http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: RAM AVTAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)

DATE OF JUDGMENT08/08/1985

BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA VARADARAJAN, A. (J)

CITATION:  1985 AIR 1692            1985 SCR  Supl. (2) 508  1985 SCC  Supl.  410     1985 SCALE  (2)285  CITATOR INFO :  F          1992 SC2045  (20)

ACT:      Indian Penal Code 1860 Section 302      Accused charged  with  killing  wife  by  strangulation Circumstantial evidence  alone available  appreciation of  - Court to take cumulative effect of entire evidence.      Criminal Trial      Circumstantial   evidence   -   Chain   of   continuous circumstances  linked   with  one  another  -  Necessity  of cumulative effect of entire evidence to be considered.

HEADNOTE:      The prosecution  alleged that  the appellant had killed his wife by strangulation. The marriage of the appellant and the deceased  took place  about a  year before  the date  of occurrence. After  about six  months  of  the  marriage  the relations between the two spouses started becoming strained. The accused  neglected the deceased, abused her, teased her, waxed her, and even beat her. All these were reported to the relatives of  both sides  as result of which a panchayat had to be  called to  bring the  two parties together which also was of no avail. The Sessions Court after considering the evidence WAS of the opinion that the prosecution case was not proved beyond  reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted the appellant of the charges framed against him under Section 302 IPC.      The State  filed an  appeal before the High Court which reversed the  aforesaid decision  and came to the conclusion that the appellant had killed his wife by strangulation.      Dismissing this appellant’s Appeal to this Court ^      HELD: 1.  The view  taken by  the High Court is correct and there is no reason to interfere with the same. The trial court has  gone wrong,  and has  made a  fundamentally wrong approach. The 509 judgment of  the trial  court is  not only legally erroneous but A  absolutely perverse.  In view of the circumstances of the case  and the  admissions of  the  witnesses,  the  case against the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. This is not a case where two views are possible. [516 G,D-E]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

    2.  Circumstantial   evidence  must   be  complete  and conclusive before an accused can be convicted thereon. This, however, does  not mean  that there  is  any  particular  or special method  of proof  of  circumstantial  evidence.  One must, however,  guard against  the danger of not considering circumstantial evidence  in  its  proper  perspective,  e.g. where there  18 a  chain of circumstances linked up with one another, it  is not  possible for  the court to truncate and break the  chain of  circumstances. In  other words, where a series of  circumstances are  dependent on  one another they should be  read as  one integrated  whole and not considered separately,  otherwise   the  very   concept  of   proof  of circumstantial evidence would be defeated. [510 G-511 A]      3. Where circumstantial evidence consists of a chain of continuous circumstances  linked up  with one  another,  the court has  to take  the  cumulative  effect  of  the  entire evidence before acquitting or convicting an accused. 1516 F]      In the  instant case,  the Sessions Judge had committed an error.  Instead of taking all the circumstance . together which are  undoubtedly circumstantial  and closely linked up with one  another, he  has completely misdirected himself by separately dealing  with each  circumstance thereby making a wrong  approach   while  appreciating   the   circumstantial evidence produced  in the  case. Some letters written by the deceased show  the callous  and cruel  nature of the accused and his  treatment.  He  appears  to  have  been  completely indifferent. The  deceased prayed  to her parents for taking her with  them  immediately.  Despite  the  conduct  of  the appellant, the parents-in-law of the deceased were very kind to her,  but the  appellant was  made of such a stern nature that he would not listen to anybody. The recovery of certain broken bangles  and one  pair of  cufflinks show that during the course  of strangulation,  the  deceased  put  up  stiff resistance. The  medical evidence  also  supports  that  the deceased had  died of  manual  strangulation.  A  number  of prosecution witnesses  PWs 5,6,7,8  &  9  deposed  that  the appellant had  been  ill-treating  the  deceased  and  their relations were extremely strained, and that the relatives of the two  sides tried  their best  to bring  harmony  in  the relations  of   the  accused   and  the   deceased.  Another circumstance 510 of great  importance is that after the incident, the accused went to  Muzaffar Nagar  stayed in  his sister’s  house came back the  same evening,  stayed in a Hotel under a false and assumed name  written in the hotel register in his own hand. This shows  the guilty  conscience of  the accused.  another intrinsic evidence which proves the case against the accused consists of  two letters(Ext.  PW 12-A and B) written be the deceased to her parents wherein the had requested her father to take  her away  as her  husband was ill-treating her. The statement of  the S.I., PW 18 reveals that from the personal search of  the accused,  Rs.5.50 one  ticket from  Meerut to Delhi were  recovered and that the banian of the accused had blood stains. [511 B,G, 515 A,C-D, 516 A-B]

