State of Himachal Pradesh vs Narender Singh and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—This is an unfortunate case where two persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste community have been killed, but the police has not been able to prove the case against the alleged assailants beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution story in brief is that PW-20 Upender Singh had a love affair with PW-14 Vandana, daughter of Kuldeep Singh. Upender Singh belonged to the Scheduled Caste community, whereas Vandana was a Rajput. This matrimonial alliance between two consenting adults was not liked by the family members of Vandana. All the accused persons are related to Vandana and allegation is that they mercilessly beat both Salig Ram and his father Kapoor Singh only to settle scores. In other words, this is another case of honour killing.

Passion runs high in our country when there are inter-caste marriages and especially when distances between untouchables and the higher castes is breached by those individuals who defy traditions and break the barriers of society and enter into a matrimonial alliance with each other. It is by now well established that such alliances more often than not lead to acrimonious disorder and sometimes go so far as to end in criminal activity like murder. Whatever may be our views on such a horrendous crime, we are of the considered view that it is for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt as enjoined upon it by the criminal jurisprudence of our country.

The present case is based on circumstantial evidences, though one of the circumstances is the so-called dying declaration made by Salig Ram to his daughter-in-law, PW-4 Smt. Indira. In cases where the prosecution relies upon circumstantial evidence, the law is well-established that the prosecution is bound to prove the circumstances and link them in a manner that they form a complete chain linking the accused with the crime. The chain should be complete and should only lead to only one conclusion that it is the accused alone who has committed the crime. The chain should also rule out the possibility of the crime having been committed by any person other than the accused.

In the present case, the following circumstances are relied upon by the prosecution :-

(a) Dying declaration made by the deceased Salig Ram;

(b) Holding out threats to complainant party including deceased Salig Ram;

(c) Recovery of two ''Dandas'' Exts. P-40 and P-41 in consequence to the disclosure statement made by accused Brij Mohan and Ritesh, Ext. Pw-7/C.

(d) Disclosure statement, Ext. Pw-5/A, made by accused persons regarding hatching of conspiracy;

(e) Disclosure statement, Ext. PW-7/E, made by accused Ritesh and Brij Mohan regarding identification of the house where the crime was allegedly committed.

(f) Recovery of blood stained "Dandas" Ex. P-12 and P-66, which were taken into possession vide seizure memos, Ext. PW-1/D and PW-26/ C, and

(g) Motive.

Before discussing each of the circumstances, it would be pertinent to mention that the marriage between PW-20 Upender Singh and PW-14 Vandana was solemnized at Solan on 22.3.2004. It is not disputed that even after the marriage, there was some bickering and parties were called to the police station. It is also not disputed that on 27.3.2004 at about 11-11.30 p.m., PW-1 heard the cries of his brother Salig Ram and when he reached the house of Salig Ram, he found him in a badly injured condition. Thereafter, he went to the room of Kapoor Singh, who was also beaten up mercilessly. Both these persons died within a short time. According to the prosecution, both these persons were speaking initially when they were discovered by their relatives, but the case of the defence, based on medical evidence, is that the persons should have died instantaneous death and at best could have lived for 4-5 minutes after receiving injuries. At this stage, we are not going into this aspect of the matter in detail. This will be discussed at the time of discussing each of the circumstance.

Before discussing the other circumstances, we may record that as far as circumstance "g" i.e. motive is concerned, we are not in agreement with the view of learned trial Judge that there was no motive for the assault. The reasoning given by the learned trial Judge is that since Kuldeep Singh, father of Vandana, was not one of the assailants, this cannot be the motive for the crime. This reasoning does not appeal to us at all. It is not necessary that it is only the father of the girl or her brother, who would commit crime. The crime can be committed at the instance of father or brother or other relative of the girl. We are also aware that sometimes even when close relatives or family members reconcile to the marriage, the so called leaders of the community, who may or may not be directly related to the family, take such an incident as a slur on their community and decide to teach a lesson to the members of the other community. Moreover, in the statement of Vandana, she has clearly stated that she was being compelled by her family members to disown her marriage with Upender, but she refused to do so. Therefore, the motive was to settle the scores with the members of the Scheduled Caste community. Hence, the reasoning given by the learned trial Judge that there is no motive for the crime, does not appeal to us and we are of the considered view that as far as the circumstance of motive is concerned, that has been proved beyond reasonable doubt from the facts which have been established on record.

