SHANTI DEVIversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

                        [2012] 9 S.C.R. 226

A                          SHANTI DEVI
                                 v.
                     STATE OF RAJASTHAN
                (Criminal Appeal No. 954 of 2005)

                        OCTOBER 5, 2012
B
        [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED
                  IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.]

        PENAL CODE, 1860:
c
       ss. 302 and 201 - Appellant causing murder, and with the
  help of three others, burying the dead body in a place adjacent
  to her house - Principles as to circumstantial evidence, culled
  out - Held: In the instant case, the circumstances from the day
0 the deceased went to the house of accused-appellant till
  recovery of his dead body at her instance, which have been
  found proved, formed a chain closely linked together without
  giving any scope for any other conclusion than a definite
  tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-
  ap pell ant - In the circumstances, the conclusion was
E inescapable that the appellant was squarely responsible for
  the murder of the deceased - Circumstantial evidence.

        DELA YILACHES

F      Delay of 52 days in lodging FIR - Held: The conduct of
  the appellant in misdirecting the wife and minor son of the
  deceased, first orally and subsequently by sending a letter by
  post, as if the deceased himself was communicating with his
  wife and son, cumulatively influenced their minds which
G resulted in reporting the fact of missing of the deceased to
  the police belatedly - Having regard to the facts of the case,
  it can not be said that delay in registration of the FIR makes
  the prosecution case unbelie,vable.

H                               226
       SHANTI DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                 227

    MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE:                                     A

     Cause of death - Dead body recovered in a decomposed
state - Post-mortem report to the effect that the death could
be as a result of murder as well as naturally - Held: It is not,
as if based on the postmortem certificate and the version of B
post-mortem doctor, the offence of murder can be ruled out -
Since the dead body was recovered in a decomposed state,
it was quite natural that the doctor could not specifically state
as to the nature of injury on the body.

     The appellant alongwith three others was prosecuted       C
for committing the murder of the father of PW2. The
prosecution case was that on 22.08.1997, the deceased
went to the house of the appellant and did not return.
When PW2 asked the appellant about his father, she told
him that he was involved in a 'charas' case and would          D
be released shortly. Subsequently, the appellant visited
the house of PW2 and took Rs. 5,0001- from him to get
his father released. When there was no trace of the father
of PW2, he lodged an FIR. The appellant and three others
were arrested. On the disclosure statement of the              E
appellant, the dead body of the father of PW2 was
exhumed from a place near her house. The trial court
convicted the appellant u/s.302 IPC and sentenced her to
imprisonment for life. She was further convicted with
other three accused u/s.201 IPC and all the four were          F
sentenced to 5 years RI each on this count. On appeal,
the High Court reduced the sentence of all the accused
u/s.201 IPC to the period already undergone, but
maintained the conviction and sentence of the appellant
u/s.302 IPC.                                                   G

    Dismissing the appeal, the Court

    HELD: 1.1 Since, it is a case of circumstantial
evidence, the principles laid down in various decisions
                                                               H
    228       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A of this Court can be set out as under:

          (i) The circumstances from which an inference of
          guilt is sought to be proved must be cogently or firmly
          established.
B         (ii) The circumstances should be of a definite
          tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the
          accused.

          (iii) The circumstances taken cumulatively must form
c         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 none else.

          (iv) The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain
D         conviction must be complete and incapable of
          explanation on any other hypothesis than that the
          guilt of the accused and such evidence should not
          only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but
          should be inconsistent with his innocence. (Para 8)
E         (236-B-G]
       1.2 In the instant case, when the circumstances
  placed before the trial court are considered and the
  various tests relating to the circumstantial evidence are
  applied there can be no difficulty in holding that the chain
F of circumstances had every definite link. After 22.08.1997,
  having known that the deceased had gone to the
  residence of appellant and since he did not return back
  for about seven days, P.W.2 in the natural course of
  events went to the residence of the appellant to find out
G his whereabouts. This particular fact was spoken to by
  P.W.1, the wife of the deceased and P.W.2, the son of the
  deceased. The sequence of events narrated by P.W.2 as
  from 22.08.1997 till the demand of Rs.5000/- was cogent
  and convincing. The trial court has noted that the said
H
       SHANTI DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN               229


version of P.W.1 and P.W.2 was not in any manner              A
dislodged at the instance of the appellant. [Para 10] [238-
C-G]

