SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIM  INAL APPEAL NO.816 OF 2005   

Har Singh  ...Appellant

Vs.   State of Uttarakhand  ...Respondent

With  Criminal Appeal No.817/2005 Criminal Appeal No.818/2005

J U D G M E N T  

ALTAMAS KABIR,J.

1. These  three  appeals  arise  out  of  the

judgment and order dated 1st December, 2004,

passed  by  the  Uttaranchal  High  Court

dismissing  the  appeal  filed  by  the

appellants  herein  (Criminal  Appeal  No.

1

851/01)  against the judgment  and order of

the Sessions Judge, Almora, in ST No.36 of

1987,  convicting  the  appellants  under

Sections 302/34, 201/34 and 394 Indian Penal

Code.  One of the accused, Ratan Singh, died

during  the trial which  abated against him

and  continued  against  the  other  accused

persons.   2. According  to  the  prosecution,  on  26th

February, 1987, the deceased Bhupal Singh @

Joga Singh of village Sain Bagaria, District

Almora, Uttaranchal, went to the Mela held

at  village  Dabra  on  the  occasion  of  Shiv

Ratri along with his wife and two children.

He had taken an amount of Rs.3,000/- with

him for purchasing two bullocks and a goat.

While at the Mela, he met Gusain Singh and

remained  at  the  Mela  with  his  wife  and

children till 4.30 p.m. when he sent them

2

back  to  their  village  after  telling  them

that  he  would  return  on  the  next  day.

Thereafter,  Bhupal  Singh  and  Gusain  Singh

came  back  to  the  Mela  and  found  several

persons, including the accused Mohan Singh,

Har  Singh, Ratan Singh  and Lachham Singh,

gambling in front of the tea stall of one

Bhuwan Singh.  Bhupal Singh also joined in

the  gambling  and  won  Rs.200/-  from  Mohan

Singh and Rs.600/- from Lachham Singh.  When

it started to get dark, Bhupal Singh stopped

gambling as he had to go to Village Bhaisora

with Gusain Singh.   

3. It was also the prosecution case that the

above-named accused persons followed Bhupal

Singh and asked him to continue the gambling

so that they could have a chance to recover

the  money  which  they  had  lost.   In  the

alternative,  they  asked  Bhupal  Singh  to

3

return the money which he had won in the

gambling in front of the tea stall of Bhuwan

Singh.  Bhupal  Singh  refused  to  listen  to

either  of the two  proposals.  Thereafter,

accused Mohan Singh allegedly lifted Bhupal

Singh  and  threw  him  on  the  ground  with

force.  When Gusain Singh tried to intervene

in an attempt to save Bhupal Singh, he was

also threatened by the accused as a result

whereof he ran away from the place.  He has,

however, come out in his evidence with the

statement  that while fleeing  the place he

had  hidden  in  a  nearby  wheat  field  from

where he heard Bhupal Singh requesting the

accused  not  to  kill  him  and  subsequently

even the said sounds ceased.  When Bhupal

Singh did not return to his house even after

the second day, his mother, Smt. Chana Devi

and Shri Soor Singh came to Gusain Singh’s

house on the third day to enquire about him.

4

Gusain Singh is reported to have told them

about the entire incident and then all of

them went to the place of occurrence, known

as  Khuti  Aam,  to  search  for  the  body  of

Bhupal  Singh,  but  the  same  could  not  be

found.  Thereafter, a written complaint was

filed  by  Smt.  Chana  Devi  at  Bhatroajkhan

Police Station on 2nd March, 1987.  

4. On  the  basis  of  the  said  complaint

investigations  were  commenced  and  Mohan

Singh was arrested after interrogation.  At

Mohan Singh’s instance Bhupal Singh’s dead

body  was  recovered  in  the  presence  of

witnesses.   The  other  accused  were  also

arrested and the body of the deceased was

sent for post-mortem, which was conducted by

Dr. S.N. Srivastava, Medical Officer, Civil

Hospital,  Ranikhet,  on  4th March,  1987.

During  the  post  mortem  examination  the

5

following injuries were found on the body of

the deceased: “1.  Sharp  cut  wound  on  left  side  of face  extending  to  lower  jaw  left. Mandible cut sharp, edge on bone seen, blood clots in an area 8 cm x 4 cm. Maggots were present.

2. Sharp cut would on right side of forehead  extending  through  temple and just above right ear 6 cm x 4 cm.  Blood clots present.  Sharp edge  of  temple  bone  and  parietal bone seen.  Maggots were present.

3. Contusion and abrasion on the left side of chest, 4 cm below nipple, area 5 cm x 4 cm.

4. Contusion on the left side of chest 2 cm medial to injury no.3, area 4 x 2 cm.

5. Contusion and abrasion, just below right knee, area 4 cm x 3 cm.

6. Contusion on the left wrist ventral surface, area 3 cm x 2 cm.”

5. After  completion  of  the  investigation  a

charge-sheet  was  filed  and  the  accused-

appellants were sent for trial.