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.106 of 1980.      From the Judgment and Order dated 8.1.1980 of the Delhi High Court in Crl. A. No. 137 of 1978.      Ms. Neeraja Mehra and I.K. Wadera for the Appellants.      Anil Dev  Singh, R.N.  Poddar and  G.D. Gupta  for  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

Respondent .      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      FAZAL ALI,  J. The appellant in this case was convicted under s.  302 IPC  and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the High  Court. m  e case  depends purely on circumstantial evidence and  the trial court after considering the evidence was of  the opinion that the prosecution case was not proved beyond  reasonable   doubt  and  accordingly  acquitted  the appellant of the charges framed against him. The State filed an appeal  before the High Court which reversed the decision of the  trial court  and came  to the  conclusion  that  the appellant had  killed his wife by strangulation. Hence, this appeal before  this Court  under  s.  379  of  the  Code  of Criminal Procedure. 1973.      At the very outset we might mention that circumstantial evidence must  be complete  and conclusive before an accused can be  convicted thereon. This, however, does not mean that there is  any particular  or  special  method  of  proof  of circumstantial evidence. We must, however, guard against the danger of not considering  circumstantial  evidence in  its proper  perspective, e.g., where there  is a  chain of circumstances linked up with one another, lt 511 is not  possible for  the court  to truncate  and break  the chain of   circumstances.  In other  words where a series of circumstances are  dependent on  one another  they should be read as  one integrated whole and not considered separately, otherwise  the  very  concept  of  proof  of  circumstantial evidence would be defeated. The learned Sessions Judge seems to have  fallen into  this very  error. In the instant case, instead of  taking all the circumstances together, which are undoubtedly circumstantial  and closely  linked up  with one another,  the   learned  Sessions   Judge   has   completely misdirected  himself   by  separately   dealing  with   each circumstance  thereby   making  a   wrong   approach   while appreciating the  circumstantial evidence  produced  in  the case.      Let us now recount the circumstances relied upon by the appellant by  giving first  a brief summary of the same. The marriage of  the accused  and the  deceased  took  place  on December 6, 1975, i.e., hardly a year before the date of the occurrence. After  about six  months of  the  marriage,  the relations between the two spouses started becoming strained. The evidence  clearly shows  that the  accused neglected the deceased, abused  her, teased  her, waxed  her and even beat her. All these things were reported to the relatives of both sides as  a result  of which a panchayat had to be called to bring the  two parties  together which also was of no avail. There is  further evidence  to show that on the night of the occurrence,  i.e.,  between  the  night  of  16th  and  17th November 1976,  the accused  was last  seen by  some of  the witnesses whose evidence we shall refer hereafter. Secondly, it is  also proved  that the  accused left  his house in the morning of 17th November 1976 and went to Muzaffar Nagar and stayed at his sister’s house there and came back to Delhi in the evening  of 17th November 1976 but instead of staying in his own house he stayed in Venus Hotel in Paharganj in Delhi under a  false  and  assumed  name  of  Vinod  Kumar  which, according to  the evidence,  was written by him while making the entries in the Hotel register.      Furthermore, it  appears that  there are  some  letters written by  the deceased  which show  the callous  and cruel nature of  the accused  and his  treatment towards  her.  He appears to  have been completely indifferent towards her and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

