http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1327 of 2005

PETITIONER: Amrit Singh                                                              

RESPONDENT: State of Punjab                                                  

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/11/2006

BENCH: S.B. SINHA & DALVEER BHANDARI

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

S.B. Sinha, J :

       This appeal is directed against a judgment of conviction and sentence  dated 19.3.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa awarding  death penalty to Appellant under Sections 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal  Code and affirmed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh  in Reference No. 4/2005 and Criminal Appeal No. 284 (DB) of 2005 by a  judgment and order dated 3.8.2005.           The prosecution case is as under:-

       On 3.11.2003 in the evening, the deceased Raj Preet Kaur @ Guddi,  who is a student of IInd Standard has gone to the house of her classmate  Amarpreet Kaur, daughter of Gurbax Singh, a cousin of the complainant.   The house of the said Gurbax Singh was situated in the revenue estate of  Ramgarh, Village Shahpuria.  At about 5.00 p.m., the deceased allegedly left  the house of Gurbax Singh for her own house.  She was accompanied to  some extent by Amanpreet.  When she crossed pakka water house,  Amarpreet left her on her own.  When the deceased did not reach her house,  search was carried on.  Some persons then found her dead body in the  agricultural field belonging to Appellant situated in front of his house.  The  dead body was found near a Neem tree and some cotton crop were found  near the dead body.  Some dry leaves were found in her hair.  In her hand  some streads of human hair were also noticed.  It was fully smeared with  blood.  The father of the deceased on seeing the dead body called his brother  Baldev Singh and leaving him at the spot, started for the police station to   inform the police and to lodge a report.  He met PW-8 S.I. Joginder Singh at  the bus stand of Village Maghania on 4.11.2003.  His statement was  recorded, on the basis of which a formal First Information Report was  lodged.  The Investigating Officer prepared an inquest report.  It was found  that in the hands of the deceased some human hair was also found.  A post  mortem examination was conducted by PW-1 Dr. Reshamchand Singh.  

       PW-2 disclosed that he had seen the deceased in the company of  Appellant at about 5.45 p.m.  He was in his agricultural field and he came to  know about the incident only at about 8.00 a.m. on the next day.  Appellant  was arrested on 12.11.2003 at a bus stop of Village Sher Khan before PW-8  Joginder Singh.  He was produced before the Investigating Officer by Shri  Karamjeet Singh, Panch.  An application was filed by the Investigating  Officer in the Court of Judicial Magistrate for obtaining specimen of the hair  of Appellant but he refused to give any such specimen of hair.  He made a  statement before the Court which was recorded.  It was marked as Exhibit  PO/I.   

       The prosecution in order to prove its case examined eight witnesses.   PW-1 Dr. Resham Chand Singh proved the post-mortem report Exhibit PB.   In his evidence, he stated:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

"The length of the body was 122 cm. long dead  body of 7-8 years of female, child wearing yellow shirt,  white bunyan, legs stained with blood.  Bleeding from  vulva, dryleaves in the hairs, mouth open and froth  trickling out from left angle.  Eyes closed.  Body in state  of rigor mortis.  Multiple marks of contusions and  abrasions on the anterior bild of neck with a large  contusion over the fold of neck transverse in direction.   Face also have some abrasions. Abrasions over elbows,  knuckle present.  These were all ante mortem in nature.   Condition of subject was stout.  Public and Axillary hair  not grown.  No development of breasts.  Impression of  teeth in the lips."

                                        Although external injuries were found on the neck which were said to  be the cause of death of the deceased, according to the doctor, the death took  place because of loss of blood.  It was stated:-

"20% loss of blood may cause shock and death.   Normally in a child of 6-7 years age there may be about 2  liters blood in body.  On examination of injuries it was  found that more bleeding from the injury has caused the  death.  In this case more than half liter blood had  oozed..."

