RAM NIWAS VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA

RAM NIWAS VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 25 OF 2012

RAM NIWAS      ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA    ...RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by

the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh dated 16th

March   2009,   thereby   dismissing   the   appeal   filed   by   the

accused/appellant­Ram Niwas, which was filed challenging the

judgment and order dated 11th/12th January 2005 passed by the

learned   Sessions   Judge,   Sonepat,   thereby   convicting   the

appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short) and sentencing

him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to a fine of

1

Rs.5,000/­, in  default of payment  of fine to further undergo

rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 302 IPC and

to suffer imprisonment for three years and to a fine of Rs.2,000/­

in   default   of   payment   of   fine   to   further   undergo   rigorous

imprisonment for one year.  Both the sentences are directed to

run concurrently.  

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is thus:

2.1 Deceased   Dalip   Singh,   Bhim   Singh   (P.W.10),   and   the

complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) are brothers.  Pale, son of

Bhim Singh (P.W.10), was married to Sunita, daughter of

Chander Singh and the sister of the accused/appellantRam Niwas.  After the death of Pale, his wife Sunita along

with her minor son went to her parental house in village

Rewli.   Deceased Dalip Singh, Bhim Singh (P.W.10), and

complainant­Deep   Chand   (P.W.9)   wanted   Sunita   to   be

married to Rampal son of deceased Dalip Singh.  As such,

on 7th March 2003, all three of them had gone to the house

of   Chander   Singh,   father   of   the   accused/appellant­Ram

2

Niwas   with   the   proposal   of   remarriage   of   Sunita   with

Rampal son of deceased Dalip Singh. 

2.2 It is the prosecution case that all three of them reached

village  Rewli  and  went  to  the   house  of  Chander  Singh,

father of the accused/appellant­Ram Niwas at around 5.00

p.m. on 7th  March 2003. At around 7.30 p.m., deceased

Dalip   Singh   and   accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   started

taking liquor and at that time the proposal of marrying

Sunita with Rampal was mentioned.   On such mention

being made, accused/appellant­Ram Niwas got angry and

started   abusing   deceased   Dalip   Singh.     However,

complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10)

intervened and pacified the accused/appellant­Ram Niwas.

Thereafter, both of them after having their meals went to

the first floor to sleep.

2.3 On the morning of 8th  March 2003, at around 6.30 a.m.,

when   the   complainant­Deep   Chand   (P.W.9)   and   Bhim

Singh (P.W.10) went to the drawing room of Chander Singh,

3

deceased  Dalip Singh  was  not  seen  there.    They  asked

about the whereabouts of deceased Dalip Singh from the

accused/appellant­Ram Niwas, who told them that he had

gone for answering the call of nature.  Both of them waited

for deceased Dalip Singh for about half an hour, but he did

not   return.   Therefore,   they   again   asked   the

accused/appellant­Ram Niwas about the whereabouts of

deceased   Dalip   Singh,   but   they   did   not   receive   any

satisfactory reply.

2.4 It   is   further   the   prosecution   case   that   after   the

complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10)

came to the courtyard, they felt the smell of the burnt

human body.  The complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) again

enquired   from   the   accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   about

deceased   Dalip   Singh.   Then   the   accused/appellant­Ram

Niwas   became   nervous   and   replied   that   when   deceased

Dalip Singh had proposed to marry Sunita with his son

Rampal then he had pressed the throat of deceased Dalip

4

Singh and strangulated him to death.  In order to destroy

the evidence, the dead­body of the deceased Dalip Singh

was burnt, but the same could not be burnt completely.

The dead body of deceased Dalip Singh was concealed in

Paraal (Paddy Fodder).   Thereafter, the complainant­Deep

Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10) after removing the

Paddy   straw   found   the   partially   burnt   dead   body   of

deceased Dalip Singh wrapped in a piece of Plastic palli.

Thereafter, the complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim

Singh   (P.W.10)   expressed   their   resentment   towards   the

accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas,   and   on   hearing   their

resentment, the accused/appellant­Ram Niwas fled away

from the spot.  The complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) and

Bhim   Singh   (P.W.10)   went   to   their   village   Bhawar   and

returned back with other family members to village Rewli in

the evening.  

