Supreme Court of India

STATE OF U.P.versusBAL KISHAN DAS AND ANR.

Citation: 1996 INSC 1251
Decided: 29 October 1996
Disposal: Disposed off
Bench: M K MUKHERJEE

Holding

The father‑in‑law Bal Kishan Das was a party to the murder and is liable under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC, overturning his acquittal; Mahesh Narain’s conviction is to be read as under Section 302/34 IPC; Ashok Kumar’s conviction under Section 201 IPC is upheld with a reduced sentence; Suresh Narain’s acquittal is affirmed.

Summary

The case concerned the murder of Rama, a young woman who disappeared from her matrimonial home and whose body was later found in a hold‑all at New Delhi railway station. The prosecution relied on identification of the victim by her sister through the red saree and glass bangles, forensic evidence of strangulation, and a series of circumstantial facts linking the accused – Bal Kishan Das (father‑in‑law), Mahesh Narain (brother‑in‑law), Suresh Narain (husband) and Ashok Kumar (cousin) – to the crime. The trial court convicted Mahesh Narain under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and Ashok Kumar under Section 201 IPC, acquitted Bal Kishan Das and Suresh Narain; the High Court affirmed these findings. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the identity of the deceased and the homicidal nature of her death were proved beyond doubt and that the father‑in‑law’s participation was indistinguishable from that of the brother‑in‑law, making him liable under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC. Consequently, Bal Kishan Das’s acquittal was set aside and he was sentenced to life imprisonment; Mahesh Narain’s conviction was altered to Section 302/34 IPC with sentence confirmed; Ashok Kumar’s conviction under Section 201 IPC was upheld but his rigorous imprisonment reduced to two years; Suresh Narain’s acquittal was upheld. The Court dismissed the appeals of Ashok Kumar and Mahesh Narain and partially allowed the State’s appeal, thereby disposing of the matter.

Issues considered

Whether the identity of the deceased Rama was established beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the cause of death was homicidal (strangulation) sufficient to constitute murder.
Whether the father‑in‑law Bal Kishan Das was a party to the murder and can be convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC in conjunction with Section 34.
Whether the brother‑in‑law Mahesh Narain’s conviction should be read as under Section 302/34 IPC.
Whether the cousin Ashok Kumar’s conviction under Section 201 IPC stands and the appropriate sentence.
Whether the acquittal of Suresh Narain should be upheld.
Whether the circumstantial evidence presented is sufficient to sustain the convictions.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120-B, s. 20, s. 201, s. 302, s. 34

Subjects

murdercircumstantial evidenceidentification of deceasedforensic pathologycommon intentionfalse police reportransom letterlife imprisonmentIPC Section 302IPC Section 201IPC Section 34

Judgment

STATE OF U.P. A
v.
BAL KISHAN DAS AND ANR.

OCTOBER 29, 1996

[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.] B

Criminal Law:

Penal Code, I 860: Sections 20 I, 302 and 34.

Murder-Circumstantial evidence-Murder of victim in her c
matrimonial home-Trial Court convicted brother-in-law of victim under
Ss.302 and 201 IPC and his cousin under S.20! !PC-Father-in-law of
victim acquitted-Order of trial court confirmed by High Court-Held:
there was no reason to distrub concurrent findings of the courts below that
identity of victim was established and that victim died in her matrimonial D
home-However, Courts below erred in acquittingfather-in-law ofvictim-
Role played by father-in-law and brother-in-law not distinguishable for
they acted in unison-Hence, acquittal of father-in-law set aside and
convicted under S.302134 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life-
Conviction of brother-in-law under S.302 IPC (Simpliciter) altered to one
under S.302134 !PC-Conviction of cousin of brother-in-law confirmed- E
But his substantive sentence of 5 years 'RI reduced to two years' RI
considering the fact that offence was committed more than fourteen years
back

The respondents-accused were convicted and sentenced under
Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 while the father- F
in-law of the deceased was acquitted. The order of the trial court was
confirmed hy the High Court. Hence this appeal.

According to the prosecution, the deceased was living with her
husband in the house of her in-law. The deceased celebrated the festival G

- of 'Holi' in her elder sister's house and returned to her matrimonial
home the next day. Sometimes later, the father-in-law of the deceased
lodged a report with the police to the effect that the deceased was
missing from the house. The deceased was wearing a red printed cotton
saree and some glass-bangles of "maroon" colour. Subsequently, the
father-in-law of the deceased handed over to the police an application H
49
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A along with an 'Inland' letter. The inland letter gave the information
that the deceased was in the custody of her abductor and that she
would be sent back after payment of Rs. 2. lakhs.

In the meantime, the dead body of a woman was found in the
Railway Station in a gunny bag which was wrapped in a green coloured
B hold-all. The deceased was wearing a red printed saree and there
were some glass bangles of red colour around her left wrist.
Photographs of the dead body were taken, a post mortem was held
and tho doctor, (PW-17), opined that death was due to strangulation.
The elder sister of the deceased identified the clothes and the glass
bangles as belonging to the deceased. When t~e enlarged photographs
C of the deceased were shown to the sister and father of the deceased
they identified the same as those of the deceased.

It was the further case of the prosecution that the brother-in-
law of the deceased along with his cousin had loaded a green coloured
hold-all in a rickshaw and carried it to the. Railway Station.
D Subsequently, the father-in-law, brother-in-law and his cousin were
arrested and from their house some gunny bags, quite similar to the
gunny bag in which the deceased was found, were seized.

In the appeal before this court, on behalf of the accused persons
E it was contended that the prosecution had failed to prove the identity
of the deceased; that according to the opinion of D.W.4 death of the
deceased was not due to strangulation and hence the prosecution failed
to prove that the deceased met with a homicidal death.