Having held so, motive by itself is not sufficient to convict a person and there must be other circumstances which lead to the resistible conclusion that it is the accused alone and none else, who could have committed the crime.

Coming to the other circumstances, we may deal with each of them separately.

Circumstance (a) : Dying declaration made by deceased Salig Ram

Dying declaration was allegedly made by deceased Salig Ram to PW-4 Indira, who is the daughter-in law of PW-1 Mahi Ram, brother of Salig Ram. According to PW-1 Mahi Ram, at about 11-11:30 p.m. in the night intervening 27.3.2004 and 28.3.2004, he heard cries of his brother and when he went outside his house, he saw his brother Salig Ram who was crying "Bhai Mar diya, Mar diya". Salig Ram was lying injured in the verandah and blood was oozing out from all over his body. PW-1 asked Salig Ram as to what had happened. Salig Ram told him that he had been beaten up by several persons. Salig Ram also informed him that his father Kapoor Singh had also been beaten up by these persons. Thereafter, PW-1 alongwith his son PW-6 Surender Kumar went inside the house of Salig Ram and found that Kapoor Singh had also been beaten up mercilessly. Thereafter, Kapoor Singh was also brought to the house of PW-1. Both the persons were crying that they have been beaten up mercilessly and could not survive. Unfortunately, Kapoor Singh succumbed to his injuries within half an hour of the incident and Salig Ram also died 10 minutes later.

PW-6 Surender Kumar gives the similar version. From the version of both these witnesses, it appears that Salig Ram and Kapoor Singh were beaten up in the house of Salig Ram, but somehow Salig Ram could manage to walk upto the house of PW-1 Mahi Ram and raised an alarm and when Mahi Ram came out of his house, he saw that Salig Ram was lying injured in the verandah. Most importantly, PW-1 and PW-6 stated that neither complainant nor Kapoor Singh named any of the assailants.

The case of the defence is that Salig Ram and Kapoor Singh could not have survived for such a long time. I f they were in a position to talk, they could have identified some assailants and would have definitely informed PW-1 and PW-6 about this fact. This, admittedly, was not done.

The star witness of the prosecution story is PW-4, Indira, wife of Man Singh and daughter-in-law of Mahi Ram. Her version is that when Mahi Ram and Surender went to the house of Salig Ram to find out what had happened to Kapoor Singh, Salig Ram told her that he and his father had been beaten up by Ritesh, Bahua, Sat Pal, Nindi and Rajinder with dandas. In cross-examination, this witness admits that she had not disclosed this fact to her father-in-law Mahi Ram or Surender about Salig Ram disclosing the names of assailants, who had mercilessly beaten him and his father. She admits that on the next day, when the police reached their home and inquired into the matter from all of them including her, she did not name any of the aforesaid persons. Even on the next day, when Deputy Inspector General of Police, Shimla and Deputy Superintendent of Police came to their house from Rajgarh, she did not disclose the names of so called assailants. Her version in this regard is that the police did not inquire about their names. According to her, she disclosed this fact for the first time on 31.3.2004 when her statement was recorded. The incident occurred in the intervening night of 27.3.2004 and 28.3.2004, but she has not given any plausible explanation why she kept quiet for more than 4 days. She also belongs to the community which suffered in the attack. If, as claimed by her, Salig Ram had disclosed the names of assailants, she would have immediately informed her father-in-law, her husband, her brother-in-law and other family members about the same. It is totally against normal human behaviour to keep quiet especially when admittedly she was not under any threat not to disclose such names to her family members. Moreover, the police officials were visiting her house every day to inquire about the matter. Very senior officers, such as the Deputy Inspector General of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police had also gone to inquire about the matter. Therefore, nothing prevented this witness from disclosing this fact to the police.

For these reasons, we are in agreement with the learned trial Judge that it is not possible to rely upon this witness to convict the accused, especially when according to PW-1 and PW-6, Salig Ram did not disclose any names. If Salig Ram could ask PW-1 to go and find out what had happened to Kapoor Singh, he could have also told the names of the assailants. If Salig Ram was conscious and told PW-1 to visit his house to find out what had happened to Kapoor Singh, he could have identified the assailants and informed Mahi Ram about this. Therefore, the circumstance is not prove.