    1.3 The further fact that P.W.2, who was a minor, in.
his anxiety to get his father released, succumbed to the 8
demand of the appellant by raising funds for the payment
of Rs.5000/- by borrowing the same from P.W.13 who
supported the said fact by deposing before the court. The
court has noted that his testimony was perfect in every
respect and nothing could be brought out in the cross- c
examination to discredit his version. When the said
circumstance was found proved and since there was no
other explanation than what was demonstrated before
the court by the prosecution through P.W.2 and P.W.13,
the said circumstance was in addition to the earlier set 0
of circumstances which linked the involvement of the
appellant in the crime alleged against her. [Para 10] [239-
B-E]

      1.4 The subsequent factum of recovery of the body
of the deceased at the instance of the appellant and that     E
too from a place adjacent to her residence, was one other
strong circumstance against the appellant in roping her
in the elimination of the deceased and thereby providing
no scope for any other hypothesis than her guilt in the
killing of the deceased. The other recoveries made from       F
the body of the deceased duly identified by P.W.2, was
yet another relevant circumstance to show that the
deceased was none other than the father of P.W.2 and
husband of P.W.1. [Para 10] [239-E-G]
                                                              G
    1.5 Therefore, the analysis of the circumstances
alleged and found proved definitely formed a chain
having closely linked together without giving any scope
for any other conclusion than a definite tendency
unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the appellant.       H
   230      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A [Para 1O] [239-G]

       2. As regards the delay of 52 days in the registration
  of the FIR, it is significant to· note that after the deceased
  went to the house of the appellant, i.e. on 22.08.1997,
8 which happened to be his usual routine as spoken to by
  the prosecution witnesses in particular P.W.1 and P.W.2,
  no fault can be found in the conduct of P.W.1 and P.W.2
  in having waited for a minimum period of a week for the
  deceased to return back. Thereafter, as rightly observed
c by the courts below, the appellant misdirected P.W.1 and
  P.W.2, whereby believing her words that the deceased
  was involved in a criminal case relating to charas they
  were waiting for his arrival. That apart, the appellant
  hatched a scheme of sending a letter by post as though
0 the deceased himself was communicating to his wife and
  son to the effect that he got entangled in a criminal case
  relating to charas, that the same should not be revealed
  even to his own brothers and that he will be able to get
  himself released from the said case at the earliest
E possible time, which was truthfully believed by P.Ws.1
  and 2 whose innocence was fully encashed by the
  appellant. A cumulative effect of these factors definitely
  influenced the minds of P.W.1 and P.W.2 which resulted
  in reporting the fact of missing of the deceased to the
F police belatedly. At one point of time they also
  approached the panchayat members, namely, P.W.8 and
  P.W.9 and sought for their guidance. Therefore, when
  P.W.8 and P.W.9 intervened and directly approached the
  appellant herself the game plan of the appellant came to
G light and, thereafter, the complaint was preferred by P.W.2
  on 13.10.1997 which resulted in the registration of FIR
  (Ext.P-2). Having regard to the facts of the case, it cannot
  be said that the delay in registration of the FIR makes the
  prosecution case unbelievable. [Para 11] [240-A-H; 241-
H A-B]
      SHANTI DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                  231


      3.1 As far as the cause of death is concerned, based A
on the information furnished by the appellant, the dead
body of the deceased was exhumed in her presence and
in the presence of the S.D.M (P.W.24) as well as PWs 6
and 11, the two independent eye-witnesses. The
appellant herself confirmed that it was the body of the B
deceased. In the opinion of P.W.16, the postmortem
doctor, the death could be a murder as well as natural.
Therefore, it is not, as if based on the postmortem
certificate and the version of P.W.16, the offence of
murder can be ruled out. Since the dead body was C
recovered in a decomposed state, it was quite natural that
the doctor could not specifically state as to the nature of
injury on the body of the deceased. The articles which
were recovered along with dead body, namely, wrist
watch, pair of shoes, ·shirt, payajama and empty bag were D
all identified by P.W.2, the son of the deceased. [Paras 12
and 13) [241-C-E, H; 242-A-B]