Disposing of the appeal, this Court
F
HELD : I. .The prosecution sought to. establish the identity of
the deceased by the identification of the clothes and glass bangles
found on her person and also th" photographs taken of the dead
body. The deceased had on her person a red printed saree and a
G number of red coloured glass bangles. The elder sister of the deceased
had identified the above articles as belonging to the deceased and
further stated that the glass bangles had been given to the deceased
by her on the occasion of the 'Holi' when she had visited her. She also
testified, on being shown the enlarged photographs of the deceased,
that those were of her sister. Both the trial Court and the High Court
H discussed the evidence of the elder sister in this regard and found the
STATEOFU.P. v. B.K. DAS 5l

same trustworthy. This apart, the Courts below noticed that the A
description of the wearing apparels of the deceased as given by her
father-in-law in the missing report tallied with the description of the
articles found on the person of the deceased. Having gone through
the evidence of the elder sister of the deceased there is no reason
whatsoever to disturb the above concurrent findings. [64-B-E]
B
2. So far as the cause of death of the deceased is concerned the
Courts below have given detailed reasons for accepting the opinion of
PW-17 in preference to that ofDW-4, who opined that the death was
not due to strangulation. One of the reasons so given is that DW-4
had expressed his opinion solely on the basis of the report submitted
by PW-17 after holding the autopsy and that he had no occasion or C
opportunity to see and examine the dead body itself. In the instant
case the prosecution was required to prove, after having succeeded in
establishing the identity of the deceased, that she met with a homicidal
death in her matrimonial home. If, therefore, from the circumstances
appearing on record the prosecution has been able to conclusively
prove that fact, the manner how her such death was brought would D
not be of any moment. [64-E-F, 65-B)

Piara Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR.(1977) SC 2274, relied on.

3. The ransom letter was a fabricated letter and false reports
were lodged with the police to misguide them but it is not possible to E
hold that only the brother-in-law of the deceased was party thereto.
When the ransom letter so prepared/procured was posted with the
father-in-law of the deceased as the addressee, and after receipt of
the same when it was annexed to a document which he himself signed
after getting it typed it must be said that the father-in-law was also a
party thereto. For the self-same reason the father-in-law would be F
also culpable for filing the earlier missing report with the police. When
these facts and circumstances are considered in juxta-position with
the presence of the father-in-law in the house when the murder took
place the only inference that can be drawn is that he was a party to
the murder of the deceased and removal of her dead body. Therefore, G
the cases of the brother-in-law and the father-in-law of the deceased
are not distinguishable and they stand on the same footing for they
acted in unison. [67-F, 68-AB, 66-B]

4. Ali, regards the cousin of the brother-in-law of the deceased,
his conviction under Section 201 IPC has got to be upheld in view of H
52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A the unimpeachable evidence of PW-8 and other evidence which
indubitably proves that being fully aware that the deceased had been
murdered, the actively associated himself in removal of her dead body,
obviously to screen the offenders. But considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and particularly the fact that since the
offence was committed more than fourteen years have elapsed the
B substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment of five years imposed
upon him for the above conviction is reduced to rigorous imprisonment
for two years. [68-C-E)

5. The conviction of the cousin of the brother-in-law of the deceased
under Section 302 IPC (Simpliciter) will stand altered to one under
C Section 302/34 IPC but the sentences imposed upon him shall stand
confirmed. The acquittal of the father-in-law of the deceased is set
aside and be is convicted of the offences under Sections 302/34 and 201/
34 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. [68-FG]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
D 120 of 1988 Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.5.87 of the Rajasthan High
Court in Crl.A. No.135 of 1983.

E Pramod Swarup for A.S. Pundir, Ms. Prerna Swarup and Prashant
Choudhary for the Appellant.

R.P. Gupta for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
M.K. MUKHERJEE,_J. These three appeals have been heard
together as they arise out ofa common judgment rendered by the Rajasthan
High Court disposing of three criminal appeals. Facts relevant for disposal
of these appeals are as under.
G
Rama, (deceased) was the daughter of Shri S.S. Kela (PW 35) and
Smt. Vimlawati (PW 33) of Kasganj, District Etah (U.P.). She held a post
graduate degree in Hindi literature and was active in games. On May 6,
1981 she was married to Suresh Narain of Saharanpur (U.P.) and since
then she was living with her husband in the house of her in-laws at Mahalia
H Memaran (Khalapur) in Saharanpur.
STATE OF U.P. v. B.K. DAS [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.] 53

In the following year (1982) the festival of 'Hali' fell on March 9; A
and as, according to the custom prevalent in their community Rama could
not celebrate the festival in the first year of her marriage in the house of
her in-laws, her father came to fetch her. Her in-laws, however did not
permit her to go with her father but sent her to the house of her elder sister
Smt. Malti Devi (P. W. 30) who was married to one Satish Kumar and was
living in a neighbouring Mahalia. Rama however came back to her B
matrimonial home on the following day (March I 0, 1982).

In the afternoon of March 14, 1982, Bal Kishan Dass, father-in-law
of Rama, lodged a report (Ex. P.3 l) with the Kotwali (City) Police Station
to the effect that she was missing from the house and in spite of their best
efforts they were unable to trace her whereabouts. It was reported that C
Rama had retired for the night as usual but in the morning it was found
that the main door of the house was wide open and she was not there. It
was also reported that she was a victim of occasional fits for which she
was being treated. It was further mentioned that when she went to bed in
the previous night she was wearing a red printed cotton saree, a sweater of
orange colour, ear-rings, a neck-chain, some glass-bangles of 'maroon' D
colour, two golden rings on the fingers, silver 'paizeb' on ankles and
'Bichwas' on toes. Along with the report, her photograph (Ex. P.33) was
also handed over to the police. Before lodging the report Bal Kishan Dass
had sent telegraphic message to Rama's father. Similar messages were also
sent to Khamgaon in the State of Maharashtra where Suresh Narain,
husband of Rama, was supposed to have gone in the night of March I 0, I 982 E
to attend a marriage and other places where Suresh was expected to visit
after attending the marriage.