Circumstance (b) : Holding out threats to complainant party including deceased Salig Ram

Case of the prosecution is that on 26.3.2004, Salig Ram had disclosed to PW-1 Mahi Ram that accused Rattan Singh, Sat Pal, Tapender, Yash Pal, Upender etc. had threatened them that though the Scheduled Caste community had won the legal fight, but they would break their bones. The perusal of the statement of Shri Mahi Ram shows that in his statement, Mahi Ram got recorded that his brother Salig Ram had informed him on 26.3.2004 that Rattan Singh, s/o Shri Lachhmi Singh, Yash Pal, s/o Shri Roop Singh and Tapender Singh, S/o Shri Jeet Singh had threatened that they would break their arms and legs. This threat was delivered because of the fact that the daughter of Kuldeep Singh belonging to the Rajput community had got married to a boy belonging to the Scheduled Caste community. They had threatened to teach Salig Ram a lesson. The threat which PW-1 Mahi Ram has referred to in his statement recorded in the Court is different. Whereas, in his statement u/s 154 Cr.P.C., only three persons were named and it is specifically mentioned that these three persons threatened Salig Ram, in Court, Mahi Ram stated that Salig Ram had told him that he had been threatened by Rattan Singh, Sat Pal, Tapender, Yash Pal and Upender etc. Therefore, the names have been added. Whereas, in Court, it is stated that the members of the Scheduled Caste community had won the legal battle, however, no such averment is there in the statement u/s 154 Cr.P.C. There are material improvements in the statement recorded in Court vis-a-vis the statement made u/s 154 Cr.P.C. Therefore, one cannot place total reliance on the same. In the statement u/s 154 Cr.P.C., names of only Rattan Singh, Yash Pal and Tapender Singh are mentioned, whereas in the statement made in Court, names of Sat Pal and Upender have been added. We are not in agreement with the reasoning of the learned trial Court that because neither Salig Ram nor Mahi Ram reported this matter to the police, the story of the threat is false. If a threat is delivered in the evening, a person may or may not go to the police on the same day. The statement of Mahi Ram was recorded on 28.3.2004 at 11:30 a.m. The incident occurred on the night intervening 27.3.2004 and 28.3.2004 at 11-11:30 p.m. The police came to the spot on 28.3.2004. Therefore, there is no reason why the statement u/s 154 Cr.P.C. has been recorded after a lapse of 12 hours.

Even if the deceased had not given the names of the assailants, the complainant side would have been suspicious that it would be somebody from the Rajput community, who would have attacked. Obviously, there was great discord between these two factions. The members of the Scheduled Caste community may be justified in harbouring a suspicion against the members of Rajput community. However, as the settled law is that suspicion howsoever strong can never take the place of proof. Suspicion by itself is not sufficient to convict anybody.

Therefore, we do not feel that this circumstance has been proved and at best, if we were to accept this contention on his face value, then all that is proved is that three persons, namely, Rattan Singh, Yash Pal and Tapender Singh had threatened to beat Salig Ram.

Circumstance (C) : Recovery of two dandas Exts. P-40 and P-41 in consequence to the disclosure statement made by accused Brij Mohan and Ritesh. Ext PW7/C.

The third circumstance relied upon is the recovery of two dandas Ext. P-40 and P-41 consequent to the disclosure statement made by the accused Brij Mohan and Ritesh vide Ext. PW7/C. At the outset, we may state that this is a joint disclosure statement, which virtually has no value in the eyes of law. Reference in this behalf may be made to the judgment of this Court in Krishan Dass alias Kisan Dass and etc. Vs. State of H.P., .

A disclosure statement is a statement, where a person, who is interrogated by the police gives information to the police, which leads to the disclosure of a new fact, which was earlier not known to the police. A disclosure statement, obviously, has to be about a fact, which was not in prior knowledge. Therefore, each person making a disclosure statement will have to make a statement disclosing the facts about which he alone has knowledge and there cannot be a joint disclosure statement.

Be that as it may, the case of the prosecution is that pursuant to the disclosure statement Ext. PW7/C made by accused Brij Mohan and Ritesh, the police discovered two dandas. At the outset, we may note that Brij Mohan and Ritesh are not named in the threat allegedly given to deceased Salig Ram. Two dandas Ext. P-40 and P-41 recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement are not stained with blood. There are no specific distinguishing remarks with regard to the dandas and the dandas are commonly used by agriculturists.