       Karamjit Singh, father of the deceased examined himself as PW-2.   He supported his statements made in the First Information Report.  PW-3  Gurmail Singh, was a resident of the same village i.e. Village Ramgarh  Shahpuria.  He categorically stated that at about 5.45 \026 6.00 p.m., he found  that the deceased was catching a finger of  Appellant but at that point of time  he did not think of anything.  He remained in his agricultural field for the  purpose of watering the same.  He came back to the village on the next  morning at about 8.00 a.m. and then came to learn that the deceased was  raped and murdered after strangulation.  He, therefore, having seen them  together formed an opinion that Appellant must be the person who raped and  murdered the deceased.  In his cross-examination, he categorically stated :  

"\005I told to the Thanedar that Amrit Singh accused  was going by holding the finger of Rajpreet  Kaur...".

       It was not suggested to him that he had any enmity with Appellant.   His evidence that the deceased was last seen with Appellant, therefore,  remain uncontroverted.   

       PW-6 is Dr. Sharad Kumar, Medical Officer, Incharge Mini PHC.   Beero ke kalan.  He examined Appellant on 13.11.2003.  He opined :  

"There was nothing abnormal found which can  suggest that the accused cannot perform sexual  intercourse.  He was physically and medically fit..."

       PW-8 is the Investigating Officer.  The witnesses stated that on the  day on which the First Information Report was lodged, the house of   Appellant was raided, but it was found locked and thus he could not be  arrested.  As regards the arrest of  Appellant, his statements are as under :

"On 12.11.2003 in connection with  investigation I along with other police officials  was present at Bus stop of V. Sher Khan, where  accused Amrit Singh now present in Court was  produced before me by Karamjit Singh Panch.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

The personal search of the accused was conducted,  but nothing was recovered from him and memo in  this respect Exh. PN was prepared, which was  thumb marked by the accused and attested by PW  Karamjit Singh and ASI Gurcharan Singh.  I  arrested the accused..."                                   The learned Trial Judge relying on or on the basis of the depositions  of the prosecution witnesses came to the conclusion that Appellant was  guilty of the commission of the said offences.  Upon hearing Appellant on  sentence, he was sentenced to death.  The High Court in the Death Reference  made by the learned Sessions Judge as also in the Criminal Appeal filed by  Appellant herein reviewed the evidence on record, confirmed the death  sentence and dismissed the appeal, inter alia, stating:-

"...The above medical evidence consisted in the  statements of PW-1 Dr. Reshamchand Singh and PW-6  Dr. Sharad Kumar and the seat of injuries again goes a  long way to show that appellant \026 Amrit Singh, a man of  31 years of age, was not suffering from any disease.  He  was found physically and medically fit.  Thus, it can be  safely inferred that he was in a dominating position  whereas Rajpreet Kaur (deceased) was a girl of 7/8 years  of age studying in 2nd standard.  She was coming alone to  her house after playing with her classmate Amanpreet  Kaur.  On the way, the appellant caught hold of her and  then went berserk for committing rape and murder of an  innocent helpless female child.  It is also established that  there were multiple marks of contusions and abrasions on  the anterior side of neck with a large contusion over the  fold of neck transverse in direction.  Not only that; there  were also abrasions on her face, elbow and impression of  teeth on her lips.  All these injuries were ante-mortem in  nature.  Her body and pent were also found to be smeared  with excessive bleeding.  Further a look at the  photographs Ex.P/4 to P/7, proved in the statement of  PW-4 Ashok Kumar, Photographer, shows that the  appellant had treated the helpless female child in a brutal  and inhuman manner."

       Mr. H.L. Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of  Appellant submitted :  (i)     The prosecution cannot be said to have proved all the links in  the chain of circumstantial evidence and in that view of the  matter, the learned Sessions Judge as also the High Court  wrongly arrived at a finding that Appellant was guilty of  commission of the offence of rape and murder of the deceased. (ii)    The only evidence against Appellant being last seen with the  deceased, cannot be said  to be a conclusive proof of   commission of such an offence.   (iii)   The death having been caused by reason of excessive bleeding  from the private parts of the deceased, Appellant cannot have in  any event be said to have any intention to kill her and thus  sentence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not  warranted.   (iv)    Although Appellant was medically examined, there is nothing  to show that any evidence was found linking the offence of rape  of the deceased with her murder.   (v)     Having regard to the location of the houses near the scene of  occurrence and in view of the time of the commission of the  offence, it was improbable that the deceased did not cry out and  nobody’s attention was attracted thereto.

