http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

PETITIONER: RAMA NAND AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/01/1981

BENCH: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH BENCH: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH PATHAK, R.S.

CITATION:  1981 AIR  738            1981 SCR  (2) 444  1981 SCC  (1) 511        1981 SCALE  (1)24  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1989 SC1076  (21)  R          1989 SC1890  (31)  R          1990 SC  79  (10)  R          1991 SC 917  (8)  F          1992 SC2045  (20)

ACT:      Circumstantial evidence,  value of-Corpus  delicti  not found in the case-Whether inference of guilt of murder could be drawn  when the other circumstances established on record were sufficient  to lead  to the  conclusion that within all human probability the victim was murdered by the accused.

HEADNOTE:      Dismissing the  appeal and  maintaining the  conviction and sentences of the appellants, the Court ^      HELD:(1) It is well settled that where the inference of guilt  of   an  accused   person  is   to  be   drawn   from circumstantial evidence  only, those  circumstances must, in the first  place, be  cogently established.  Further,  those circumstances should  be of  a  definite  tendency  pointing towards the  guilt of  the accused,  and in  their totality, must unerringly lead to the conclusion that within all human probability, the  offence was  committed by  the accused and none else.  In the instant case, the following circumstances had been  correctly found  to have  been established  by the prosecution: (i)  Rama Nand  accused had  a strong motive to murder his  wife, Sumitra.  (ii) Sumitra was last seen alive with Rama  Nand, appellant in the family house at Jherwin on the night  between 13th  and 14th  May, 1972. (iii) (a) Rama Nand and  the other co-accused falsely gave out that she had committed suicide  by jumping into the river. They ’planted’ a Salwar  and a  pair of shoes on the bank of the Sutlaj and gave out  that they  belonged to the deceased, and Shish Ram lodged a false report with the police to the effect that she had committed  suicide by jumping into the river. The Salwar and the shoes, which had been ’planted’ there to manufacture false clues  by the  accused, did not belong to Sumitra, and the accused  falsely asserted  that whose articles belong to the deceased. (b) The story given out by the accused persons that upto  11 a.m.  on May  14, 1972,  Sumitra was  planting

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

chillies along  with Sheela  and other members of the family of the accused, was false. (iv) The gold chain (Ex. P-1) and the watch (Ex. P-2) which Sumitra used to wear on her person all the  24 hours,  and the  clothes (Ex. P-5 to P-10) which she had on her person and the basket (Ex. P-11) and umbrella (Ex. P-12) which she was carrying when on the evening of May 13, 1972  she came  to house of the accused at Jherwin, were recovered from the house of the accused. (v) Some days after the occurrence,  one Paranda  was found from the jungle near this village.  There was  a bunch of hair in the plated tail of this  Paranda. The  tail appeared to have been cut. These hair sticking  in the  paranda and  those found entangled in the Dupatta  of the  deceased were according to the Forensic Expert of one and the same person. (vi) A legless decomposed corpse was  recovered from the Sutlej near village Randol in a mutilated condition. But its identity                                     [451G-H, 452A-E, 453A-B]      (2) Even  on the  assumption that  the dead body of the victim was  not found,  circumstances (i)  to (v)  mentioned above in  their cumulative  effect includably and rationally compel the conclusion that Sumitra had died and it was Rama 445 Nand  accused   who  had  intentionally  caused  her  death. Ordinarily, the recovery of the dead-body of the victim or a vital part  of it,  bearing marks  of violence is sufficient proof of  homicidal death  of the victim. Even so, discovery of the  dead-body of the victim bearing physical evidence of violence, has  never been  considered as  the only  mode  of proving the corpus delicti in murder. Indeed very many cases are of such a nature where the discovery of the dead-body is impossible. A  blind adherence  to this  old doctrine of Sir Mathew Hale  that "for  a conviction  of murder  atleast the body was  found dead" would open the door wide open for many a heinous  murderer to  escape with  impunity simply because they were a cunning and clever enough to destroy the body of their victim.  In the context of our law, Hale’s enunciation has to  be interpreted  no more  than emphasising that where the dead-body  of the  victim in a murder case is not found, other cogent  and satisfactory  proof of  homicidal death of the victim  must be  adduced by  the prosecution. Such proof may be  the direct  ocular account  of an eye-witness, or by circumstantial evidence,  or by  both. But where the fact of corpus delicti,  i.e. ’homicidal  death’  is  sought  to  be established   by    circumstantial   evidence   alone,   the circumstances  must   be  of   a  clinching  and  definitive character unerringly  leading  to  the  inference  that  the victim concerned  has met  a homicidal  death. Even so, this principle of  caution cannot  be pushed too far as requiring absolute proof.  Perfect proof  is seldom  to be had in this imperfect world,  and absolute  certainty is a myth. That is why under  Section 3,  Evidence Act,  a fact  is said  to be "proved", if  the Court  considering the  matters before it, considers its  existence so  probable  that  a  prudent  man ought. under  the circumstances  of the  particular case, to act upon  the supposition that it exists. The corpus delicti or the  fact of homicidal death, therefore, can be proved by telling and  inculpating circumstances which definitely lead to the  conclusion that  within all  human probability,  the victim has been murdered by the accused concerned. [457 D-H, 458A-D]