The recovery of the dandas was made from a ''ghasni'', which is near a common path accessible to a large number of places. The witnesses to the recovery of the dandas are PW-7 Virender Mohan and one Ramesh. Virender Mohan is the real brother of Surender Mohan and closely related to the complainant side and he is family member of the complainant side,-since he is the youngest brother of Upender, who had got married to Vandana. According to him, he was called in a meeting, where a number of accused were present and he was asked to produce both Upender and Vandana before the Panchayat. He states that thereafter he went to the house of Salig Ram and informed him about this. He admits that on the next day, he had gone to the police station, where Upender and Vandana were also sitting. Some of the accused including Rattan Singh and Tapender Singh etc. were also sitting there. The members of Rajput community tried their best to convince Vandana to avoid her marriage with Upender, but she refused to do so.

As far as recovery of dandas is concerned, this witness states that investigation in the matter was carried out on 31.3.2004. He had been called to Rajgarh, where accused Ritesh and Brij Mohan were in police custody in the police station, Rajgarh. Ramesh Kumar (not examined) was also present there. Ritesh and Brij Mohan made disclosure statement vide Ext.PW7/C stating that they had concealed dandas in a ghasni near a path. Thereafter, they got recovered dandas from the ghasni, which were taken in possession vide memo Ext. PW7/C. In cross-examination, this witness admits that the other witness to the recovery is Ramesh, who is his cousin. According to him, a telephonic message was received from police station, Rajgarh and they were told by the police to come to the police station. As soon as they reached police station, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was present there, told them that they were to go to the village, where the accused were to get recovered the dandas. This obviously means that the statement had been made by accused Ritesh and Brij Mohan prior to this witness and Ramesh reaching the police station. They were told by the police to go to the spot, where the recovery was to be made, in a separate vehicle. This witness and Ramesh followed the police party in another vehicle. They started from Rajgarh at 12 noon and reached the village at 3 p.m. The dandas were lying in the ghasni 10-15 feet away from the path. This witness also stated that the disclosure statement was prepared at the ghasni itself. This clearly demolishes the entire case of the dandas being recovered on the basis of disclosure statement made by the accused. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on this circumstance, which has not been proved by the prosecution.

Circumstance (d) : Disclosure statement Ext PW5/A made by accused persons regarding hatching of conspiracy.

The fourth circumstance is regarding disclosure statement, Ext. PW5/A made by the accused with regard to hatching conspiracy to kill the deceased. All that is required to be said is that a disclosure statement is to be made about facts and not about the state of mind. The disclosure statement about conspiracy would amount to confession and would not be admissible in the eyes of law u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, this circumstance has no relevance whatsoever.

Circumstance (e) : Disclosure statement Ext. PW7/E. made by accused Ritesh and Brij Mohan regarding identification of the house where the crime was allegedly committed.

As far as this circumstance is concerned, this also has no meaning whatsoever. As discussed above, a disclosure statement must be a statement which leads to the recovery of facts, which were not known before the statement was made. It is not disputed that Kapoor Singh and Salig Ram were beaten up in their house. Therefore, no new fact was disclosed by Ritesh and B ij Mohan, in case it was stated by them that the accused was beaten up in the house of Salig Ram and Kapoor Singh. This statement is incriminating and again inadmissible u/s 27 of the Evidence Act.

Circumstance (f) : Recovery of blood stained dandas Exts. P-12 and P-66. which were taken into possession vide seizure memos. Exts. PW1/D and PW26/C.

As far as recovery of blood stained dandas Exts. P 12 and P-66 is concerned, these dandas were taken into possession from the verandah of the house of the deceased. These dandas were recovered not at the instance of accused, but these were recovered by the police itself. There are no finger prints and nothing linking the accused with the dandas.

Circumstance (g) : Motive

As already discussed, we are of the considered view that as far as motive is concerned, this circumstance has been proved.

Taking all the circumstances into consideration, we are of the view that the prosecution has only been able to prove motive and if we accept the prosecution case at best, it appears that three of the accused persons had threatened the deceased and the threat was to break their arms and legs and not to kill them. There has been an unfortunate incident where two people belonging to the Scheduled Caste community have been beaten to death mercilessly. No one can condone such a crime. However, merely because the crime is heinous and suspicion is strong is not a sufficient reason to convict the accused. The police could have investigated the matter in a much better fashion and if the investigation would have been carried out in a scientific manner, the true assailants could have been traced out. Therefore, we have no other option, but to acquit the accused persons. The present appeal is rejected. Bail bonds discharged.