       Our attention was also drawn to statements made by PWs. 2 and 3 to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

the effect that Appellant was arrested on 4.11.2003 itself and as he was not  produced before the Magistrate, he had sent a telegram to the Chief Justice  of the High Court complaining of his illegal detention, in regard whereto the  learned Sessions Judge as also the High Court had not paid adequate  attention.   

       Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned counsel appearing for Respondent, on the  other hand, submitted:-  (i)     The circumstances brought on records clearly point out to the  involvement of Appellant as  he was last seen with the deceased  as was stated by PW-3 and in view of the fact no reason has  been ascribed as to why he would have been implicated falsely,  the Courts below have rightly relied on evidence.   (ii)    Appellant had been absconding for a long time and his house  was found to be locked by the Investigating Officer.   (iii)   An application was filed by the Investigating Officer on  13.11.2003 for obtaining sample of the hairs of Appellant but  he refused to do so without assigning any reason and thus an  adverse inference against him could have been drawn.   (iv)    The dead body of the deceased was found near the house of   Appellant in a cotton field belonging to Appellant, which shows  his complicity in the matter.   (v)     Injuries on the neck appearing on the person of the deceased  clearly establishes that Appellant had made attempts to  strangulate her also.   

       The prosecution case as regards commission of a heinous offence of  rape on a minor girl and her death is not seriously disputed on behalf of  Appellant.  Appellant and the deceased were residents of the same village.   Prosecution has brought enough materials on record to show the culpability  which for all practical purposes remained unrebutted.  That deceased has  come to see her friend (Amanpreet Kaur) who happened to be her relation  also.  She was last seen alive in the company of Appellant.  It was not  suggested that PW-3 has bore any animosity towards Appellant.  PW3 was  not cross-examined on vital aspects of his statement made in his  examination-in-chief.  He made his statement before the villagers and also  before the Investigating Officer as soon as he came to know about the  manner in which the deceased has met with her fate.   

       The evidence of last seen may be relied upon or may form the basis  for a conviction which, however, would depend upon the facts and  circumstances of each case.  In some cases, the Court also look for  corroborative evidence; in some cases the Court may rely fully thereupon.   

       In Prem Thakur v. State of Punjab, [AIR 1983 SC 61], whereupon Mr.  Aggarwal has placed strong reliance, the links of the chain were not  complete, although the prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence.   In that case, five persons were murdered, the pattern involved in the  commission of the crime belied the conclusion that Appellant therein had  any hand in it.  This Court disagreed with the findings of the High Court that  Appellant therein was present with the deceased person on the evening of  November 8 and he had been missing from there from the next morning;  which was the only circumstance which had led the High Court to conclude  that Appellant was guilty of commission of the offence beyond any shadow  of doubt.  The circumstances upon which the High Court relied were  considered by this Court to be hazardous to base conviction.   

       In State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kamla [AIR 1991 SC 967], this Court  again on the fact situation obtaining therein did not base its judgment of  conviction on the circumstantial evidence laid therein.  A similar question  came up for consideration recently in Sunny Kapoor v. State (U.T. of  Chandigarh), [JT 2006 (11) SC 298], wherein it was observed :

"19.The appellants have been convicted on the basis of  circumstantial evidence.  It is now well settled by a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

catena of decisions of this Court that for proving the guilt  of commission of an offence under Section 302 IPC, the  prosecution must lead evidence to connect all links in the  chain so as to clearly point the guilt of the accused alone  and nobody else\005"