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 17

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

of 1975.      Appeal by  Special Leave  from the  Judgment and  Order dated  7-6-1974  of  the  Himachal  Pradesh  High  Court  in Criminal Appeal No. 40/73.      Hardyal Hardy and P.P. Juneja for the Appellants.      Badri  Das  Sharma  and  Miss  A.  Subhashini  for  the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      SARKARIA, J.  This appeal  by special leave is directed against a  judgment, dated  June. 7. 1974, of the High Court of Himachal  Pradesh, whereby  it upheld  the conviction  of Rama Nand accused under Section 302, Penal Code, and that of the co-accused  Shish Ram  and Kali  Datt under Section 201, Penal Code,  and also  the sentences awarded to each of them by the learned Sessions Judge, 446 Mandi. The prosecution story, as it emerged from the record, was as follows:      Sumitra deceased,  aged 19  years, was  the daughter of Som Krishan  (P.W. 33).  Rama Nand, appellant is her husband and Shish  Ram, appellant 2, is her father-in-law while Kali Datt appellant 3, is the younger brother of Rama Nand.      Sumitra’s father  wished to  see  his  daughter  highly educated, and  employed in Government service and married to a suitable, highly educated person, settled in life. Sumitra had passed Higher Secondary Examination and wanted to pursue her studies further according to the wishes of her father.      About two  years before Sumitra’s reported death, Shish Ram appellant approached Som Krishan (P.W. 33) and persuaded him to give Sumitra in marriage to his son, Rama Nand. While negotiating this  matrimonial alliance,  Shish Rama told Som Krishan that  his son  was suitably employed on a Government job in  the Office  of the Deputy Commissioner, Kasumpti. He further falsely  represented to  Som Krishan  that his  son, Rama Nand  was a  graduate. Believing this representation to be true, Som Krishan about 1 1/2 or 2 years before Sumitra’s murder in  question, married  her to  Rama Nand; Before this marriage it  was settled  by Som  Krishan with Shish Ram and Rama Nand  accused that  even after  her  marriage,  Sumitra would  continue  to  pursue  further  studies  and  take  up employment as  a teacher. After the marriage, her father got his daughter,  Sumitra, employed  as a  teacher  in  Village Nursery School  at Chanyana  which  was  situated  near  her parents’ village.  While teaching at Chnayana, she continued to reside  with her  parents.  She  used  to  visit  village Jherwin occasionally to be in the society of her husband who also used  to come  to Jherwin  from Kasumpti.  The  accused persistently  demanded  that  Sumitra  should  give  up  her employment at  Chanyana, and  start residing permanently and continuously in  her matrimonial  home at  Jherwin.  Sumitra tenaciously refused  to  do  so.  Rama  Nand  wrote  several letters to  Sumitra  urging  her  to  give  up  her  adamant attitude. These  letters  furnished  evidence  of  a  strong motive for Rama Nand to put an end to the life of Sumitra.      Rama Nand  was employed as a Clerk in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner  Kasumpti. On  May 12,  1972, he came to Jherwin from  Kasumpti. He  had earlier written to his wife, Sumitra, strongly  urging her to come to village Jherwin. On May 13,  1972, Sumitra  came to Rama Nand’s house at Jherwin and stayed  with him  in his  room on the night between 13th and 14th May, 1972. The other 447 rooms of  the house  were in occupation of the other members of Shish  Ram’s family.  Thereafter, on  May 14,  1972,  she disappeared from  the house of the accused. The accused gave