    3.2 Having regard to the clinching circumstances
found proved against the appellant with the ultimate            E
discovery of the body of the deceased from a place
adjacent to her residence, at the instance of the appellant
herself, who had the exclusive knowledge on that special
factor, if the death of the deceased was due to any other
cause the best person who could have explained could            F
have been the appellant alone. In the circumstances, the
conclusion was inescapable that the appellant was
squarely responsible for the murder of the deceased.
[Para 14) [242-C-D]
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal            G
No. 954 of 2005.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 16.2.2005 of the High
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Criminal
Appeal No. 517 of 2002.                                         H
    232       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A         Ravindra Sana for the Appellant.

       Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAG, Milind Kumar, Anjani Kumar
    Dubey for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
         FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. 1. The
   first accused is the appellant. The challenge is to the judgment
    of the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur
   dated 16.02.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No.517 of 2002.
c  Altogether four accused were involved in the crime. The Trial
    Court convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 302
    and 201 of IPC while the other three accused were found guilty
   for offence under Section 201 of IPC alone. The appellant was
    imposed with the punishment of sentence for life for the offence
0 under Section 302 of IPC apart from a fine of Rs.100/- and in
    default for further one month rigorous imprisonment. for the
    offence under Section 201 of IPC appellant was imposed with
  . the rigorous imprisonment for five years along with the fine of
    Rs.100/- and in default of the payment of fine to undergo one
E more month rigorous imprisonment. The other three accused
   were awarded rigorous imprisonment for five years each and
    a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of the payment of fine to
    undergo further period of rigorous imprisonment for one month.
    The sentences awarded against the appellants were directed
    to run concurrently. The Division Bench while upholding the
F conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for the
    offence under Section 302 of IPC modified the punishment so
    far as it related to be one under Section 201 of IPC to the effect
    that the period already undergone would be sufficient in the
    interest of justice. Similarly, in respect of other three accused
G also while confirming the conviction against them under Section
    201 of IPC, the substantive sentence was modified to be one
    which was already undergone by them. Aggrieved against the
    same appellant preferred this appeal.

H
        SHANTI DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                      233
      [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
       2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the               A
  prosecution as projected before the Sessions Trial was that the
  father of P.W.2 went to the house of the appellant on
  22.08.1997, that he had a sum of Rs.300/- with him on that day,
  that he frequently used to visit the house of the appellant and
  that appellant used to call him as her brother. According to        B
· P.W.2, after his father, the deceased Om Prakash went to the
  house of the appellant on 22.08.1997 he did not return back.
  P.W.2 went to the house of the appellant thrice and the
  appellant informed him that his father, the deceased, was
  entangled in a case of Charas and that she is taking every effort   c
  to get him released. Subsequently, on 01.09.1997 the Postman
  delivered a letter in his house which was purportedly in the
  hand-writing of Accused No.3 (A-3), the son of the appellant,
  and that on that very day appellant visited the residence of
  P.W.2 and asked for a sum of Rs.5000/- stating that money was       D
  required in order to enable her to get his father released from
  the criminal complaint. Believing her words P.W.2 stated to
  have borrowed a sum of Rs.5000/- from P.W.13 Tersem Ram
  and gave it to her.

      3. In the above stated background P.W.2 lodged a                E
complaint with Gharsana Police Station which was registered
as F.l.R. No.535/1997 under Exhibit P-2. P.W.20, Investigating
Officer, arrested the appellant and three accused persons,
namely, Maniram, Shankar Lal and Jagdish. Based on the
admissible portion of the said statement of the appellant the         F
body of the deceased Om Prakash was recovered from a place
near her house. The body was found buried in that place.
Postmortem was conducted on the dead body. Two
photographs were also seized during the course of
investigation. The hand-writing of A-3 Jagdish was compared.          G
Based on the final report, charges were framed against the
appellant and other accused for offences under Sections 302
of IPC read with Section 302/120-B, 364, 364/120-B and 201
of IPC. The accused having denied the charges, case went into
trial and 24 witnesses were examined on the side of the               H
    234       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A prosecution apart from 50 documents marked and 14 articles
  were produced. On the side of the defence one witness was
  examined and eight documents were marked.