6

6. Relying  on  the  evidence  of  PW  1,  Gusain

Singh, who was accompanying the deceased at

the time of the incident, the evidence of PW

5, Smt. Chana Devi, mother of the deceased,

who lodged the First Information Report, the

evidence of PW 2, Bhuwan Singh, before whose

shop the gambling was conducted, Soor Singh,

PW  6,  who  claimed  to  be  present  when

appellant-Mohan Singh stated that he could

point out the place from where the body of

the deceased could be recovered, and PW 9,

Kamrool Haq, who was present when the body

of  the  deceased  was  recovered,  the  trial

Court  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the

prosecution had been able to prove its case

against the appellant beyond all reasonable

doubt.   

7. The  High  Court,  on  a  reappraisal  of  the

evidence,  confirmed  the  decision  of  the

7

trial Court and upheld the conviction of the

appellants herein.

8. On behalf of the appellants an attempt was

made to convince this Court that from the

materials  on  record  there  is  nothing  to

connect the appellants with the commission

of the offence.  Even Gusain Singh (PW 1),

who was allegedly accompanying the deceased

and  was  produced  as  an  eye-witness,  had

clearly  stated  that  he  had  not  seen  the

actual murder of the deceased but had only

heard the shrieks of the deceased requesting

the appellants not to kill him and that the

said  shrieks  finally  ended.   It  was,

therefore, suggested that in the absence of

any evidence to connect the appellants with

the  commission  of  the  offence,  both  the

Trial Court and the High Court had erred in

convicting the appellants under Sections 302

8

and 201 read with Section 34 IPC and Section

394 IPC.

9. An attempt was also made to show that the

evidence of PW 6, who was allegedly present

both when Mohan Singh has stated before the

Investing Officer that he could locate the

body of the deceased and also when the body

was  recovered,  did  not  indicate  that  the

said body was recovered at the instance of

accused Mohan Singh.  Learned counsel tried

to convince the Court that the accused had

only been taken to the place of occurrence

and  that  during  the  search  which  was

conducted, the body was recovered, but not

at the specific instance of Mohan Singh.  In

other  words,  learned  counsel  tried  to

establish that the recovery of the body was

not at the instance of Mohan Singh, but in

his presence.

9

10.We  are not convinced  with the submissions

advanced  on  behalf  of  the  appellants  who

were  convicted  mainly  on  the  basis  of

circumstantial evidence and the evidence of

PWs 1, 2, 5, 6 and 9 in support thereof.  It

has been well established that the deceased

and the accused were involved in gambling in

front  of  the  tea  stall  of  PW  2,  Bhuwan

Singh, and that when the deceased and PW 1,

Gusain  Singh,  left  the  place  where  the

gambling  was  being  conducted  they  were

followed by the accused persons.  From the

evidence of PW 1, Gusain Singh, it is also

established  that  the  accused  persons

assaulted the deceased and when he tried to

intervene he was threatened and was made to

leave  the  place,  though  he  heard  the

deceased requesting the accused persons not

to kill him from the nearby wheat field.   

10

11. The events upto the assault of the deceased

were found to have been established by both

the  Courts  below.   In  addition,  the

circumstances also establish the fact that

the accused and the deceased were last seen

together  by  PW  1  and  he  was  killed  soon

thereafter.  The post-mortem report clearly

indicates  that  the  body  had  started

decomposing and that maggots were found on

the body. It has to be kept in mind that

while  the  date  of  occurrence  is  26th

February, 1987, the First Information Report

was filed by PW 5, Smt. Chana Devi on 2nd

March, 1987, the body of the deceased was

recovered on 3rd March, 1987, and the post-

mortem was conducted on 4th March, 1987.   In

other  words,  between  Bhupal  Singh’s  death

and the post-mortem conducted, almost a week

had elapsed which fact stands corroborated

11

from the state of the body at the time of

post-mortem examination.   

12.The  last  and,  in  our  view,  the  crucial

circumstantial evidence was recovery of the

body of the deceased. Although, an attempt

was made to raise doubts as to whether PW 6

and PW 9 had actually seen the accused Mohan

Singh pointing out the location from which

the dead body could be and was subsequently

recovered, since both the courts below have

accepted the said evidence and there were no

other intervening circumstances, there is no

reason for us to discard the same.

13.In  that  view  of  the  matter,  we  find  no

reason to interfere with the judgment of the

High Court and the Appeals are, therefore,

dismissed.

12

……………………………………………J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

……………………………………………J. (MARKANDEY KATJU)

New Delhi Dated:18.09.2008

13