2.5 The complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) lodged a report with

the   Police   station   at   4.45   p.m.     On   the   basis   of   the

5

statement of the complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9), a First

Information Report (“FIR” for short) came to be registered at

5.00 p.m.

2.6 Upon completion of the investigation, a charge­sheet came

to be filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Sonepat.   Since the case was exclusively triable by

the Sessions Court, it came to be committed to the learned

Sessions Judge, Sonepat. 

2.7 Charges came to be framed for the offences punishable

under   Sections   302   and   201   of   the   IPC.     The

accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   pleaded   not   guilty   and

claimed to be tried.     At the conclusion of the trial, the

learned   Sessions   Judge,   Sonepat   passed   orders   of

conviction and sentence, as aforesaid.  Being aggrieved, the

accused/appellant­Ram Niwas preferred an appeal before

the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.  The

same came to be dismissed.  Hence the present appeal.  

6

3. We have heard Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned Advocate­onRecord   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   accused/appellant­Ram

Niwas and Mr. Birendra Kumar Choudhary, learned Additional

Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana.  

4. Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned counsel, submitted that from

the perusal of the postmortem report, it is clear that it is not

proved beyond reasonable doubt that the dead­body on which

the postmortem was conducted was of deceased Dalip Singh.  He

submitted that Dr. Sanjeev Malhotra (P.W.5) has admitted that

the   face   of   the   dead­body   of   which   he   had   carried   the

postmortem was not recognizable.  He therefore submitted that

in the absence of the prosecution proving that the dead­body

was of deceased Dalip Singh, the conviction was not sustainable.

He further submitted that the evidence of the complainant­Deep

Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10), which is relied upon by

the learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat as well as the High Court,

is totally unreliable. He submitted that the conduct of the said

witnesses is totally unnatural.   He submitted that from their

7

evidence, it is seen that after they had seen the dead­body, they

went all the way to their village Bhawar and returned back in the

evening.   He submitted that when the Police Station was at a

distance of about one and a half kilometers from the place of the

incident,   their   conduct   in   not   going   to   the   Police   Station

immediately and informing about the incident creates a serious

doubt about the prosecution case.  He therefore submits that the

accused/appellant­Ram Niwas is entitled to be acquitted of all

the charges charged with.  

5. Mr.   Birendra   Kumar   Choudhary,   learned   AAG,   on   the

contrary, submitted that both the courts below, upon correct

appreciation   of   evidence,   have   concurrently   found   the

accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   to   be   guilty   of   the   offences

charged with.   He submitted that the accused/appellant­Ram

Niwas   has   made   an   extra­judicial   confession   before   the

complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10).  He

submitted that the said extra­judicial confession is corroborated

by   the   recovery   of   ‘ash’   concealed   in   a   plastic   cover   on   the

8

memorandum   of   the   accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   under

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“Evidence Act” for

short).   He therefore submitted that no case is made out for

interference with the findings of fact, recorded by the learned

Sessions Judge, Sonepat as well as by the High Court. 

6. To   examine   the   correctness   of   the   findings   of   the   High

Court, it will be apposite to scrutinize the evidence on record.

7. Dr. Sanjeev Malhotra (P.W.5) has conducted postmortem

examination of the dead­body of deceased.  In his evidence, he

stated that the dead­body was lying naked.  It was showing deep

burns   all   over   the   body.     It   was   also   emitting   the   smell   of

kerosene.   The hair and scalp were missing.   Eye balls, eyelashes, and both ears were burnt out.  Both lips and the nose

were also burnt.  He has categorically stated in his examinationin­chief that the face of the dead­body could not be recognized.

He has also stated in his examination­in­chief that both feet

were   missing.   Dr.   Sanjeev   Malhotra   (P.W.5),   in   his   crossexamination, has given a clear admission to the following effect:

9

“It   is   correct   that   the   body   was   not

recognizable.  ………..”