       4. The Trial Court after detailed consideration of b o t h
  oral and documentary evidence as well as after noting the chain
8
  of circumstances alleged against the appellant and other
  accused, held that the offences under Sections 302 read with
  Section 201 of IPC as against the appeliant and the offence
  under Section 201 of IPC as against the rest of the accused
  were conclusively proved. Consequently, the sentences as
C described in the earlier part of the judgment were imposed. The
  appellants preferred an appeal before the High Court of
  Rajasthan at Jodhpur in which the impugned judgment came
  to be delivered as against which the appellant has come
  forward with this appeal.
D
        5. We have heard Mr. Ravindra Bana, learned counsel for
  the appellant and Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Additional
  Advocate General for the respondent-State. Mr. Bana in his
  submissions contended that there was inordinate delay of 52
E days in the registration of FIR and, therefore, the story of the
  prosecution was unbelievable. Learned counsel then contended
  that the postmortem report has not mentioned the cause of
  death and, therefore, death cannot be held to be one of murder.
  By referring to the alleged extra~judicial confession stated to
F have been made by the appellant, learned counsel contended
  that the appellant stated to have used a kassi but the
  postmortem report did not reveal any injury on the body of the
  deceased and that no blood was also found on the kassi. It was
  also contended that the body of the deceased was exhumed
G only from a nearby place and not from the house of the
  appellant. The learned counsel, therefore, contended that in a
  case of circumstantial evidence, having regard to the above
  infirmities existing in the case of the prosecution, the conviction
  and sentence imposed on the appellant should be set-aside.

H         6. As against the above submissions, Dr. Singhvi, learned
       SHANTI DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                     235
     [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
Additional Advocate General by referring to Sections 24, 30         A
and 133 of the Evidence Act contented that so far as the extra-
judicial confession is concerned, so long as the said piece of
material was corroborated with material evidence and it was
voluntary and truthful it can be relied upon. As far as the
corroboration was concerned, learned Additional Advocate            B
General referred to the recovery of the dead body based on
the disclosure statement of the appellant which is fully governed
by Section 27 of the Evidence Act. He also contended that the
version of P.W.24, S.D.M was that she was present throughout
the process of exhuming the body of the deceased along with         c
two independent witnesses, namely, P.Ws.6 and 11 and also
that the body was exhumed from a place adjacent to the house
of the appellant which piece of evidence was clinching as
against the accused.

      7. The learned Additional Ad•:ocate General also pointed      D
out that on the body of the deceased the articles which were
worn by him such as wrist watch, shoes etc., were recovered
and those articles were identified by P.W.2, the son of the
deceased. He also contended that though no blood was found
on the kassi, the injury no.2 to a great extent would confirm the   E
use of kassi in the performance of the crime by the appellant.
Apart from the above, learned counsel contended that the
conduct of the appellant after 01.09.1997 and her dealing with
P.W.2 as well as the letter written by P.W.7 were all
corroborative piece of evidence strongly supporting the chain       F
of circumstances in establishing the offence alleged against the
appellant. Though the extra-judicial confession made by the
appellant was relied upon by the Courts below, learned
Additional Advocate General, however, submitted that the said
part of the evidence was referred to only to confirm the motive     G
which was twofold, namely, the demand for repayment of
Rs.15000/- paid by the deceased apart from the alleged illicit
relationship of the appellant with the fourth accused. Learned
counsel relied upon Ratan Gond Vs. The State of Bihar- AIR
1959 SC 18 and Wakil Nayak Vs. State of Bihar - 1_971 (3)           H
    236           SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A SCC 778 in support of his submissions.