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

out that  Sumitra had  gone towards  the Sutlej river on the pretext of  attending to the call of nature; that thereafter her Salwar  and shoes  were found  on the bank of the river, which indicated  that she  had jumped  into  the  river  and committed suicide. After pretending to make a search for her body in  the river and nearabout, Shish Ram on May 16, 1972, went to  Police Station  Karsog at  5.30 p.m.  and lodged  a report (Ex.  PAQ). It  was recorded  by Head  Constable Nand Lal.  After   recording  it  in  the  Roznamacha,  the  Head Constable read  it in  the presence  of one Inder Pal to the informant, who, after hearing the same to be correct, signed it in  Hindi and  his  companion  Inder  Lal  signed  it  in English. As this report, according to the prosecution, shows that an attempt was made by Shish Ram accused to lay a false trail and  manufacture false  clues as  to the  cause of the death of  Sumitra and to screen the offence, it is necessary to reproduce  the material  parts of  that report  (rendered into English), hereunder:      ...."my daughter-in-law  Smt. Sumitra  Devi aged  about      18/19 years,  was married  about 1 1/2 years ago, to my      son Rama  Nand who  is employed  in the  office of D.C.      Kasumpti as  a clerk. Sumitra Devi herself was employed      as a  Mistress in  Nursery  School,  Chanyana  and  was      residing with her parents. Whenever my son used to come      home on leave, she also used to visit her house at such      time. Similarly  my son  Rama Nand had come on leave to      his house  on 12-5-72 and in the evening of 13-5-72, my      daughter-in-law, Smt. Sumitra Devi had also come to his      house. As  usual, because  of Sunday  holiday,  in  the      morning on  14-5-72,  myself,  my  daughter-in-law  and      other  members  of  the  family  were  planting  chilly      seedlings in  the fields  near our  house. My son (Rama      Nand) was  lying in  bed on account of stomach trouble.      After plantation  work, at about 9/10 a.m. my daughter-      in-law, Smt.  Sumitra Devi  along with Sheela Devi aged      about 7  years, who is daughter of my brother, had gone      downward on  the pretext  of easing herself. After some      time, Sheela  returned home  and reported  that she had      been turned  back from  the way  by her  aunt.  Sumitra      Devi, who  had gone  ahead towards  the river side. For      some time  it was  believed that she might have gone to      answer the  call  of  nature.  The  river  is  about  2      furlongs  from   my  house   towards   downside.   When      sufficient time passed and she did 448      not return  home, then  calls  were  given  hither  and      thither and search was also started but her whereabouts      could not  be known.  After a  thorough search  on  the      Sutlej river bank, the Salwar and shoes of Smt. Sumitra      were found  which Smt.  Sumitra was wearing at the time      of her  going that  side. This created a suspicion that      she might  have committed  suicide by  jumping into the      river. She  was searched  at the  river bank as also in      the nearby  villages.. but her dead-body was not found,      nor any  clue of  her going  is available. Smt. Sumitra      was married in a good family and her character was also      good, her  relations with  her husband were cordial. No      quarrel on  that day  or  prior  to  that,  took  place      between her and my son, nor is there any reason for her      disappearance. I  have come  to report,  which  may  be      recorded. After  locating her  alive or  dead, separate      report will be lodged." Daulat Ram, Station House Officer (P.W. 38) then visited the scene of  occurrence on  May 13,  1972. He was not satisfied about the  correctness of the information given by Shish Ram