8. The   complainant­Deep   Chand   (P.W.9),   in   his   evidence,

states that on 7th March 2003, he along with his two brothers,

namely, Bhim Singh (P.W.10) and deceased Dalip Singh had

gone to village Rewli.  He states that all the three brothers had

gone to village Rewli to ask for Sunita’s hand in re­marriage for

Rampal,   son   of   his   brother   deceased   Dalip   Singh.       After

reaching   the   village   Rewli   at   around   5.00   p.m.,   they   met

Chander Singh and his son accused/appellant­Ram Niwas.  He

further   states   that   after   some   time,   accused/appellant­Ram

Niwas brought a bottle of liquor and he along with his father

Chander Singh and his brother deceased Dalip Singh started

taking liquor.   He further states that upon the deceased Dalip

Singh proposing the re­marriage of Sunita with his son Rampal,

there was a minor altercation between them.  He states that he

and Bhim Singh (P.W.10) persuaded both sides to not fight. After

taking their meals, the accused/appellant­Ram Niwas told him

and Bhim Singh (P.W.10) to go to the first floor to sleep, since

10

the   accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   and   deceased   Dalip   Singh

wanted to have some talk.   Thereafter, they went to sleep on the

first floor.  

9. Complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) further states that in the

morning   when   they   had   gone   to   the   drawing   room   of   the

accused/appellant­Ram Niwas at around 6.30 a.m. and asked

about   their   brother   the   deceased   Dalip   Singh,   the

accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   told   them   that   deceased   Dalip

Singh had gone to ease himself.  After waiting for about half an

hour, when deceased Dalip Singh did not return, they again

enquired   from   the   accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   about   the

deceased   Dalip   Singh.     Thereafter,   accused/appellant­Ram

Niwas told them that he had murdered deceased Dalip Singh.

On being enquired about the dead­body of deceased Dalip Singh,

accused/appellant­Ram Niwas told them that he had kept the

dead­body concealed in the paraal (paddy fodder).  They also felt

the foul smell of burning.  They went there and saw the deadbody of deceased Dalip Singh, wrapped in a plastic palli and

11

lying   in   a   heap   of   paraal   and   also   in   a   burnt   condition.

Thereafter, he and Bhim Singh (P.W.10) ran away from there

since they had  an  apprehension  that  accused/appellant­Ram

Niwas might kill them also.   He states that they, thereafter,

straightway went to their village Bhawar and on the same day

after taking 4­5 persons from the village, he came to Murthal

Adda and at the turning of Engineering College, they met the

Police and informed about the incident.  

10. In his cross­examination, complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9)

admitted that parents of Sunita had come to his village Bhawar

at the time of Chhamahi and Barsi ceremonies of Pale.  He has

further admitted that they did not talk with the parents of Sunita

regarding   the   re­marriage   of   Sunita   with   Rampal   on   those

occasions.  He has further admitted that according to customs in

their   society,   the   remarriage   of   a   widow  or   Karewa   is   to   be

solemnized on the occasion of Chhamahi and Barsi.  It will be

relevant to refer to the following admissions in the evidence of

the complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9):

12

“After seeing the dead body we not raise any

alarm   and   none   came   at   the   spot   in   our

presence. Sunita was also 'present in village

Revli   on   that   day.   We   did   not   tell   even   to

Sunita or any body else in the village. We went

to our village Bhawar through a jeep and bus.

Police station Murthal is situated at a distance

of one and ∙half ∙kilometer from village Revli.

We did not inform the police of P.S. Murthal.

We reached in our village at about 9:00 A.M.

We   came   back   in   a   jeep.   Subhash,   Ganga,

Prem,   Raju,   Sher   Singh,   Pappu   etc.   had

accompanied us to village Revli. We did not

inform any police station which falls on the

way   back   to   village   Revli.   However,   police

station Baroda, Gohana, Mohana, sonepat and

Murthal falls on the way.”

11. It   could   thus   clearly   be   seen   from   the   evidence   of   the

complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) that after seeing the dead­body

of deceased Dalip Singh, they did not raise any alarm.  He has

clearly   admitted   in   his   deposition   that   there   are   residential

houses   on   one   side   of   the   house   of   accused/appellant­Ram

Niwas.     He   further   admitted   that   they   reached   their   village

Bhawar at around 9.00 a.m.  They waited till 2.30/3.00 p.m. to

inform the Police.  He has further admitted that between village

Rewli and his village Bhawar, Police Station Baroda, Gohana,

13

Mohana, Sonepat, and Murthal are on the way.   They did not

give intimation to any of these Police Stations either on their way

to village Bhawar or while returning to Murthal.  

