession against the appellant. there is evidence of p.w. 13 kushal singh, p.w. 14 badrudin, p.w. 15 gopal singh, p.w. 17 b.d. yadav sub-divisional magistrate merta, p.w. 18 shiv sawroop invstigating officer, with respect to evidence of recovery of dead body of mst. bidam kanwar in pursuance of the information given by the appellant. there is also evidence of p.w. 4 narpat singh, p.w. 15 gopal singh with respect to the conduct of the appellant. now, we shall deal with the each circumstance:6. p.w. 8 sangram singh is the ex-sarpanch of the village itawa. he has stated that on 6.9.1994 sultan singh visited his house and told him that kushal singh and narpat singh have visited merta road and lodged a complaint with the police. he wanted his favour for dropping the proceedings by influencing kushal singh. he also stated that he confessed the guilt saying that mst. bidam kanwar was killed by him. he also offered to transfer the entire land of his share in the name of his son nandu singh. he also told him that he will meet him after two or four days to know the reaction of the other party. he narrated the visit of appellant sultan singh to kushal singh on the same day. on 7th he along with kushal singh went to the house of p.w. 4 narpat singh and divulged the confession made by the appellant sultan singh. thereafter on 8th he along with kushal singh, narpat singh and gopal singh went to the police station, merta and lodged the report. there is no effective cross-examination on the extra judicial confession made by the appellant before this witness. p.w. 13 kushal singh is the maternal uncle of deceased bidam kanwar. he has stated that 15 years back bidam kanwar was married to appellant sultan singh. he stated that appellant used to beat mst. bidam kanwar. he had turned her out from the house. therefore, she used to mostly stay at her parents house. in february, 1994 gopal singh left mst. bidami at her in-laws house. he stated that harnath singh went to collect mst. bidam kanwar, but he was told by dungar singh that she left the house about 1-1/2 month back. on visit by narpat singh the same reply was given by dungar singh. he also stated that dungar singh had advised gopal singh to drop the matter and take money in lieu thereof. he has also stated that on 6th september, 1994 sultan singh met sangram singh the ex-sarpanch of the village and sought his favour in the matter of dropping of missing proceedings of mst. bidam kanwar. he was told by sangram singh that sultan singh had made a confession of guilt before him. he also told about offer made by the appellant for transfer of entire land of his share in the name of his son. he has also stated that he along with sangram singh went to narpat singh and narrated the incident of meeting of sultan singh with sangram singh. in the cross-examination, he admitted that sangram singh is not his relative. however, he stated that they were good friends. he also admitted that on 6th september itself they did not go to the police station for lodging the report with respect to the guilt of the appellant. he also admitted that no report was made to the police with respect to the beating of mst. bidam kanwar by the appellant. the main criticism levelled against the statement of p.w. 8 sangram singh is that there was no reason for the appellant to blur out the confession before this witness, who was completely stranger to him. the learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the apex court in state of punjab v. bhajan singh reported in : 1975crilj282 , wherein the evidence of extra judicial confession before the two witnesses namely gurmail singh and jabarjung singh was rejected for the reason that there was no reason for the appellants to appear before them and blur out confession as the said witnesses were not in a position to help them. in our view, the decision of the apex court in bhajan singh's case referred to above is clearly distinguishable as in the instant case the extra judicial confession has been made before p.w. 8 sangram singh an ex-sarpanch and a good friend of p.w. 13 kushal singh the maternal uncle of deceased smt. bidam kanwar, who was in position to help him. the narration of facts indicate that filers were given even on earlier occasion to drop the matter. thus, they were in search of a person, who could influence complainant party. there could be no better person that p.w. 8 sangram singh, an elderly respectable person in the village an ex-sarpanch, and friend of p.w. 13 kushal singh the maternal uncle of victim bidam kanwar. p.w. 8 sangram singh immediately passed over the message of appellant sultan singh to p.w. 13 kushal singh. thereafter, both of them have proceeded to the village mai rajanpura to report to p.w. 4 narpat singh. the entire conduct is natural.7. recently, the apex court in gora singh v. state of rajasthan reported in 2001 cr. l.r. (s.c.) page 22 has held that the court is required to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out as to whether such a confession is not inspired by any improper or collateral consideration or circumvention of law suggesting that it may not be true. the court further held that all relevant circumstances such as to the person whom the confession is made, the time and place of making it, the circumstances in which it was made have to be scrutinized. the court also referred to a decision of the apex court in madan gopal v. naval dutt reported in : [1992]2scr921 wherein it has been held that extra judicial confession, which is not obtained by coercion, promise for favour of false hope and is plenary in character and voluntary in nature can be made basis for conviction even without corroboration. in the instant case the confession has been made before sangram singh a person of status in the village and also a good friend of p.w. 13 kushal singh the maternal uncle of the deceased bidam kanwar. the appellant could repose confidence in him hoping help, protection and to get through the offer to drop the proceedings. the extra judicial confession has been made at a time when the appellant had come under a great pressure inasmuch as a missing report of mst. bidam kanwar was being filed with the police and the members of the family of mst. bidam kanwar were regularly visiting his house. there is nothing to show that the confession was inspired by any improper and collateral consideration. there is no suggestion that the extra judicial confession was made under coercion, promise of favour of false hope. we are satisfied that the extra judicial confession made by the appellant before p.w. 8 sangram singh is voluntary and truthful.8. p.w. 18 shiv