On getting information from Mahesh Narain, elder brother ofSuresh,
that Rama was missing Malti along with her husband Salish went to the
house of Bal Kishan. She however was not satisfied with the explanation F
given by the mother-in-law of Rama about her disappearance. Returning
therefrom she and her husband telephonically contacted Dr. S.S. Rathi
(P.W. 12), a professor of Delhi University to whom Rama's another sister
Sushma was married. Dr. Rathi was requested to inform Shri Kela at
Kasganj also. On the following day (March 15, I 982) Shri Kela, Dr. Rathi G
" ,,. and Kanti Chand (PW 34), elder brother of Rama, reached Saharanpur.
Since Shri Kela was also not satisfied with the story of mysterious
disappearance of Rama as given out by the members of her husband's
family he lodged a report with the Saharanpur police station on the same
day (Ex. P. 161). Therein he stated that when he last met her she told him
that she was being tortured by her in-laws. It was also stated in the report H
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A that earlier two of the daughters-in-law of Bal Kishan Das had died under
mysterious circumstances. Accordingly, Shi Kela asked the Station House
Officer to make a proper investigation into the matter in the light of the
information given by him.

On March 16, 1982, Bal Kishan Dass met Shri M.S. Bali, the Addi.
B Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur and handed over to him an
application (Ex. P. 41) along with an 'Inland' letter (Ex. P. 59), which he
claimed to have received by post. The inland letter, which was addressed

C
to Bal Kishan Dass by one Ahme~ Hasan, gave the information that his
son's wife Smt. Rama was in his custody and that she would be sent back
only after he was paid two lacs of rupees. He (Bal Kishan) was warned
that any report to the police and failure to pay the required ransom at the
desired place by March 18, 1982 would cost the life of the kidnapped
-
lady. The alleged abductor of Rama had asked him to enquire of his address
from Bharat Steels, Dehradoon Chowk, Saharanpur. Shri Bali directed
the Kotwali (City) Police Station to take necessary action in the matter.

D Since no action was taken by the Saharanpur police to trace out
Rama her relatives decided to approach the higher authorities. Accordingly,
Dr. Rathi held talks with his colleague Dr. K.S. Shukla (P.W. 11), Dean of
Students Welfare in Delhi University and apprised him of the matter and
on March 24, 1982 along with others met the Minister of State for Horne
E Affairs of the Government of India. After getting an assurance from the
Minister that he would look into the matter when they were returning
from the Parliament House they met some press reporters and gave them
the news of Rama's missing.

In the meantime, on March 17, 1982 at or about 1.00 A.M. when
F Kali Ram (P.W. 5), a Sanitary Jarnadar, along with his men was washing
platform No. I of New Delhi Railway Station he found a green coloured
hold-all lying abandoned and unclaimed near a bench in front of the II
Class Ladies Waiting Room. When he tried to keep it aside he found it
heavy and emitting bad smell. Suspecting some foul-play he sent
G information to the Police Head Constable Kartar Singh (P.W. 2) of the
Railway Police Station who, in his turn, informed Station House Officer
(S.H.O.) Ram Swaroop Yadav (P.W. 38). On getting the information Shri
Yadav rushed to the site of the hold-all along with other police personnel.

On opening the hold-all he first found a large gunny bag (Art. 4)
H tied with a rope (Art. 15) beneath it another small gunny bag (Art. 3) and
STATE OF U.P. v. B.K. DAS [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.] 55

then a 'gadda' (Art. 2). When the large gunny bag was opened a A
.• decomposed and swollen corpse of a woman aged about 25/26 years came
out. On inspection Shrj Yadav found that the deceased had a red printed
saree (A11. 5), a yellow petticoat (Art. 7), a woolen sweater of 'BADAMI'
colour (Art. 6) and a yellow cotton blouse under the woolen blouse (Art.
8) on her person. Besides there were some glass bangles of red colour
(Art. 12) around her left wrist and a few broken pieces of such bangles B
(Art. 13).

Shri Yadav then recorded the statement of Kali Ram Jamadar (Ex.
34) and forwarded the same to the police station for registering a case.
Kartar Singh H.C. registered Crime No. 87/82 under Section 302 IPC
vide F.I.R. Ex. P. 3 at 3.26 A.M. Shri Yadav got photographs of the dead C
body taken, held inquest upon it and then sent it for post mortem
examination. He seized the hold-all, the gunny bags, the gadda and the
broken bangles and sealed them.

· Dr. L.T. Ramani (PW. 17) held post m~rtem examination on the
same day and found that the deceased was aged about 25 years, medium D
complexioned (on fairer side), with a well built body of a height of 5'-2".
Besides the clothes and the bangles mentioned above, he found a 'tilli' in
her left nostril. The body was decomposed and fluid was oozing out ofthe-
nostrils. Her eye-balls were decomposed, nails were blue and felling out
and the tongue was protruding in between the teeth. He removed the coir E
rope which was encircling the neck and found a deep constricting groove,
horizontally placed on the middle of the neck over the thyroid cartilage all
around the neck. The width of the ligature mark varied from 1/2" to 314"
at places. On internal examination of the dead body Dr. Ramani found
that the scalp tissues were normal, skull bones were intact and brain was
congested. On dissection of the neck tissues he found effusion of blood F
there, hyoid bone intact and trachea contained fluid and was congested.
The ribs were intact. Lungs showed signs of decomposition and the heart
was decomposed and the chambers were empty. Dr. Ramani opined that
the ligature mark was caused by the rope present around the neck and was
ante-mortem. He further opined that the ligature was sufficient to cause G
death in ordinary course of nature and that the deceased had died due to
asphyxia resulting from strangulation. As the dead body had been reported
to have been found in a hold-all Dr. Ramani opined that her death had
taken place two to three days before. Later, on June 4, 1982, when Shri
Yadav, the Investigating Officer, further enquired of him whether the time
between her death and the autopsy could be more or Jess that what he had H
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A mentioned in his report, Dr. Ramani opined that it could be 4 to 5 days but
in no case it could be later than the time he had mentioned earlier. Dr.
Ramani preserved the viscera, scalp and pubic hair and handed over the '
same to the constable in sealed condition. The clothes and the glass bangles
· were also handed over to the constable, but not in sealed condition, as they
were required for identification purposes. However, the 'tilli' was removed
B from nostrils of the deceased. On chemical examination of the viscera, Dr.
K.S. Chabra (P. W. 25), Senior Scientific Officer cum Assistant Chemical
Examiner of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi found
that it was positive for methyl alcohol.

