Holding

The Court held that the circumstantial evidence, including the false statement of appellant 4, proved the conspiracy and murder, upholding convictions of appellants 1, 2 and 4, while acquitting appellant 3 due to lack of sufficient evidence.

Summary

Kuldeep Singh, Mahendra Singh, Uttam Chand and Surjeet Kaur were charged with the murder of Sohan Singh. The prosecution alleged that Singh's objection to an illicit relationship between Kuldeep and Surjeet, and to her attempt to sell her share of the house, provided motive for a conspiracy to kill. The accused lured the victim's family to a Ramleela function, left Singh alone, and murdered him; Surjeet later gave a false statement under Section 313 CrPC denying she had left the function. The Supreme Court held that the circumstantial evidence, together with the false statement, established the conspiracy and guilt of Kuldeep, Mahendra and Surjeet beyond reasonable doubt, upholding their convictions under Sections 302 and 120‑B IPC. However, the evidence against Uttam Chand was deemed insufficient, leading to his acquittal. The Court dismissed the appeal for the three convicted appellants and set aside the conviction of the fourth appellant.

Issues considered

The adequacy of circumstantial evidence to prove the conspiracy and murder of Sohan Singh.
Whether a false statement under Section 313 CrPC can be treated as an additional link in the chain of circumstances.
The sufficiency of evidence to sustain the conviction of appellant Uttam Chand under Section 120‑B read with Section 302 IPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120-B, s. 302

Subjects

murdercircumstantial evidenceconspiracyfalse statementSection 313 CrPClife imprisonmentacquittalIndian Penal Codecriminal conspiracyproperty dispute

Judgment

JI( KULDEEP SINGH AND ORS. A
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN

APRIL 25, 2000

[K.T. THOMAS, DORAISWAMYRAW AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] B

Penal Code, 1860-Ss. 302and120-B/S. 120-B r/w. S. 302-Murder-
Circumstantial evidence-Motive established-No infi1mity in appreciation of
the evidence-Conviction and sentence by trial Court-Upheld.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-S. 313-Murder-Circumstantial evi-
c
dence-False expla.iation offered by an uccused-Effect of-Held, provides
additional or missing link in completing the chain of circumstances.

Appellants were prosecuted for offences under Ss. 302 and 120-B/S,
120-B r/w. S. 302 Penal Code. The prosecution case was that 'S' and his D
brother 'M' were staying in different portions of a house along with their
families. After the death of 'M', his wife viz. appellant No. 4 and daughters
continued to stay in the said house. Appellant No. 4 developed illicit rela-
tionship with appellant No. 1, a former tenant of 'M'; 'S' objected to the
said relationship. He was also objecting to appellant No. 4 wanting to sell
E
off her portion of property. Consequently, appellants conspired to kill 'S'.
In pursuance of the said conspiracy, appellant No. 4 took all the family
members to see Ramleela festival leaving 'S' alone in the house. Appellant
No. 4 went away from the Ramleela festival for some time. When the family
members returned home they found 'S' lying in a pool of blood. Trial Court
on appreciation of evidence, held that circumstantial evidence established F
-""' beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused and convicted and sen-
tenced appellant Nos. 1 & 2 under Ss. 302 and 120-B IPC and appellant
Nos. 3 and 4 under S. 120-B r/w. 302 IPC. On appeal, High Court confirmed
the conviction and sentence. Hence the present appeal.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court
G

HELD : 1. It is established beyond reasonable doubt that accused
Nos. 1, 2 and 4 had entered into a conspiracy and had murdered 'S'. There
is no infirmity or fallacy in appreciation of the evidence or the marshalling
of the facts and circumstances which unerringly lead to a conclusion of H
499
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A guilt beyond a reasonable doubt so far as Appellants 1, 2 and 4 are
concerned. Thus, conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court on appel-
lants 1, 2 and 4 is sustained. [502-G-H]

2. Appellant 4 in her statement under S. 313 Cr.P.C. denied that she
had left the Ramleela function. However, the evidence of witnesses clearly
B
establishes that she had left the Ramleela programme. The false answer
given by Appellant No. 4 provides the additional link or a missing link in
completing the chain of circumstances. [507-C-D; El