       8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties
  and having bestowed our serious consideration to the judgment
  impugned before us and other material papers, as it is a case
  of circumstantial evidence, we wish to quote the well settled
8
  principles laid down by this Court in various decisions which
  are to be applied in order to examine the conclusions arrived
  at by the Courts below while convicting the accused based on
  circumstantial evidence. The principles laid down in those
  decisions can be mentioned before finding out whether or not
C the conviction and sentence on the appellant can be held to
  have been established as stated in the judgment of the High
  Court as well as that of the learned Trial Court. The principles
  can be set out as under:

D         (i)      The circumstances from which an inference of guilt
                   is sought to be proved must be cogently or firmly
                   established.

          (ii)     The circumstances should be of a definite tendency
                   unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
E
          (iii)    The circumstances taken cumulatively must 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 none
F                  else.

          (iv)     The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain
                   conviction must be complete and incapable of
                   explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the
G                  guilt of the accused and such evidence should not
                   only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but
                   should be inconsistent with his innocence.

       9. Keeping the above tests in mind when the
  circumstances enumerated in the case on hand as against the
H appellant are examined, we find the following circumstances
      SHANTI DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                         237
    [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

existing as against the appellant:                                     A

      (i)     The deceased Om Prakash went to the house of
              the appellant on 22.08.1997 when he was last seen.

      (ii)    The deceased did not return back to his house
              even after a week's time.                                B

      (iii)   When the son of the deceased, namely, P.W.2
              approached the appellant to find out his father's
              whereabouts he was told by the appellant that his
              father was involved in the case of Charas and that       c
              she is taking efforts to get him released.

     (iv)     On 01.09.1997 the appellant herself approached
              P.W.2 and asked for a sum of Rs.5000/- in order
              to enable her to get his father released from the
                                                                       D
              criminal case.

     (v)      P.W.13 Tersem Ram deposed that the said sum of
              Rs.5000/- was borrowed from him by P.W.2 which
              was paid to the appellant.
                                                                       E
     (vi)     On 01.09.1997 Exhibit P-19 letter was delivered in
              the house of the deceased purportedly to have
              been written by the deceased himself mentioning
              that he was entangled in the case of Charas and
              was lodged in Bikaner Police Station. In the said
                                                                       F
              letter it was also mentioned that the said information
              should not be revealed to his own brothers and that
              he was likely to get released very soon.

     (vii)    The address on Exhibit P-19 was found to be in the
              hand-writing of A-3 which was also established by        G
              legal evidence. The Trial Court also found as a
              matter of fact that the letter was got written by the
              appellant while the address was written by co-
              accused, namely, A-3.
                                                                       H
    238          SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A         (viii) Based on the information furnished by the appellant
                 herself the body of the deceased was recovered
                 from a place which was adjacent to her house.

          (ix)    The body was identified by P.W.2 in the presence
                  of P.W.24 S.D.M., Anoopgarh on which the
B
                  personal articles worn by him such as shoe, watch,
                  bag etc., were also found and recovered.

          (x)     The last of the circumstance was the extra-judicial
                  confession of the appellant before the Members of
C                 the Panchayat, namely, P.W.8 and P.W.9.