After the post mortem examination the dead body was kept in the
C mortuary for identification and a Gazette notification in that behalf was
also published. Besides, a pamphlet entitled 'Hue and Cry' (Ex. P. 172),
with the photograph of the dead body and necessary particulars and details
of her clothes, was published and circulated. Wireless messages were also
sent to the Police Commissioner and S.Ps. all over the country as also to
all the police stations in Delhi. Letters to the press and 'missing persons
D squad' were sent for getting clues for the identification of the dead body.
Since the dead body was not identified within the next four days its last
rites were performed by a Sewa Samiti.

On March 25, 1982, Shri S.R. Yadav, the Investigating Officer, came
E across a news captioned 'Vain search for Rama' in the Hindustan Times
(English) in its issue of the above date (Ex. P. 43). From the news item he
learnt that a deputation of the Delhi University Teachers had met the
Minister of State for Home Affairs in connection with the disappearance
of a lady called Rama who was reported to be missing since March 13,
1982. Since the names of Dr. Rathi (P.W. 12) and Dr. Shukla (P.W. II),
F besides others, were mentioned as the members of the deputation, Shri
Yadav contacted them. Dr. Rathi and his wife Smt. Sushma could not
however identify the deceased either from the photograph or the clothes
and bangles but they told Shri Yadav that Rama's elder sister, Smt. Maiti
Devi who was also living in Saharanpur might possibly be in a position to
G identify. Accordingly, Shri Yadav requested Dr. Rathi and his wife to ask
Smt. Malti Devi to come to Delhi.

On the following day Sm!. Malti Devi and her father Shri Kela
(P.W. 35) reached the New Delhi Railway Police Station along with Dr.
Rathi and Dr. Shukla. When the photographs of the deceased were shown
H to them they could not identify but on seeing the clothes and the glass
STATE OF U.P. v. B.K.DAS [M.K. MUKHERJEE,J.] 57

bangles of the deceased, Smt. Malti Devi identified them as belonging to A
Rama. The clothes and bangles having been identified by Smt. Malti an
identification memo (Ex. P. 44) was prepared by Shri Yadav and the clothes
and glass bangles which had so far been kept open for identification were
duly sealed. Later on June lO, 1982 when the enlarged photographs of the
dead body were shown to Smt. Mahi and her father they identified the
same as those of Rama. B
The identity of the dead body having been established, Shri Yadav
went to Saharanpur. There he contacted Bal Kishan Dass and Mahesh
Narain and brought them to the New Delhi Railway Police Station on
March 29, 1982 to identify the belongings of Rama. At the police Malkhana,
when they were shown the clothes of the deceased, they it is alleged, C
became nervous and began to look at each other. Shri Yadav then found
reasonable grounds to suspect them in the commission of the murder of
Rama and, therefore, arrested them.

After their arrest both of them are alleged to have made certain
incriminating disclosures. Balkishandass is alleged to have made a statement D
leading to the recovery of a golden chain (Art. 20), a pair of golden
'churies' (Arts. 21 and 22), a pair of gold ear-rings (Arts. 23 and 24), a
gold ring (Art. 25) a pair of silver bichwas (Arts. 26 and _27) and a pair of
silver 'Paizeb' (Arts. 28 and 29) from an almirah in his house at Saharanpur
which were seized and sealed. The ornaments were later on identified as
belonging to the deceased. In course offurther search of the house. 7 large E
gunny bags were also recovered. Later Shri S.R. Singh (PW 22) Senior
Scientific Officer Cum-Asstt. Chemical Examiner to the Government of
India and head of the Physics Department Forensic Science Laboratory,
New Delhi on his examination and comparison of these gunny bags with
the one in which the dead body of Rama was found, opined that the bags
were quite similar to each other in their 'physical measurements' and F
other general/accidental printing characteristics (Ext. P. 99).

On interrogation of the above two accused persons, namely, Bal
Kishan Dass and Mahesh Narain, it appeared to the Investigating Officer
that Suresh Narain and Ashok Kumar, a cousin ofSuresh Narain were also G
involved in the murder of Rama. Accordingly he also arrested them and
continued with the investigation in the light of further materials disclosed
in course thereof. On completion of investigation he filed chargesheet
against the aforesaid four accused persons before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Saharanpur who committed the case to the Court of Session,
Saharanpur for trial. Before, however, the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur H
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A could commence the trial, the case was transferred by an order of this
Court, to the Court of the Sessions Judge Bharatpur in the State ofRajasthan
for trial.

At the commencement of the trial a charge under Section 120-B
read with Sections 302 and 201 IPC was framed against-three of the accused
B persons, namely, Bal Kishan Dass, Mahesh Narain and Suresh Narain.
Against Bal Kishan and Mahesh Narain additional charges under Sections
302 and 20 I !PC and against Ashok Kumar only a charge under Section
201 IPC was framed.

In the absence of any eye-witness to bring home the above charges
-
C the prosecution rested its case on circumstantial evidence; and for that
purpose examined 42 witnesses and exhibited 195 documents. The
circumstances which the prosecution relied upon to prove its case are as
under:

D (i) Rama was seen alive in her matrimonial home on March 12,
1982 by Smt. Balloo (P.w: 25) who was then working as a maid servant
there;

(ii) However, on the following morning (on March 13) Balloo did
E not see her in the house; and in the sall)e afternoon when Smt Shobha (P.
W. 41 ), a school friend of Rekha, daughter of Bal Kishan Das, went to
meet her she could not also find her.

(iii) In· that night, at or about 9.30 P.M. Mahesh Narain was seen by
Rasul Ahmed (P.W. 9), a tea shop owner, to go to the house of Ashok
F Kumar.