the deceased  prayed to her parents for taking her with them immediately. It  is true  that despite  the conduct  of  the appellant, the parents-in-law of the deceased were very kind to her  and tried  their best  to save the situation but the appellant was made of such a stern stuff and stubborn nature that he would not listen to anyone. 512      Moreover,  the  evidence  further  shows  that  certain broken bangles and one pair of cufflinks were recovered from the room  where the  deceased was  strangulated. The medical evidence also  supports that the deceased had died of manual strangulation. There are some other circumstances which show the  role   played  by  the  accused  and  if  we  take  the circumstances together  the irresistible  inference is  that the prosecution has completely proved its case.      We might  observe there  that the  circumstances  which have been  narrated above are so interlinked in the chain of circumstantial evidence  that lt  is difficult  to  truncate them and  the learned  Sessions  Judge  ought  not  to  have rejected the  circumstances one  by one  and then acquit the accused. It  is here  that the  learned Sessions  Judge  has committed a serious error of law. If we read the evidence as an  integral  whole,  the  inescapable  conclusion  is  that excepting the appellant nobody else could have committed the murder.      With this  preface, we  now proceed  to deal  with  the chain of  circumstances relied  upon by  the High  Court  in reversing the judgment of the trial court and convicting the accused. To  begin with, as we have said, within one year of her marriage  the deceased died during the night of 16th and 17th November  1976. A  number of prosecution witnesses (PWs 5,6,7,8 and  9) whose  evidence has been fully considered by the High  Court deposed  that the  appellant had  been  ill- treating the  deceased and  their relations  were  extremely strained. This  is buttressed  by the  further  circumstance that a  panchayat had been called to resolve the differences between the two spouses. In this connection, the prosecution witnesses have spoken thus:-           The accused  had always been maltreating Madhu and           used to  say that  he will  not like to keep Madhu           with him.  After about  6 months of the marriage a           Panchayat was held in Bakhtamal Dharamshala, Delhi           for  bringing   about  conciliation.   Before  the           panchayat the  father of  the accused  had assured           that he will ask the accused to behave better. But           there was no change in the attitude of the accused           towards the deceased and the accused was bent upon           leaving the girl."                                         (PW 5, Ramesh Chand)           About 5  or six  months prior  to  the  murder  of           Madhu, her  father had  complained to  me that the           accused used 513           to beat  her and wanted to leave her. After 2 or 3           days A  of that,  a panchayat was held in Bagtamal           Dharamshala, Kucha  Pati  Ram........  Before  the           Panchayat, father  of the accused had assured that           he will  make him  under stand  and see  that  the           accused behaved properly in future with Madhu.                                    (PW 6, Ram Kishan Dalaya)           Accused used  to beat  Madhu and we were receiving           many complaints  in this  respect. Myself,  Ramesh           Chand, Ganga  Prasad and Madan Lal had been coming           to Delhi  and requesting the accused not to do so.           However, the  behaviour  of  the  accused  towards

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

         Madhu did not change.                                           (PW 7, Chhanu Lal)           She was  married to  Ram Avtar(accused) present in           the court.  Madan Lal  had  started  saying  after           about 20  or 25  days after  the marriage that the           deceased was  being beaten  and ill-treated by the           accused..... A panchayat was organised. Radhey Lal           was also called and he attended the panchayat.                                       ( PW 8, Ram Pal Singh)           There were  strained relations  between them for a           long time.                                          (PW 9, Gulab Chand)           Right from  the beginning,  accused had  been ill-           treating my daughter. She had been writing letters           to me  from which  I had come to know that she was           not happy and so I came to Delhi...I beseeched the           accused and  with folded  hands requested  him  to           behave better  with my daughter in the presence of           his father.  Both of them had assured that nothing           will happen in future.                                           (PW 12, Madan Lal)           I had  gone to  attend its  conference at  Lucknow           from G  5th to  7th Oct.  1976. There, Chhanu Lal,           elder brother  of Madan  Lal had  complained to me           that Ram  Avtar accused was ill-treating Madhu and           that I should look into this matter....Then I told           him that  in that  case Chhanu  Lal would not have           complained to  me. Then he assured me that he will           ask the  accused to behave properly and there will           be no complaint in future.                                     (PW 13, Sohan Lal Verma) 514      The  above   extracts  from  the  evidence  of  various prosecution witnesses  show that  the relatives  of the  two sides tried  their best to bring harmony in the relations of the accused  and the  deceased and the father of the accused had been  promised that  his son  will behave in future in a proper manner.  One outstanding feature of this case is that while the  deceased was  fully satisfied  with the treatment received by  her from her parents-in-law, yet so adamant was the accused  that he  would hardly listen or pay any heed to the advice of his parents.      Another circumstance  which almost  conclusively proves the case  of the  prosecution is  the evidence of PW 1, Shri Krishan Avtar,  according to  which, the accused was seen by him on the fateful night between 9 or 9.30 p.m. in his house and in this connection he says thus:           When I  returned at about 9 or 9.30 p.m. I saw the           accused in his house. He was alone in the house at           that time.  The room of the accused is situated on           the ground  floor while  mine is  situated on  the           first floor......  When I  saw him  he was  coming           down stairs  from the  first floor and entered his           room on the ground floor................... Then I           entered the  room of  the accused where he and his           wife used  to sleep together and saw the dead body           of Madhu."      PW 1  further testifies  to the articles found from the scene of occurrence           "Ex.P8 is  the pair of cufflink....Ex.P-14 are the           broken pieces  of bangles collected from the floor           of the room. F      PW 2, Nathi Lal, another independent witness, says that at about  12.30 in  the night  while he  was coming from Lal Darwaza to  his house,  he saw the accused passing that side