Swapan Patra v. State of West Benga4 [1999] 9 SCC 242 and State of
c Maharashtra v. Suresh, [2000) 1 SCC 471, relied on. [507-G-H; 508-A]

3. There is no circumstances or proof which links appellant No. 3 to
the conspiracy of murder. The deposition of PW 9 that he had seen appel-
lant No. 3 going along with appellant Nos. 1 and 2 towar;ds the house of the
D deceased, by itself is not sufficient to establish the guilt. The only other
evidence viz. PW 5 had made contradictory statements to the police which
are substantial, cannot be relied upon. Thus, conviction of appellant No. 3
under S. 120-B read with S. 302 IPC is set aside. [507-G-H; 508-A]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 658
E of 1998.

From the Judgment and Order dated 10.3.98 of the Rajasthan High
Court in D.B. Cd.A. No. 247 of 1978.

F P.R. Aggarwal, Pramod Dayal and Piyush Sharma for the Appellants.

Sushi! Kr. Jain, A. Mishra and Ms. Anjali Doshi for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G S. N. VARIAVA, J. This Appeal is against the Judgment dated 10th
March, 1997. By the judgment the Appeal of the Appellants against their
convictions by the Additional Sessions Judge has been confirmed. Appellants
1 and 2 had been convicted under Sections 302 and 120B l.P.C. Appellants
3 and 4 have been convicted under Section 120B read with Section 302 l.P.C.
H All of them are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
K. SINGH v. STATE [S.N. VARIAVA, J.] 501
Briefly stated the facts are as follows: A

One Sohan Singh and his brother Mohan Singh were staying in different
portion of house at Ward No. 35, Old Abadi, Ganganagar. Both of them had
practiced as Vaids and were running a medical shop. Sohan Singh was married
to one Karnail Kaur. He has two daughters and one son. Mohan Singh was
B
mm.Tied to Surjeet Kaur i.e. Appellant No. 4. They have three daughters.
Mohan Singh expired sometime in 1974. Thereafter, Sohan Singh and his
family and Appellant No. 4 and her children continued to stay in the portions
of the same house occupied by them earlier. Sohan Singh was found murdered
in his own house, in the night intervening 15th and 16th of October 1977.
c
It is the case of the prosecution that Appellant No. 1, Kuldeep Singh was
earlier a tenant of rAohan Singh. Appellant No. 2, Mahindra Singh is a
maternal uncle of Appellant No. l. Appellant No. 3, Uttam Chand is a friend
of Appellant No. 1. It is the case of the prosecution that Appellant No. 1
developed illicit relationship with Appellant No.4. It is the case of the D
prosecution that Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 used to visit the house of Appellant
No. 4 when Appellant No. 1 was a tenant there. It is the case of the prosecution
that Sohan Singh was objecting to the illicit relationship between Appellant
No. 1 and Appellant No. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that Sohan Singh
was also objecting to Appellant No. 4 wanting to sell off her portion of the
house. It was the case of the prosecution that all the four Appellants conspired E
to cause the death of Sohan Singh and in pursuance of the said conspiracy
Appellants 1 and 2 murdered Sohan Singh. It is this case of the prosecution
that in pursuance of the said conspiracy Appellant No. 4 got all the family
members, including the wife of Sohan Singh, to attend Ramleela which was
being played in the village. It is the case of the prosecution that Appellant No. p
4 tried to persuade the son of Sohan Singh also to stay back at home but could
not succeed in doing so as the son insisted on attending the Ramleela
programme. It is the case of the prosecution that Appellant No. 4 accompanied
the other family members to the Ramleela festival, but thereafter went away
from the Ramleela grounds for some time. It is the case of the prosecution that
when Karnail Kaur and other family members asked Appellant No. 4 where
she had gone, she stated that as she was not feeling well so she had sat in the
open away from the crowd.