          10. When the above circumstances placed before the Trial
    Court are considered and the various tests relating to the
    circumstantial evidence were applied there can be no difficulty
0   in holding that the chain of circumstances had every definite
    link, namely, from the date the deceased was stated to have
    gone to the residence of appellant and, thereafter, his death
    was discovered based on the information furnished by the
    appellant herself pursuant to which the body of the deceased
E   was recovered from a place which was adjacent to her house.
    In between 22.08.1997 and the date of recovery of the body of
    the deceased, the appellant met P.W.2 once at her residence
    and, thereafter, the appellant herself approached P.W.2 asking
    for a sum of Rs.5000/- to enable her to get his father released
F   from the criminal case. After 22.08.1997, having been known
    that the deceased had gone to the residence of appellant and
    since he did not return back for about seven days, P.W.2 in the
    natural course of events had gone to the residence of the
    appellant to find out his whereabouts. This particular fact was
    spoken to by P.W.1, the wife of the deceased and P.W.2, the
G   son of the deceased. The Trial Court has noted that the said
    version of P.W.1 and P.W.2 was not in any manner dislodged
    at the instance of the appellant. P.W.2 was a minor, aged about
    14 years. Therefore, when the appellant, who was known to his
    father who was frequently visiting her, informed him that his
H   father was involved in a criminal case relating to charas,
      SHANTI DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                       239
    [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
believing her words P.W.2 returned back with the fond hope            A
that the appellant would take every effort to get his father
released from the custody of the police. Not stopping with that
the appellant herself approached P.W.2 on 01.09.1997 with a
demand for payment of Rs.5000/- for the purpose of getting his
father released from the criminal case. The sequence of events        B
narrated by P.W.2 as from 22.08.1997 till the demand of
Rs.5000/- was cogent and convincing. The further fact that
P.W.2 in his anxiety to get his father released, succumbed to
the demand of the appellant by raising funds for the payment
of Rs.5000/- by borrowing the same from P.W.13 who                    c
supported the said fact by deposing before the Court. The Court
has noted that his testimony was perfect in every respect and
nothing could be brought out in the cross-examination to
discredit his version. According to P.W.13, the sum of Rs.5000/
- borrowed by P.W.2 from him was handed over to the                   D
appellant. When the said circumstance was found proved and
since there was no other explanation other than what was
demonstrated before the Court by the prosecution through
P.W.2 and P.W.13, the said circumstance was in addition to
the earlier set of circumstances which linked the involvement
of the appellant in the crime alleged against her. The                E
subsequent factum of recovery of the body of the deceased at
the instance of the appellant was one other strong circumstance
against the appellant in roping her involvement in the
elimination of the deceased and thereby providing no scope
for any other hypothesis other than her guilt in the killing of the   F
deceased. The other recoveries made from the body of the
deceased duly identified by P.W.2 was yet another relevant
circumstance to show that the deceased was none other than
the father of P.W.2 and husband of P.W.1. Therefore, the
analysis of the above circumstances alleged and found proved          G
definitely formed a chain of circumstances having closely linked
together without giving any scope for any other conclusion than
a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the
accused.
                                                                      H
    240      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A          11. When we consider the submission of learned counsel
    for the appellant, according to learned counsel there was
    inordinate delay of 52 days in the registration of the FIR and,
    therefore, the story of the prosecution was unbelievable. It is
    true that between 22.08.1997 and the date of the registration
8   of the crime, there was a considerable delay. However, after
    the deceased went to the house of the appellant i.e. on
    22.08.1997 which happened to be his usual routine as spoken
    to by the prosecution witnesses in particular P.W.1 and P.W.2,
    no fault can be found in the conduct of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in
c   having waited for a minimum period of a week for the
    deceased to return back. Thereafter, as rightly observed by the
    Courts below, it was the game plan of the appellant in having
    misdirected P.W.1 and P.W.2, whereby believing her words
    that the deceased was involved in a criminal case relating to
    charas they were waiting for his arrival, as informed to them
0
    by the appellant. It was quite natural that the wife of the
    deceased P.W.1 who was dependent on her minor son P.W.2,
    aged about 14 years was waiting in the fond hope that her
    husband would have been involved in the criminal case that too
    relating to charas, it would take sometime for him to get out of
E   the clutches of the police. P.W.2 was also in a similar state of
    mind especially when the appellant was further reinforcing her
    misdirection by collecting a sum of Rs.5000/- in order to enable
     her to get the deceased released from the police. That apart,
    the appellant hatched a scheme of sending a letter by post as
F   though the deceased himself was communicating to his wife
    and son to the effect that he got entangled in a criminal case
     relating to charas, that the same should not be revealed even
    to his own brothers and that he will be able to get himself
     released from the said case at the earliest possible time which
G   was truthfully believed by P.Ws.1 and 2 whose innocence was
     fully encashed by the appellant. A cumulative effect of the above
    factors definitely influenced the minds of P.W.1 and P.W.2
    which resulted in the reporting the fact of missing of the
     deceased to the police belatedly. At one point of time they also
H    approached the panchayat members, namely, P.W.8 and
      SHANTI DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                     241
    [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
P.W.9 and sought for their guidance as to how they can find        A
out the whereabouts of the deceased. Therefore, when P.W.8
and P.W.9 intervened and directly approached the appellant
herself the game plan of the appellant came to light and,
thereafter, complaint was preferred by P.W.2 on 13.10.1991
which resulted in the registration of FIR Exhibit P-2. Having      B
regard to the above factors, we find no substance in the
submission made on behalf of the appellant based on the delay
aspect.