sawaroop incharge police station, merta road has stated that on 11.9.1994 the appellant sultan singh was arrested vide ex. p. 39. on 12.9.1994 he made a discloser statement vide ex. p. 40 to the effect that he has burried the dead body of bidam kanwar by digging a pit in his 'bada' which he can get recovered. he also stated that on 13.9.1994 he submitted an application before the collector, nagaur for appropriate directions to sub-divisional magistrate to take up the appropriate proceedings to exhume the dead body of bidam kanwar as per the information given by the appellant vide ex. p. 40. accordingly on 14th he reached in the 'bada' of the accused along with the appellant as per the information given by him. p.w. 17 b.d. yadav, s.d.o., merta also reached on the spot. the appellant himself dug the place for about two to three fts. and the dead body of bidam kanwar was exhumed. p.w. 14 badrudin, who is an independent witness has supported the proceedings. p.w. 17 b.d. yadav s.d.o., merta has stated that as per the orders of the collector, nagaur ex. p. 29 he went to the locality known as bassi mohalla in merta road. he entered inside the 'bada' of appellant sultan singh. it was covered by the boundary of shrubs. he also stated that appellant sultan singh himself dug the place to the depth of about 4 ft. a dead body in a gunny bag was taken out. the autopsy was conducted on the spot by p.w. 19 dr. tulchha ram. he also stated that in the hands of the skeleton there were twenty rubber bangles, silver 'paijebs' in legs, two silver 'bichchhudias' in the fingers of the foot. they were seized and sealed on the spot. he also stated that p.w. 13 kushal singh and p.w. 15 gopal singh identified the dead body as that of mst. bidam kanwar on the basis of the ornaments namely 'paijebs', bangles and ribbon. he has proved the report ex. p. 30 prepared on the spot. nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to discredit the testimony of this witness. p.w. 19 dr. tulchchha ram has stated that he was one of the member of the medical board which conducted the post mortem of the selection wrapped in a gunny bag. in the opinion of the doctor the dead body was of a female. no opinion could be given with respect to the cause of death.9. it is contended by shri doongar singh learned counsel for the appellant that there is no evidence on record to show that the dead body which alleged to have been recovered in pursuance of the discloser statement of the appellant was that of mst. bidam kanwar. it is also submitted that there is no evidence even to say that the dead body was of a female. it is also submitted that the medical board could not find the cause of death because the dead body was in decomposed state. thus, it cannot be held that the death of the person, whose body was recovered was homicidal. it is also submitted that the doctor, who performed the autopsy failed to send the dead body to the professor of anatomy, who might have been in a position to express opinion after examining the bones. learned counsel has placed reliance on decision of bhajan singh's case (supra). the bhajan singh's case is of no help to the appellant. in that case there was nothing on the basis of which three dead bodies could be identified that of the persons, who alleged to have been murdered. in the instance case, the dead body has been identified by p.w. 13 kushal singh and p.w. 15 gopal singh on the basis of the ornaments of the deceased. a ribbon has also been found in the plait (balo ki choti) which clearly shows that the dead body was of a female. there is no rule that in all cases a skeleton exhumed should be sent to the professor of anatomy for his opinion to exactly know the cause of death. it is further contended by the learned counsel that the mere fact that the dead body was pointed out by the prisoner or was discovered as a result of statement made by him would not necessarily lead to the conclusion of the offence of murder. the learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of apex court in k.k. jadav v. state of gujarat reported in : 1966crilj605 . the contention of the learned counsel is based on a complete misreading of the judgment of the apex court in k.k. jadva's case (supra). the apex court has only observed that the single fact of recovery of the dead body in the facts of the case may not necessary lead to the conclusion of the offence of murder. in the said case the conviction of appellant k.k. jadav was upheld on the evidence of approver supported by the evidence of pointing out the dead body, pointing out of the silver buttons of the deceased and presence of the hair on the scarf. in the instant case in addition to the recovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused, there is an evidence of extra judicial confession and the most important the conduct of the appellant. thus, we find no substance in any of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. the prosecution has firmly established the second incriminating circumstance against the appellant.conduct of the appellant:10. the appellant is the husband of deceased mst. bidam kanwar. they had a married life of 15 years. from their wed lock a male child was given birth namely nand singh aged 6 years. it has been stated by p.w. 4 narpat singh, p.w. 13 kushal singh and p.w. 15 gopal singh that the appellant used to beat deceased bidam kanwar. he also used to beat his son nand singh. thus nand singh was staying with the parents of deceased bidam kanwar. this clearly shows that smt. bidam kanwar was not liked by the appellant sultan singh and he wanted to get rid of her. deceased bidam kanwar went to her matrimonial home in february, 1994. there is no explanation from the appellant sultan singh as to what steps were taken by him about the missing of his wife bidam kanwar. his complete silence before and after visiting of harnath singh, gopal singh and narpat singh indicates towards his guilt. it is unnatural that the husband will not speak a word on missing of his wife for number of days.11. thus, the fourth important imcriminating circumstance has been established against the appellant.12. thus, the prosecution has satisfactorily established the chain of circumstantial evidence against the appellant leading to the only inference that it was none else but the appellant sultan singh, who committed the murder of his wife bidam kanwar. the learned sessions judge was perfectly justified in holding the appellant guilty for murder of his wife.13. consequently, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. the appellant is in jail, he will serve out the remaining part of the sentence.