Kamail Kaur and other family members came home at about 1 A.M. On
coming home they found that Sohan Singh was lying in pool of blood. It is H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) 3 S.C.R.
A the case of the prosecution that on coming home Appellant No. 4 immediately
went to her room and bolted the outside door, which allowed entry to her room
from outside. It is the case of the prosecution that thereafter Appellant No. 4
called Jaswinder Kaur and Dalbir Kaur, the daughters of Sohan Singh to her
room and told them not to say that they had any enemy or to name any person
as otherwise there would be trouble.
B
It is the case of the prosecution that on seeing Sohan Singh there was
an outcry by the family members which attracted the neighbours including one
Hamek Singh, Advocate. The said Hamek Singh, then called the police. The
police reached the house of Sohan Singh and recorded the statement of
C Jaswinder Kaur, the daughter of the deceased. They then inspected the site,
held an inquest, interrogated the witnesses and arrested the accused.

Charges under Sections 120B and 302 I.P.C. were framed against all the
four accused, who pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses.
D Appellants led no evidence. All the Appellants in their statements under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the accusations. Appellant Surjeet Kaur stated, in
her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that she had been roped in the case
in order to deprive her of her share in the property. She denied that she had
left the Ramleela ground for some time.

E The learned Sessions Judge held, on the evidence, that Sohan Singh had
met homicidal death. He further held that all the four Appellants had entered
into a criminal conspiracy to murder Sohan Singh and that Appellants 1 and
2 had committed his murder. He, therefore, convicted Appellants 1 & 2 under
Sections 302 and 120-B I.P.C. and convicted Appellants 3 & 4 under Section
F 120B read with Section 302 I.P.C. All the accused were sentenced to life
imprisonment. Criminal Appeal No. 247 of 1978 was dismissed by the
impugned Judgment dated 10th March, 1997.

Both the Courts below have considered the evidence in detail.
Both Courts have held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to
G ,establish the guilt of all the Appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. We have
perused the judgment of the Courts below. We have read the evidence. We do
not find any infirmity or fallacy in appreciation of the evidence or the
marshalling of the facts and circumstances which unerringly lead to a
conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt so far as Appellants 1, 2 and
H 4 are concerned.
K. SINGH v. STATE [S.N. VARIAVA, J.] 503

-~
The evidence of PW4 Dr. Rajender Kumar Gupta who performed the A
autopsy shows that Sohan Singh had following injuries:

·· l. Bruise with abrasion 111 "xl" anterior surface of right knee joint.

2. Bruise with abrasion 1"xl/2" on the anterior swtace of the left
knee joint. B

3. Incised wound (oblique) 3/4"xl/4"x bone deep on the te1minal
-" phalynx of the left index finger on the dorsal aspect.

4. Incised wound (oblique) l"xl/4" x bone deep on the te1minal
phalynx of the middle finger on the dorsal aspect.
c
5. Incised wound (oblique) 1-l/4"xl/8" bone deep on the dorsal
aspect of the first and second phalynx of the middle finger of
the left side.
D
6. Multiple incised wound (oblique) in the area of 3-l/2"xl/2"x
bone deep on the dor~al aspect of the left hand extending from
second metacarpal bone to sixth metacarpal bone.

7. Multiple incised wound in the area of 2"xl" x bone deep on the
medial side of the left wrist joint cutting lower end of uina. E

8. Multiple incised wound (oblique) in the area of 3"x1" x muscle
deep on the posterior aspect of left fore arm on the lower half
tailing of towards medial side.

9. Incised wound (oblique) l "xl/2" on the upper half of the fore F
arm on the dorsal surface tailing towards medial side.

10. Incised wound (oblique) 1-l/4"xl/2" on the posterior aspect of
the fore arm on the upper tailing of towards medial side.

11.
G
Incised wound (oblique) l/2"xl/4"x muscle deep on the latero
posterior aspect of the left arm on the deltoid region tailing of
- J. anteriorly.
,
12. Incised wound (oblique) l/2"xl/4" muscle deep above the
injwy No. 11. H
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] 3 S.C.R.
A 13. Incised wound (oblique) l/2"x1/2" x muscle deep above the ~·
injury no. 12.

14. Incised wound in the area of (oblique) 3-l/2"x2-l/2" x muscle
deep on the superior smface of the left shoulder joint tailing of
towards lateral surface of the upper arm.
B
15. Incised wound (oblique) 2" x 3/4" x bone deep on the left
scapular region tailing of towards the dorsal spine.
...
16. Incised wound (oblique) in the area of 3"xl/2"x muscle deep
c on the infraclavicular region of the left side tailing towards
medial side.