      12. The learned counsel for the appellant then contended     C
that the postmortem report did not specify the cause of death
and, therefore, it was not a case of murder. As far as the said
contention is concerned, based on the information furnished by
the appellant herself which was recorded under Exhibit P-36,
the dead body of the deceased Om Prakash was exhumed
under Exhibit P-30 in the presence of P.W.24 S.D.M as well         D
as the appellant herself who identified the place where the dead
body was buried. The said place was excavated and a bundle
was taken out which contained the dead body over which a white
shirt and payajama was found. The appellant herself confirmed
that it was the body of the deceased Om Prakash. The watch         E
worn by the deceased was found on the hand of the dead body
which was in a decomposed condition as noted in Exhibit P-
13.

     13. P.W.6 Kishan Lal an independent eye-witness               F
confirmed the digging and the excavation made from where the
dead body was exhumed. Apart from the watch, a pair of shoes
was also recovered under Exhibit P-16. P.W.11, another
independent eye-witness, also confirmed the above factum and
recovery of the dead body at the instance of the appellant.        G
Exhibit P-29 was the postmortem report prepared by P.W.16
Dr. Om Prakash Mahayach along with P.W.17 Dr. Sunil Kumar
Kaushik and P.W.18 Dr. Chander Bhan Midha. The articles
which were recovered along with dead body, namely, wrist
watch, pair of shoes, shirt, payajama and empty bag were all
                                                                   H
   242       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A identified by P.W.2, the son of the deceased. In the opinion of
  P.W.16, the postmortem doctor, the death could be a murder
  as well as natural. Therefore, it is not, as if based on the
  postmortem certificate and the version of P.W.16, the offence
  of mur~er can be ruled out. Since the dead body was
B recovered in a decomposed state, it was quite natural that the
  doctor could not specifically state as to the nature of injury on
  the body of the deceased.

       14. Having regard to the clinching circumstances found
C proved against the appellant with the ultimate discovery of the
  body of the deceased at the instance of the appellant herself,
  who had the exclusive knowledge on that special factor, if the
  death of the deceased was due to any other cause the best
  person who could have explained could have been the
  appellant alone. In the circumstances, the conclusion was
D inescapable that the appellant was squarely responsible for the
  death of the deceased and the contention to the contrary made
  on behalf of the appellant cannot, therefore, be countenanced.

       15. Learned counsel raised a contention that by the own
E version of P.W.8 and P.W.9, to whom the appellant stated to
  have made the extra-judicial confession, pressure was applied
  on her which forced her to make the said statement and,
  therefore, the same was hit by Section 24 of the Evidence Act.
  Though the.said submission of the learned counsel has been
F satisfactorily dealt with by the Courts below in particular in the
  order impugned in this criminal appeal even by ignoring the
  said aspect for the present, as we have found that the chain of
  circumstances established in the case on hand sufficiently
  established the guilt of the appellant in the killing of the
G deceased, we do not find the said submission causing any dent
  in the case of the prosecution. For the very same reason the
  submission that no blood was found on the Kassi also does
  not merit acceptance.

      16. The last submission made was that the body of the
H deceased was only recovered from an adjacent place not from
      SHANTI DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                     243
    [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

the house of the appellant herself, we do not find any substance   A
in the said submission in order to interfere with the judgment
impugned. The very fact that the recovery of the dead body came
to be made at the instance of the appellant and that too from
an adjacent place to the residence of the appellant was
sufficient enough to rope in the appellant in the murder of the    B
deceased.

    17. Having regard to our above conclusions, we do not find
any merit in this appeal, the appeal fails and the same is
dismissed.
                                                                   c
    18. The appellant is on bail. The bail bond stands cancelled
and she shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the
remaining part of sentence, if any.

R.P.                                        Appeal dismissed.      D