       Post mortem examination was held at 11.00 a.m. on 4th November,  2003.  The time of death was said to be within 24 hours.  The deceased died  of bleeding from her private parts, which  indisputably was the result of  rape.  Exact time as to when the occurrence took place is not known and it  would be hazardous to make any guess in this behalf.  Deceased died a  painful death which would appear from impression of teeth on her lips.  She  did not have even a developed body; public and axillary hairs not grown and  breasts were also not developed.  Organs of generation external and internal  were that hymen was torn, complete pereneal tear, multiple vaginal  laceration, complete vault tear and uterus was infantile.  No rigor mortis was  noticed.  Dead body was found at or before 10.00 p.m. as her body was  brought to home at that time.  There exists a controversy as to whether  Appellant was arrested immediately on 9.11.2003 or 12.11.2003.  He was  indisputably suspected of commission of the offences.  He was either  arrested or he fled away from his house.  It was true that according to PWs.  2 and 3 he was arrested immediately whereas according to the Investigating  Officer, he was found absent from his house and the house was locked.   Sending of a telegram to the Chief Justice of the High Court is not in dispute  but the Courts below did not lay much stress thereupon as allegations made  by the grandfather of Appellant in that behalf were withdrawn at a later  stage.  Appellant examined two defence witnesses who proved the fact that a  telegram was sent but later on an application was filed which was marked as  Exhibit DA, from a perusal whereof it appears that the complaint was  withdrawn by Makhan Singh, maternal grandfather of the accused.  It is,  however, interesting to note that it was a former Sarpanch of the village who  caused the production of the body of Appellant before the Investigating  Officer; if latter’s statement is to be believed.  The place of occurrence also  plays some importance.  It was on the cotton field of Appellant himself.   Height of cotton crop according to the villagers goes upto 6 ft.  The cotton  crop was in front of the house of Appellant.   

       Mr. Aggarwal has also drawn our attention to a suggestion made to  PW-2 that four young boys aged about 10 years were seen in the cotton field  from outside areas.  If an outsider had committed the crime, she would  definitely cried out but Appellant, a neighbour and known to her was a  person of trust.  She was seen to be holding Appellant’s finger.  It is clear  that she was allured by Appellant to accompany him to his own field which  was near his house.  We, however, do not agree with the contention of the  learned counsel for the State that in this case, the provisions of the  Identification of Prisoners’ Act will have any application.  The provisions of  the said Act may not be ultra vires to the Constitution but it cannot be said  to be applicable in a case of this nature.  It cannot be said to be an area  which is contemplated under the Act.  Appellant had a right to give or not to  give sample of his hair.  He could not have been made a witness against  himself against his will.

Offence of rape took place on an agricultural field.  She might have  suffered a lot of pain.  She might have resisted also.  She might have been  gagged.  Possibilities of some assault on her person cannot be ruled out.  It  would, however, be improper to hold that he killed her intentionally.  

       The opinion of the learned Trial Judge as also the High Court that  Appellant being aged about 31 years and not suffering from any disease, was  in a dominating position and might have got her mouth gagged cannot be  held be irrelevant.  Some marks of violence not only on the neck but also on  her mouth were found.  Submission of Mr. Aggarwal, however, that  Appellant might not have an intention to kill the deceased, thus, may have  some farce.  The death occurred not as a result of strangulation but because

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

of excessive bleeding.  Deceased had bleeded half a liter of blood.  Dr.  Reshamchand Singh, PW-1 did not state that injury on the neck could have  contributed to her death.  The death occurred, therefore, as a consequence of  and not because of any specific overt act on the part of  Appellant.   

         Imposition of death penalty in a case of this nature, in our opinion,  was, thus,  improper.  Even otherwise, it cannot be said to be a rarest of rare  cases.  The manner in which the deceased was raped may be brutal but it  could have been a momentary lapse on the part of Appellant, seeing a lonely  girl at a secluded place.  He had no pre-meditation for commission of the  offence.  The offence may look a heinous, but under no circumstances, it can  be said to be a rarest of rare cases.   

       Appellant, however, in any event, is an accused under Section  276(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code.     

In a case of this nature where the brutality with which the offence was  committed leading to the death of the prosecutrix, in our opinion,  maximum  sentence should be imposed.  Appellant, thus deserves imposition of  Rigorous Imprisonment for life.

The appeal is allowed to the above extent.