17. Incised wound (oblique) in the area of 2"xl/4"x muscle deep
above injury No. 16.
D
18. Incised wound oblique a multiple in the area of 3 "x2 "x deep to
trachea cutting thyroid and cricoid cartiledge, trachea and
larynx extending from below the right angle of mendible left
supra clavicular region.
~
E 19. Multiple incised wound on the dorsal aspect of the right hand
cutting through and through and separating thumb index finger
middle finger and half of the ring finger from the little and half
right hand finger.

F 20. Multiple incised wound on the left side of the neck deep to
cervical vertebrae cutting all the muscle vessels and all the
nerves of the left side of the neck and posterior side also. This
wound extended upto right ear. Wound was in the area of 11 "x5"
maximum breadth of on the left side below left angle of the
mendible.
G
21. Inr.ised wound (oblique) l-l/2"xl/2" x bone deep on the left
~ ~

maxillary area tailing of towards the nose.

22. Incised wound (oblique) 1-112" x l/2" x bone deep on the
H occipital region. ·
:[
K. SINGH v. STATE [S.N. VARIAVA, J.] 505
PW4 further says that on opening the body, he found that the trachea A
was cut and there were fractures of the following bones:-

·· i. Terminal phalynx of the left index finger.

2. Second to fifth metacarpal bone of the left side.
B
3 . Lower end of the ulna of the left side.

4. Spine of the scapula of the left side.

5. Thyroid and crab cide.
c
6. Third and fourth metacarpal bone of the right hand.

7. Proximal phylanx of right ring finger.

8. Terminal phylanx of the right little finger.
D
PW4 also says that all the injuries, found on the person of Sohan Singh,
were ante-mortem in nature and they were collectively and cumulatively
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. According to him,
injuries nos. 18 & 20 even individually were sufficient to cause his death.
There is nothing in the cross examination of the medical officer to doubt his
expert opinion. By his evidence, it is amply proved that Sohan Singh had
E
suffered number of incised wounds on the various parts of his body, and that
he had died of the injuries suffered by him.

In our view it is sufficient, to mention the circumstances which
unerringly point to the guilt of Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4. The evidence of P.W. l F
(Jaswinder Kaur), P.W.2 (Smt. Kamai! Kaur) and P.W.3 (Dalbir Singh)
establish that Appellant No. 1 was for some time a tenant of Mohan Singh.
This evidence establishes that Mohan Singh was for some years prior to his
death suffering from paralysis. It establishes that there was an illicit relation-
ship between Appellant No. 1 and Appellant No. 4. This evidence along with
the evidence of P.W.8 (Gyanendra Singh) also establish that Sohan Singh was
G
objecting to the illicit relationship between Appellants No. 1 and 4. The
evidence of PW 1 and PW8 establishes that Appellant No.4 had also threatened
Mrs. Kamai! Kaur that she would see that she also became a widow. The
evidence also establishes that Appellant No. 4 got all other family members
to attend the Ramleela function and had tried to keep back the son of Sohan H
5C6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A Singh in the house along with Saban Singh, but could not succeed in keeping
the son at home. This evidence also establishes that Appellant No. 4 had left
the Ramleela function and that when she was asked by Karnail Kaur and
others as to where she had gone, she stated that she was not feeling well and
had merely sat in the open some distance away. Further the evidence of P.W.9
(Buta Singh) establishes that Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were seen by him going
B
towards the house of Sohan Singh at approximately 9 P.M. on the same night.

Apart from the above, the evidence of P.W.6 (Iqbal Singh), P.W.7
(Gurdarshan Singh) and P.W.15, S.H.O., i.e. the Investigating Officer, estab-
lishes that there had been recove1y of a Darat and a blood stained pant at the
C instance of Appellant No. 1 and recovery of another Darat at the instance of
Appellant No. 2.