(iv) At or about 11 P.M. in the same night Mahesn Narain had hired
the rickshaw of Jshab Singh (P. W. 8) and brought it to their house;

(v) A little later Mahesh Narain and Ashok Kumar had loaded a
G hold-all (Art. 1) in that rickshaw and carried it to the Saharanpur Railway ._ ·
Station;

(vi) Some two hours later the above two accused persons were seen
at that Railway Station with the hold-all by Ghanshyam Dass Maheshwari
H (P.W.10);
STATE OF U.P. v. B.K. DAS [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.] 59

(vii) On the following afternoon (March 14, 1982) the same hold- A
all was seen by Gursewak Singh (P.W. 26) an Electrical Fitter of the
Amritsar Railway Station, on platform No.3 of that station;

(viii) In the same afternoon Bal Kishan Dass had gone to Kotwali
Police Station, Saharanpur along with Mahesh Narain and lodged a false
report that Rama was missing (Ex. P.31 ); B

(ix) On March 16, 1982 Bal Kishan Dass and Mahesh Narain had
handed over an application (Ex. P/41) along with a ransom letter (Ex. P/
59), which was a fabricated document, to the Addi. Superintendent of
Police, Saharanpur;
c
(x) The application (Ex. P/41), was typed by Anil Kumar (P.W. 13)
on his typewriter at the behest of Mahest Narain and Bal Kishan Dass and
signed by the latter; the ransom letter (Ex. P/59) was also typed on the
same typewriter after it (the typewriter) was procured from Anil Kumar
by Mahesh Narain and Ashok Kumar on the pretext of getting some D
confidential matters typed.

(xi) In the night of March 17, 19_82 a dead body of a woman was
recovered from the hold-all (Art. l) when it was lying on platform No. l
of New Delhi Railway Station;
E
(xii) The dead body was that of Rama, as testified by Malti (P. W.
30) and her father Shri Kela (P.W. 35).

(xiii) Rama met with her death owing to strangulation;
F
(xiv) Mahesh Narain and Bal Kishan Dass had the opportunity to
commit the murder;

(xv) Bal Kishan Dass, Mahesh Narain and Suresh Narain had hatched
a conspiracy in the evening of March l 0, 1982 to commit the murder of
Rama; G

(xvi) Bal Kishan Dass and his two sons had a strong motive to commit
the murder as the parents of Rama failed to meet their dowry demands.

(xvii) Some of the ornaments that Rama was wearing immediately H
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A before her death were recovered from the house of Bal Kishan Dass pursuant
to his statement;

(xviii) Seven gunny bags, similar to the one in which the death body
of Rama was found, were recovered from the house of the Bal Kishan
Dass; and
B
(xix) Bal Kishan Dass made an extra-judicial confession before Kamta
Prasad (P.W. 31).

The common defence of the four accused persons, who pleaded not
guilty to the charges framed against them, was that they had been falsely
C implicated. They disputed the identity of the deceased as Rama as also the
claim of the prosecution that the deceased died due to strangulation. In
disputing the cause of death they examined Dr. P.P. Jangid (D.W. 4), a
medical jurist. In his examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C. Bal Kishan
Dass stated that he was a man of principles and did not believe in either
taking or giving dowry in marriages. He asserted that he had neither
D demanded nor received any dowry from Shri Kela and that his relations
with him had throughout been cordial. He admitted that on the occasion
of 'Holi' Rama had gone to stay with her elder sister Malti for the night
but disputed her (Malti's) claim that she had visited his house on·March
12, 1982. He added that his was a well-to-do family and that his eldest son
Ramesh Narain was the Secretary of the Maheshwari Samaj, Saharanpur
E whereas Munshi Lal, father-in-law of Malti, was the Adhyaksh of that
Samaj. Since Salish Chand, son of Munshi Lal and husband of Malti, was
a man of bad character and was convicted and sentenced for immoral
trafficking he (Bal Kishan) had asked Munshi Lal to step down from the
office of the Adhyaksh. This had enraged Munshi Lal and his family and
F it was he who had left no stone unturned in getting him and the members
of his family falsely implicated in the case with help of Shri Kela and his
son Santi Chandra. He asserted that Rama had lefr the house of her own
during the night between March 13 and 14, 1982. He further stated that on
coming to know of Rama's missing from the house he had sent Mahesh
Narain to enquire of Rama from Malti and had sent a telegraphic message
G to Shri Kela at Kasganj. As Suresh Narain had gone to Khamgaon to
attend the marriage of his niece there, he sent talegraphic message there
for his early return. He further stated that he had lodged the report (Ex. P.
31) with the local police and on getting the ransom letter (Ex. P/59) on
March 16, 1982 by post, he had handed over the same along with his
application {Ex. P/4 I) to the Saharanpur Police. He denied to have ever
H conspired with his sons to murder Rama and to have made any extra judicial
STATE OF U.P. v. B.K.DAS [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.] 61

confession before Kamta Prasad (P.W. 21). He asserted that his two sons A
(the two accused) and daughter Rekha were taken by the Delhi Railway
Police from his house in the night of March 26, 1982 and in Delhi he
came to know that accused Ashok Kumar and Smt. Balloo (P.W. 25) were
also brought likewise. He denied to have made any statement to the police
leading to the alleged recovery of the ornaments (Ex. 20 to 29) from his
house. He asserted that he himself was a money lender by profession and B
advanced loans to needy persons against pledge of ornaments and, therefore
had sufficient knowledge about the purity of gold and from such knowledge
he could say that the above ornaments, stated to be of gold, were actually
not so. In support of his assertion he examined two goldsmiths, namely,
Amar Singh (D.W. I) and Om Prakash (D.W. 5).