12. The evidence of Bhim Singh (P.W.10) is to the similar effect.

13. Apart from the ocular testimony of the complainant­Deep

Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10), the only incriminating

circumstance, on which the prosecution relies is the recovery of

‘ash’   and   ‘plastic   can’   on   the   memorandum   of   the

accused/appellant­Ram Niwas under Section 27 of the Evidence

Act. 

14. It   could   clearly   be   seen   that   even   according   to   the

complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10), after

they saw the dead­body of the deceased Dalip Singh in paraal

(paddy fodder), they did not inform anyone in the village.   No

doubt that how a person responds to a situation is differ from a

person to person.  However, the conduct of the said witnesses in

not informing anybody in the village Rewli and thereafter going to

their   village   Bhawar   in   the   morning,   returning   back   in   the

14

afternoon and not informing five Police Stations, which were in

between village Bhawar and village Rewli cast a serious doubt

with regard to the truthfulness of their version.   It is further

difficult to believe the testimony of these witnesses that in the

night, the deceased Dalip Singh was done to death, set on fire in

a paraal (paddy fodder) and they did not come to know about the

same till the accused/appellant­Ram Niwas told them about the

same next morning.   In the evidence of these witnesses, it has

clearly come out that there are houses surrounding the house of

the   accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas.     The   prosecution   version

appears improbable that such an incident took place in an area

surrounded by houses.  The prosecution has also not examined

any independent witness residing nearby so as to lend credence

to the prosecution’s version.  

15. The prosecution relies on the extra­judicial confession made

by the accused/appellant­Ram Niwas to these witnesses. This

Court in the case of  S.  Arul  Raja  vs.  State  of  Tamil  Nadu1

,

1 (2010) 8 SCC 233

15

after   considering   the   earlier   judgments   of   this   Court,   has

observed thus:

“48. The   concept   of   an   extra­judicial

confession   is   primarily   a   judicial   creation,

and   must   be   used   with   restraint.   Such   a

confession   must   be   used   only   in   limited

circumstances,   and   should   also   be

corroborated   by   way   of  abundant   caution.

This   Court   in Ram   Singh v. Sonia [(2007)   3

SCC 1 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] has held that

an extra­judicial confession while in police

custody cannot be allowed. Moreover, when

there is a case hanging on an extra­judicial

confession,   corroborated   only   by

circumstantial   evidence,   then   the   courts

must treat the same with utmost caution.

This   principle   has   been   affirmed   by   this

Court   in Ediga   Anamma v. State   of

A.P. [(1974) 4 SCC 443 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 479]

and State   of   Maharashtra v. Kondiba

Tukaram Shirke [(1976) 3 SCC 775 : 1976

SCC (Cri) 514] . It is significant to observe

that A­1 has subsequently sought to retract

this   statement   upon   his   arrival   in   Tamil

Nadu.”

16. We therefore find that it will not be safe to base conviction

solely on the basis of the alleged extra­judicial confession made

by the appellant to these witnesses.  

16

17. The   only   other   circumstance   on   which   the   prosecution

relies   is   the   seizure   of   ‘ash’   kept   in   the   plastic   bag   on   the

memorandum   of   the   accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   under

Section 27 of the Evidence Act.     Satish Kumar (P.W.11), the

Investigating Officer (I.O.), in his deposition has clearly admitted

that the disclosure statement made by the accused/appellantRam Niwas was made in the lock­up of the police station.  He has

further   admitted   that   though   independent   witnesses   were

available, inasmuch as the Police Station is in the heart of the

city, he had not called any independent witness as ‘Panch’ of the

said memorandum.   As such, the reliance on the said seizure

also is of no help to the prosecution case.   It is further to be

noted that Dr. Sanjeev Malhotra (P.W.5), in his evidence, has

admitted that it was difficult to recognize the face of the deadbody.  From the postmortem, it is also not established that the

death was homicidal.  