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

and the accused told him that he had told the chowkidar that he (appellant)  was going away and the door of his house was open. Another witness (PW 3) though declared hostile, yet so far as  the relations  between the  spouses  are  concerned, categorically states  that the relations between the spouses were extremely strained.      Another circumstance  which is  of great importance and which seems  to have  been ignored  by the  learned Sessions Judge is  that   after returning  from Muzaffar Nagar in the evening of  17th  November  1976,  the  accused  instead  of staying in his house, stayed in 515 Venus Hotel  in Paharganj,  New  Delhi  under  a  false  and assumed   name of  Vinod Kumar  and made  the entries in the Hotel register  in his  own hand.  m  is  shows  the  guilty conscience of  the accused.  This is  proved by  Ex.PW  14/A where it has been stated thus:           The aforesaid  register contains one entry against           serial No.518 dated 18.11.76 recorded at 1.00 a.m.           relating  to  Vinod  Kumar,  Indian  23/3,  Sarafa           Bazar,  Muzaffar   Nagar,  for  business  Muzaffar           Nagar, stated  to have been made and initialled by           accused  Ram  Avtar  S/o  Radhey  Lal,  r/o  2721,           Chhatta Girdhar  Lal, Gali  Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita           Ram, Delhi.      Another  intrinsic   evidence  which  proves  the  case against the  accused consists of two letters (Ext.PW-12A and 12B) written  by the deceased to her parents wherein she had requested her  father to  take her  away as  her husband was ill-treating her. In these letters she had written thus:           You (father) take me away from here....... (He) is           not on speaking terms with me.                                                (Ext. PW 12A)           There is  always a  quarrel in the house about me.           Papa and  Mummy  have  been  trying  to  make  him           understand. (He)  does not  eat and drink anything           from my  hand and  even  does  not  speak  to  me.           Whenever, I  come across him, he scolds me. Today,           he gave me beating and was about to turn me out of           the house but Mummy and Pappa pacified him..... He           further said  ’I do  not want  to see  the face of           this  mean   girl.   Furthermore   that   whatever           Khurjawallas have  done in  my  interest  is  good           (Taunt). He  says that  when I become a widow then           at least  they (parents)  will  come  to  take  me           away....... He  says that  even if  God comes,  he           will not  agree and  will not  keep me with him at           any cost.....  You treat this letter as a telegram           and please  reach here immediately. I keep weeping           here day  and  night  and  Mummy  also  continuous           weeping. He would not keep me with him at any cost           and  I   also  do   not  want  to  live  here  any           more......... I  am  weeping  while  writing  this           letter.  Dear  Pappa,  please  come  as  early  as           possible.                                                (Ex. PW 12-B)      In addition  to Ext.  PW 12-A and 12-B, one more letter was found  from the  house where  the murder  took place but which she could not post. 516      In his  statement PW  18, Kanshi Ram, S.I., stated that from   the personal  search of  the accused,  Rs.  5.50  one ticket from  Meerut to  Delhi were recovered and the accused was also  made to  put off his shirt and banian, and that he (PW 18)  took into  police custody the banian of the accused

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

which had blood stains on the front side.      The last  piece of evidence which is also important and which has been completely glossed over by the trial court is the recovery of broken bangles and a pair of cufflinks which show that  during the  course of  strangulation the deceased must have put in stiff resistance.      In view of the circumstances discussed above, it cannot be said  that the  case against  the accused  has  not  been proved. It  is not  possible for  us to consider the various chains of  circumstances, mentioned  above, in  isolation by divorcing  them  from  the  other  circumstances  which  are closely interlinked with them. This is where the trial court has gone  wrong and has made a fundamentally wrong approach. Having regard  to the  circumstances mentioned above, we are clearly of  the opinion that the judgment of the trial court is not  only legally erroneous but also absolutely perverse. In view  of the  circumstances and  the  admissions  of  the witnesses extracted,  the case against the accused is proved beyond reasonable  doubt and  this is  not a  case where two views are reasonably Possible.      Before  concluding   we  might   observe   that   where circumstantial evidence  consists of  a chain  of continuous circumstances linked  up with  one another, the court has to take the cumulative effect of the entire evidence led by the prosecution before acquitting or convicting an accused.      For the  reasons given  above,  we  find  ourselves  in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court and we see  no reason  to interfere with the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.  In case the appellant is on bail, he shall now  surrender and  be taken  into custody and sent to prison to serve out the remaining part of the sentence. N.V.K.                                     Appeal dismissed. 517