In our view, both the Courts below have correctly held that the above
evidence coupled with the recoveries establish beyond a reasonable doubt that
Appellant No. was (a) for sometime a tenant of Mohan Singh; (b) that there
D
had been illicit relationship between him and Appellant No. 4 (c) that
Appellants 2 and 3 used to visit the house of Mohan Singh when Appellant
No. 7 was a tenant in that house. (d) that Sohan Singh had objected to the illicit
relationship between Appellant Nos. 1 and 4 (e) that Appellant No. 4 wanted
to sell off her portion of the house and Sohan Singh was objecting to it (t) that
E there was motive for the murder (g) that Appellant No. 4 had threatened
Karnail Kaur that she would see iliat she too became a widow (h) that
Appellant No. 4 got all family members to attend Ramleela programme,
thereby leaving Sohan Singh alone in the house (i) that Appellant No. 4 tried
to get son of Sohan Singh also w stay back but could not succeed in doing
F so (j) that Appellant No. 4 left the Ramleela programme (k) that Appellant
Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were seen going towards the house of Sohan Singh, round
about 9 p.m. on the night of the murder (1) that on returning home, from the
Ramleela programme Appellant No. 4 bolted the door of her room which
allowed entry from outside and (m) Appellant No. 4 calling the daughters of
Sohan Singh not to tell anybody about enmity or to name anybody.
G
This has to be coupled with the fact that there had been recovery of a
blood stained Darat and pant at the instance of Appellant No. 1 and a blood -"· -
stained Darat at the instance of Appellant No. 2. There is no explanation from
Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 why the blood stained Dara~ were so hidden by them
H or how they could help discover the same. All these circumstances put together
K. SINGH v. STATE [S.N. VARIAVA, J.] 507
une1ringly lead to the conclusion that Appellants 1, 2 & 4 had conspired to A
murder and murdered Sohan Singh between the night of 15th and 16th
October, 1977.

It is not possible to accept the submission that the evidence of the
witnesses could not be believed. Both the Courts below have set out detailed
reasons why the evidence was trustworthy and believable. We fully endorse
B
those findings.

It must also be noted that in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Appellant No. 4 denies that she had left the Ramleela function. The evidence
of witnesses clearly establishes that she had left the Ramleela programme. C

In the case of Swapan Patra v. State of West Bengal, [1999] 9 SCC 242,
it has been held that it is a well settled principle 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 an additional link in the chain of circum-
D
stances to complete the chain. The same principle is reiterated in the case of
State of Maharashtra v. Sure sh, [2000] 1 SCC 4 71. In this case it has been
held that a false answer offered by the accused when his attention was drawn
to a circumstance renders that circumstance capable of inculpating him. It is
~ held that in such a situation like this a false answer can also be counted as
, providing "a missing link" for completing the chain. E

The false answer given by Appellant No. 4 denying that she had left the
Ramleela programme provides the additional link or a missing link in
completing the chain of circumstances.

F
In our view it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that Accused
nos. 1, 2 and 4 had entered into a conspiracy and had murdered Sohan Singh.

However, so far as Appellant No. 3, Uttam Chand is concerned, the only
evidence against him is the evidence of P.W.9. PW 9 has deposed that he had
seen him going, along with Appellant Nos. 1 and 2, towards the house of the G
deceased. In our view, this by itself is not sufficient to establish the guilt. The
only other evidence against Appellant No. 3 is the evidence of P. W.5 (Darshan
Singh). Both the Courts below have accepted the evidence of P.W.5. We have
read the evidence of P.W.5. We have also seen the contradictory statement
which he had made in his statement to the police. In our view, the contradic- H

' '
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] 3 S.C.R.
A tions are substantial. They lead to the conclusion that the evidence of P.W.5
cannot be relied upon. In the absence of this evidence there is no circumstance
or proof which links Appellant No. 3 to the conspiracy or the murder. We,
therefore, set aside the conviction of Appellant No. 3 Uttam Chand under
Section 120-B read with Section 3021.P.C .. He is acquitted of all the charges.
He shall be forthwith set at liberty, unless required in some other case.
B
The Appeal against the conviction of Appellant No. I - Kuldeep Singh,
Appellant no. 2 - Mahendra Singh and Appellant No. 4 - Surjeet Kaur stands
dismissed. They are sentenced to undergo imprisonment of life. The bail bonds
shall stand cancelled. We direct Appellants 1, 2 and 4 to surrender. On their
c failure to do so we direct the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar to take
immediate and necessary steps to put the Accused in jail for undergoing the
sentences imposed on them.

S.V.K. Appeal dismissed.