18. The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence.  The

law   with   regard   to  conviction   on   the  basis   of   circumstantial

17

evidence has very well been crystalized in the judgment of this

Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of

Maharashtra2

, wherein this Court held thus:

“152. Before   discussing   the   cases   relied

upon by the High Court we would like to cite

a few decisions   on   the   nature, character

and                 essential   proof required   in   a

criminal   case   which     rests     on

circumstantial  evidence        alone.   The

most  fundamental  and  basic    decision of

this Court is Hanumant v. State of Madhya

Pradesh [AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952      SCR

1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129] . This case has been

uniformly followed and applied by this  Court

in a large number of later decisions       upto­date,   for   instance,   the   cases   of Tufail

(Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1969)

3   SCC   198:   1970   SCC   (Cri)   55]     and

Ramgopal v. State   of   Maharashtra [(1972)   4

SCC   625:   AIR   1972   SC   656].   It   may   be

useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid

down         in Hanumant case [AIR 1952 SC

343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129] :

“It is well to remember that in in cases

where the evidence is of a circumstantial

nature, the circumstances from which the

conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should

in the first instance be fully established,

and all the facts so established should be

consistent only with the hypothesis of the

2 (1984) 4 SCC 116

18

guilt  of  the  accused.  Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature

and tendency and they should be such as

to exclude every hypothesis but the one

proposed   to   be   proved.   In   other   words,

there must be a chain of evidence so far

complete as not to leave any reasonable

ground for a conclusion consistent with

the innocence of the accused and it must

be such as to show that within all human

probability the act  must have been done

by the accused.”

153. A close analysis of this decision would

show that the following conditions must be

fulfilled before a case against an accused can

be said to be fully established:

(1) the circumstances from which the

conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should

be fully established.

It   may   be   noted   here   that   this   Court

indicated that the circumstances concerned

“must   or   should”   and   not   “may   be”

established. There is not only a grammatical

but   a   legal   distinction   between   “may   be

proved” and “must be or should be proved”

as   was   held   by   this   Court   in Shivaji

Sahabrao   Bobade v. State   of

Maharashtra [(1973) 2          SCC 793 : 1973

SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where

the observations were made :           [SCC

para 19, p. 807 : SCC (Cri) p. 1047]

“Certainly, it is a primary principle that

the accused must be and not merely may

19

be guilty before a court can convict and

the mental distance between ‘may be’ and

‘must   be’   is   long   and   divides   vague

conjectures from sure conclusions.”

(2) the facts so established should be

consistent only with the hypothesis of the

guilt of the accused, that is to say, they

should not be explainable on any other

hypothesis   except   that   the   accused   is

guilty,

(3) the circumstances should be of a

conclusive nature and tendency,

(4) they should exclude every possible

hypothesis except the one to be proved,

and

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so

complete as not to leave any reasonable

ground for the conclusion consistent with

the innocence of the accused and must

show that in all human probability the act

must have been done by the accused.

154. These five golden principles, if we may

say   so,   constitute   the   panchsheel   of   the

proof   of   a   case   based   on   circumstantial

evidence.”

19. This Court has held that there has to be a chain of evidence

so complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for a

conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and

20

must show that in all human probability the act must have been

done by the accused.  It has been held that the circumstances

should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.  This Court has

held   that   the   circumstances   should   exclude   every   possible

hypothesis except the one to be proved.   It has been held that

the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ guilty before a

Court can convict. 

20. It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may

be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt.  An

accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no

matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent

unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  

21. In the present case, we find that the prosecution has utterly

failed   to   establish   the   chain   of   events  which   can   be   said  to

exclusively lead to the one and only conclusion, i.e., the guilt of

the   accused.     In   that   view   of   the   matter,   we   find   that   the

judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge and that of

the High Court are not sustainable.  

21

22. The appeal is therefore allowed.  The judgment and order of

conviction and sentence dated 11th/12th  January 2005 of the

learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat and the judgment and order of

the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 16th

March 2009, dismissing the appeal of the accused/appellantRam Niwas are quashed and set aside.  The accused/appellantRam Niwas is acquitted of all the charges charged with. The bail

bonds shall stand discharged.  

23. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.  

…….........................J.       

[B.R. GAVAI]

………………....…….........................J.

[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]

NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 11, 2022

22