In their examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C. Suresh Narain and
c
Mahesh Narain also made similar statements. Suresh Narain stated that he
had left Saharanpur for Khamgaon in the night of March I 0, I982 and on
getting the telegram from his father he returned on March I 8, 1982. He
asserted that his wife had not been killed and he was still in search of her.
Mahesh Narain stated that he was an M.Sc. in Agriculture and was employed D
as a Quality Inspector with Food Corporation of India in its branch office
at Saharanpur. He further stated that he had gone to Kasganj on March I 0,
1982 and had returned therefrom along with the brother of his wife on the
following day. He examined his brother-in-law Kaushal Baboo Rathi (DW.
2) in support of this version. It was further stated by him that on March
11, 1982 the Sagai ceremony of Rekha with the son of Seth Krishna E
Kumar (D.W. 3) was to be performed at his house but that had been
postponed to March 21, 1982. According to him the question of his entering
into a criminal conspiracy to murder Rama on the eve of such an auspicious
occasion could not have arisen. He pointed out that he himself was married
in the month of February 1982. He also denied to have taken the hold-all
(Art. I) to the Saharanpur Railway Station. Ashok Kumar denied that he F
was ever called by Rasul Ahmad (P.W. 9) from _his house or had gone to
the Saharanpur Railway Station with the hold-all in the rickshaw of lshab
Singh and had talks with Ghanshyam. Ghanshyam's version that he had
gone to the Railway Station to send off his cousin, who was allegedly
going to Palwal, was also disputed by him.
G
• -..• Apart from examining six witnesses in support of their defence the
accused persons exhibited 77 documents.

From the judgment of the trial Judge which runs through 170 pages,
we find that he detailed and discussed the entire evidence adduced by the H
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A parties keeping in view the cases of the respective parties before answering
the question whether all or any of the circumstances enumerated above
stood established.

According to the trial Judge, while the prosecution failed to prove
·-
circumstances under item Nos.(vi), (vii), (xv), (xvi), (xvii), (xviii) and
B (xix), it succeeded in conclusively proving all the other circumstances.
From the circumstances so proved the trial Judge concluded that the murder
of Rama had definitely been committed in the house of Bal Kishan Dass and
subsequently her dead body had been disposed of in the manner alleged by
the prosecution. With the above conclusion the trial Judge proceeded to
consider the alleged involvement of the four accused persons in the above
C offences. In dealing first with Bal Kishan Dass, the trial Judge observed that
consequent upon the failure of the prosecution to prove the motive as also
any conspiracy behind the commission of the above offences, there were
only two incriminating circumstances which stood proved against Bal Kishan
Dass: namely, that he lodged a false report (Ex. P. 31) and later on produced
a fabricated ransom letter (Ex. P. 59) before the police. According to the
D trial Judge, it was not unlikely that being the head of the family he thought
it necessary to save its honour and reputation which was likely to be affected
by the murder of Rama and probably it was only with that object in view
that he made the report and produced the ransom letter before the police.
That apart, the learned Judge observed, the report (Ex. P. 31) was written
'E by Mahesh Narain and not Bal Kishan Dass. Accordingly, the learned Judge
felt that Bal Kishan Dass was entitled to the benefit of doubt. So far as
Suresh Narain was concerned the trial Judge he!d that since the prosecution
signally failed to prove the offence of criminal conspiracy and since he was
admittedly not present in Saharanpur at the material time he was entitled
to acquittal. As regards Ashok Kumar the Sessions Judge held that the
F charge under Section 201 !PC stood conclusively proved against him as the
prosecution was able to establish beyond all reasonable doubts that he
actively helped Mahesh Narain in causing the dead body of Rama, which
was the evidence of the commission of her murder, to disappear with the
intention of screening her murderer from legal punishment. Lastly, he dealt
with the role ofMahesh Narain and held that both the charges under Section
G 302 and 201 !PC stood fully established against him as he had the best
opportunity to commit the murder which took place in their house and he
was instrumental in removing her dead body as also in giving false report ..........
to the police and fabricating the ransom letter. With the above findings, the
trial Judge convicted and sentenced Mahesh Narain under sections 302 and
201 IPC and Ashok Kumar under Section 201 JPC, while acquitting the
H other two accused.
STA TE OF U.P. v. B.K. DAS [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.] 63

Against their conviction and sentence Mahesh Narain and Ashok A
Kumar filed two separate appeals in the High Court; and the State, in its
turn, filed an appeal against the acquittal of Bal Kishan Dass and Suresh.
The High Court concurred with all the findings of the trial Judge regarding
the incriminating circumstances alleged against the accused except so far
as it related to the recovery of gunny bags similar to the gunny bag in
which the dead body of Rama was found from the house of Bal Kishan B
Dass. The High Court also concurred with the view expressed by the trial
Judge as regards the alleged complicity of the accused persons in the offences
committed. Resultantly the High Court dismissed all the three appeals.
The above judgment of the High Court is under challenge in these three
apeals, two of which have been filed by Ashok Kumar (Criminal Appeal
No. 82of1988) and Mahesh Narain (Crimmal Appeal No. 221of1988) C
and the other (Criminal Appeal No. 120/88) by the State ofU.P. dismissing
their appeal against the acquittal of Bal Kishan Dass and Suresh.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length
and carefully perused the voluminous evidence, oral and documentary,
adduced during trial. From the record we find that in the learned Courts D
below the defence did not challenge the prosecution case so far as it sought
to prove (a) that Rama was in her matrimonial home on March 12, 1982;
(b) that. both Bal Kishan Dass and Mahesh Narain were also there on
March 12 and 13, 1982; (c) that on March 14, 1982 both of them went to
Kotwali Police Station, Saharanpur and loged the missing report (Ex. P.
31); (d) that on March 16, 1982 they handed over the arplication (Ex. P. E
41) along with the ransom letter (Ex. P. 59) to the Additional
Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur; and (e) that on March 17, 1982 the
dead body of woman was found inside a hold-all which was lying on
platform No. I of New Delhi Railway Station. Mr. Gupta, the learned
counsel appearing for the accused persons in these appeals also did not F
dispute the findings recorded by the learned Courts below in that behalf
though he refuted the claim ofMalti that she had met Rama on March 12,
1982. Mr. Gupta, however, strongly assailed their other findings particularly
those relating to the identity of the deceased and the cause of her death,
and reiterated the arguments canvassed on behalf of the accused persons in
the Courts below. He asserted that having regard to the facts that the G
indictment against the accused persons pivoted on the identification of the
deceased as Rama and that the prosecution had signally failed to prove
such identity, its entire case must fail. He next contended that even if it
was assumed that prosecution established the identity still its case would
fail as it was unsuccessful in proving that Raina met with a homicidal
d*h. H
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A While there cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that on the
prosecutions failure to prove either of the above facts its
entire case would fai I, we are unable to accept the contention of
Mr. Gupta that those facts have not been established in the instant case. As
noticed earlier the prosecution sought to establish the identity of
the deceased by the identification of the clothes and glass bangles
B found on her person and also the photographs taken of the dead body.
From the evidence of Shri Yadav (P.W. 38) and the inquest report
he prepared (Ex. P. 162 and I 62A) it is found that the deceased had
on her person a red printed sari, woolen sweater and a number of
red coloured glass bangles. Smt. Mal ti (P. W. 30) had identified the
above articles as belonging to Rama and further stated that the glass bangles
C had been given to Rama by her on the occasion of the 'Holi' when she had
visited her. She also testified, on being shown the enlarged photographs of
the deceased, that those were o~ her sister. Both the trial Court and the
High Court discussed the evidence of Malti in this regard and found the
same trustworthy. This apart, the Courts below noticed that the description
of the wearing apparels of Rama as given by Bal Kishan Dass in the missing
D report (Ext. P. 31) tallied with the description of the articles found on the
person of the deceased. From the judgments we further find that all the
comments that were made on bohalf of the defence against acceptance of
the evidence of identification have been adequately dealt with and rejection.
Having gone through the evidence of Malti we do not see any reason
whatsoever to disturb the above concurrent findings. So far as the cause of
E death of Rama is concerned the Courts below have also given detailed
reasons for accepting the opinion of Dr. Ramani (PW 17) in preference to
that of Dr. Jangid (D.W. 4), who opined that the death was not due to
strangulation. One of the reasons so given is that Dr. Jangid had expressed
his opinion solely on the basis of the report submitted by Dr. Ramani after
holding the autopsy and that he had no occasion or opportunity to see and
F examine the dead body itself; and in fortification thereof the Courts relied
upon the following passage from the judgment of this Court in Piara
Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1977) SC 2274:

"Apart from this in the instanc case it appears that Dr. Jitendra
G Singh had the initial advantage of examining the deceased and
holding his post mortem and observing the nature of the injuries
on the body of the deceased. His opinion is, therefore, based on
first hand knowledge and would be in any event preferable to
Doctor Paramjeet Singh who did not have the advantage of
seeing the deceased or the injuries on his body but deposed
H purely on the basis of the description of the injuries given by
STATE OF U.P. v. B.K. DAS [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.] 65

Dr. Jitendra Singh. For all these reasons, therefore, we would A
prefer the evidence of Dr. Jitendra Singh to the evidence of Dr.
Paramjeet Singh."

In the instant case the prosecution was required to prove, after having
succeeded in establishing the identity of the deceased as Rama, that she
met with a homicidal death in her matrimonial home. If, therefore, from B
the circumstances appearing on record the prosecution has been able to
conslusively prove that fact, the manner how her such death was brought
about would not be of any moment. Judged in that perspective, in our
considered view, the findings recorded by the learned Courts below in
respect of the circumstances under item Nos. (iv) and (v) detailed earlier
clinch the issue in favour of the prosecution, sans the testimony of Dr. C
Ramani. To prove the above circumstances the prosecution examined Ishab
Singh (P.W. 8) a rickshaw puller, who testified that his rickshaw was hired
by accused Mahesh Narain in the night of March 13, 1982 and in that
rickshaw he carried a hold-all from their house to Saharanpur Railway
Station. Both the Courts have found his evidence trustworthy and after
careful perusal of his evidence we also do not see any reason to differ with D
the finding so recorded. Incidentally it may be mentioned that the trial
Judge has observed that he (P.W. 8) had impressed him (the Judge) very
much by his straight forward and unhesitant answers to the questions put
to him in examination-in-chief and cross-examination. When his
evidence is read in the context of the fact that a few days later (on 17th
March) dead body of Rama was recovered from inside a similar hold-all E
(irrespective of the question whether its identity stood established or not)
the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn therefrom is that she met
with her death in the house of her in-laws. As it is nobody's case that such
death was accidental or suicidal~indeed, it was not even suggested by the
defence that it was so---the only corollary that follows from the proof of
the above two circumstances and the manner in which her dead body was F
recovered is that her death was homicidal.

Now that we have found that Rama was killed in the house of Bal
Kishan Dass and her dead body was removed therefrom we have to ascertain
the role of the accused persons, if any, in these crimes. As stated earlier G
except Ashok Kumar, the other accused were of the same household. Since,
admittedly, Suresh Narain was not in Saharanpur on March 12 and 13,
1982 and the charge of conspiracy has failed his acquittal has got to be
upheld.

That brings us to the case of the other two members of the household, H
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [I 996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A namely, Mahesh Narain and Bal Kishan Dass. In distinguishing the case of
Bal Kishan Dass from that of Mahesh Narain, the learned Courts below
observed that though both of them were party to the filing of false reports
and a fabricated ransom Jetter with the police to mislead them, the former
did so only to save the honour and reputation of the family. Besides, the
Courts noticed that the missing repo1t (Ext. P. 31) was written by Mahesh
B Narain and the ransom Jetter was procured/prepared by him. Having given
our anxious consideration to this aspect of the matter we are unable to
hold that their cases are distinguishable; and in our opinion, they stand on
the same footing for they acted in unison.

It is not in dispute that Bal Kishan Dass and Mahesh Narain were in
C their house in the fateful nights. It is also not in dispute that the missing
report (Ext. P. 31) though prepared by Mahesh Narain, was signed by Bal
Kishan Dass and he handed over it to the police on March 14, 1982.
Undisputedly again, the application (Ext. P. 41) was typed by Anil Kumar
(P.W. 13) at the instance of Bal Kishan Dass and was signed and handed
over to the police by him on March 16,1982. Since it stands established
D that before the missing report was lodged with the police, Rama had met
with her death in his house, it necessarily means that both the reports that
were lodged with the police (Ext. L3l and P. 41) were false and prepared
to mislead the pol.ice. Now to ascertain whether the ransom letter (Ext. P.
59) that was annexed to the second report (Ext. P. 41) was also fabricated
at the instance of Bal Kishan Dass it will be appropriate to first refer to the
E same. The transliterated version of the letter, which is in Hindi and was
addressed to Bal Kishan Dass reads as under:

"Mohaday,

Aap ke Jadke ki dharam patni Sm!. Rama hamara pass surakshit
F hai, jise hamne 13.3.82 ki ratri me prapt kiya hai. Aap use prapt
karne ke liye do Jakh rupees Jekar 18.3.82 tak Dahradun Chowk
par Bharat Steal se hamara pata malum karke prapt ker le, anytha
usko maut ka ghat utar diya jayega. !ski suchna kisi bhi police
eityadi ko dene ki avaskta'nah i hai, yadi police ko such it kiya to
G hum usejan se turant mar denge. 18.3.82 ko samay ratri 7 baje.

Aapka
Ahmed Hussain
through Bharat
Steel, Dehradun
H
STATE OF U.P. v. B.K. DAS [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.] 67

Chowk, A
Saharanpur"

In commenting upon the above quoted letter the High Court noticed
that in the first line of the original the words 'Smt. Rama' has been written
above the line and mark has been made between the words 'Dharampatni'
and 'Hamare' and then 'Smt. Rama' has been inserted which indicated B
that the writer was particular about writing the name of Rama even though
it was not typed in the main line. The High Court went on to say that the
letter used very respectable words and Rama has been referred to as
'dharampatni' of his son and 'Smt.' has been prefixed to her name. Bal
Kishan Dass has been addressed as 'aap' and in the end also the writer has
written 'aapka'. According to the High Court a kidnapper would not use C
such respectable words nor make a polite request to pay ransom. Then
again, the High Court observed, while demanding ransom the kidnapper
would not write the time when the person was kidnapped but would fix
the time and place where the ransom money is to be paid. The High Court
also noticed that in that letter the time for payment has been added in the
end which appeared to it to be an after thought. The High Court noticed D
that in the letter emphasis is not on the payment of money or the time for
its payment but on the date and time when Rama was kidnapped and who
Rama was. The High Court observed that a letter claiming ransom would
· have been short and to the point rather .than containing irrelevant details.
It is on the basis of the contents of the letter and the evidence of Anil
Kumar (P.W.!3) who testified that apart from getting the application (Ex. E
P. 41) typed by him Ashok Kumar and Mahesh Narain had borrowed his
type machine for getting some confidential papers typed, the High Court
agreed with the finding of the trial Judge that the ransom letter was prepared
by Mahesh Narain for misguiding the police. On going through the ransom
letter and the evidence of Anil Kumar we are in complete agreement with
the Courts below that the ransosm letter was a fabricated letter and false F
reports were lodged with the police to misguide them but we are unable to
hold that only Mahesh Narain was party thereto.

The ransom letter was an annexure to the report/application (Ext. P.
4 I) that Bal Kishan Dass signed and presented before the Addi. G
Superintendent of police. In his examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C.
when the trial Court brought to his notice that it had come in the evidence
that on March 16, 1982 he got Ex. P. 41 type written by Anil Kumar he
admitted that he had done so. Unfortunately, however, while dealing with
the case of Bal Kishan Dass the learned Courts below did not at all take
into consideration the application (Ext. P. 41) and proceeded only on the H
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A basis that the earlier report Ex. P. 31 was written by Mahesh Narain and he
was only responsible in procuring the false ransom letter. When the ransom
letter so prepared/ procured was posted with him (Bal Kishan Dass) as the
addressee, and after receipt of the same when it was annexed to a document
which he himself signed after getting it typed it must be said Bal Kishan
Dass was also a pa1ty thereto. For the self-same reason Bal Kishan Dass
B would be also culpable for filing the earlier missing report with the police.
When these facts and circumstances are considered in Juxta-position with
the presence of Bal Kishan Dass in the house when the murder took place
the only inference that can be drawn is that he was a party to the murder of
Rama and removal of her dead body.

C As regards accused Ashok Kumar, his conviction under Section 201
!PC has got to be upheld in view of the unimpeachable evidence of lshab
Singh (P.W.8) and other evidence discussed earlier, which indubitably
proves that being fully aware that Rama had been murdered he actively
associated himself in removal of her dead body, obviously to screen the
offenders.
D
On the conclusions as above we uphold the conviction of Ashok
Kumar under Section 201 !PC but considering the facts and circumstances
of. the case and particularly the fact that since the offence was committed
more than fourteen years have elagsed we reduce the substantive sentence
of rigorous imprisonment of five years imposed upon him for the above
E conviction to rigorous imprisonment for two years. Subject to the above
modification regarding sentence his appeal (Being Cr I. Appeal No. 82 of
1988) is dismissed. Cr!. Appeal No. 221 of 1988) preferred by Mahesh
Narain, is also dismissed with only this modification that his conviction
under Section 302 !PC (simpliciter) will stand altered to one under Section
302134 !PC but the sentences imposed upon him shall stand confirmed.
F Cr!. Appeal No. 120of1988 filed by the State ofU.P. is partly allowed in
that, the appeal so far as it relates to the acquittal of Suresh Narain is
dismissed but in respect of Bal Kishan Dass the same is allowed. The
acquittal of Bal Kishan Dass is set aside and he is convicted of the offences
under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 !PC. For his conviction under Section
G 302/34 !PC he is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life but no separate
sentence is passed for the other conviction. Suresh Narain, who is on bail,
is discharged from his bail bonds. The other three accused persons, namely
Bal Kishan Dass, Mahesh Narain and Ashok Kumar, who are on bail, will
now surrender to their bail bonds to serve out the sentences.

H V.S.S. Appeal disposed of.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "murder"Sign in to search