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

accused. He,  therefore, got a case under Section 364, Penal Code, registered.      Shis Ram accused produced before him the Salwar (Ex. P- 14) and  shoes (Ex. P-15/12) which, according to Shish Ram’s report, belonged to Sumitra deceased and were found lying on the river  bank. The  investigator  also  prepared  a  rough sketch of the spot where these clothes and shoes were stated to have been found.      Som Krishan  upon receiving  the information, suspected that her  daughter had been murdered at the instance of Rama Nand and  others. Som  Krishan reached  the  spot  and  made enquiries. Rama  Nand and Shish Ram accused were arrested by the Investigating Officer on June 5, 1972. The Investigating Officer took  into possession the Locket-chain (Ex. P-1) and the watch  (Ex. P-2) belonging to the deceased from the room which was  in the  occupation of  Rama Nand, in the deceased from the  room which  was in the occupation of Rama Nand, in the presence  of Kanshi  Ram and Hira  Mani and prepared the Memo (Ex. P-A) in this  behalf. Rama Nand accused, whilst in police custody,  produced Sumitra’s  clothes (Ex. P-5 to Ex. P-10) which  were taken  into possession by the Investigator in the  presence of  Mastu and Hari Ram, witnesses (vide Ex. P-Y). These  clothes, according to the prosecution, were the same which Sumitra was wearing when she arrived at the house of Rama Nand accused on May 13, 1972. 449      On June  5, 1972,  a legless and armless dead-body in a highly decomposed  state was  found at  a distance  of  four kilometers down-stream  on the bank of the river Sutlej near village Randaul.  Kali Datt  appellant was  found near  that skeleton in  the early  hours or June 5,1972. He dragged the skeleton from the river upto some distance. It appeared that dogs etc.  had eaten away the flesh. A part of the skull was found in  tact, while  the remaining part of it was lying at some  distance.   On  receiving   information,  Som  Krishan (P.W.33) and  his brother’s  wife, Laxmi  (P.W. 2), came and identified the  skeleton to  be that  of Sumitra.  There was some flesh  on the  buttock portion  and there was a mark on it. According  to these identifying witnesses, this mark was that of  a  burn  which  Sumitra  had  received  during  her infancy. One  of  the  teeth  found  in  the  inaudible  was carious, while another tooth was jutting out. Daulat Ram got the dead-body  measured from  shoulder to the cut portion of the thies  by Mehar  Chand. The  measurement came  to 2’-4". Daulat Ram  prepared the  inquest report (Ex. P/F) which was attested by Kundan witness. He sent the dead-body along with the  inquest  report  (Ex.  PF)  to  Simla  for  post-mortem examination. The  dead-body reached the Hospital at 1 p.m on June 7,  1972. There,  they directed  the police to take the dead-body to  Ripon Hospital.  The post-mortem  examination. was conducted by Dr. J. R. Sharma (P.W. 14) on the following day. The post mortem report was handed over to the police by the Doctor  on June  21,  1972.  A  few  components  of  the skeleton, including  the mandible,  were sent  to the Dental Surgeon, Dr.  R. S.  Pathania (P.W. 15) and Radiologist, Dr. M. L.  Ahuja (P.W.  16) for  examination and  opinion. These Doctors, however,  opined that  the mandible  belonged to  a child of  not more  than 10  years of age. The components of the skeleton  were, also,  sent to  Dr. O. P. Bhargave (P.W. 31), Professor  of Anatomy in the Medical College of simila. His opinion about the age of the deceased was also the same. The Doctor could not determine the sex of the skeleton.      On  August  24,  1972,  a  Paranda  (cotton  headtail), alleged to  be of  Sumitra deceased  was recovered  from the jungle of  Ghangar. Some  human hair were found entangled in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

the Paranda.  These hair  were sent  for comparison with the hair of  the deceased  found embedded  in her  Dupatta.  The forensic expert opined that the two sets of hair belonged to one and the same person.      After investigation,  the four  accused,  namely,  Rama Nand, his  father Shish Ram, his brother Kali Datt and Shish Ram’s brother  Kesar Chand, were sent up before a Magistrate who committed them 450 for trial  to the  Court of  Session. At  the trial,  in his examination under Section 342, Rama Nand admitted that after her marriage,  Sumitra got  employment  as  a  teacher.  He, however, denied  the prosecution  allegation that he and his father were  opposed to  her employment  as  a  teacher.  He expressed ignorance  as to  whether there was any settlement between his  father, Shish  Ram, and  Som  Krishan  Shastri, father of  Sumitra that  she would continue her studies even after the  marriage and  would be free to take up service as her career.  He added  that his  matrimonial  alliance  with Sumitra was  not negotiated  and settled in his presence. He admitted that  the letters dated December 13, 1971, December 16, 1971  and May 9, 1972 (the English rendering of which is marked Ex.  PAH, Ex.  PAB, and  Ex. PC,  respectively)  were written by  him to  Sumitra, and  that the  letter (Ex. PAJ) dated October  14, 1971, was written by him to his father in law. Som Krishan Shastri (P.W. 33). He further admitted that on May  13, 1972,  Sumitra came  to  his  house  in  village Jherwin from  her parents’  place, and  that  she  was  then wearing the  golden chain  (Ex. P-1), wrist watch (Ex. P-2), Dupatta (Ex. P-5), suit (Ex. P-6 and Ex. P-7), socks (Ex.P-8 and 9), banian (Ex.P-10) and was carrying the basket (Ex. P- 11) and  umbrella (Ex.  P-12). He,  however, added that when she (Sumitra) reached home on May 13, 1972 with the articles mentioned above, she was wearing pink ribbon on her head and not any  threadbunch like  Ex.P-4. Question  No.9 put to him was: "It  is in  prosecution evidence  that on  May 14, 1972 Sumitra was  not seen  at your  house or  in the  village at Jherwin at  all or  thereafter. What  have you  to say?"  He replied: "On 14-5-72 morning at about, say upto 11 a.m., she was working  in the  field at Jherwin and thereafter she was not seen  there and  later on I was arrested and so I cannot say about  her whereabouts."  He admitted  that  his  father Shish Ram  had lodged  the report  (Ex. PAQ)  in the  Police Station, Karsog.  When the  circumstance  appearing  in  the prosecution evidence,  "that after the occurrence on May 16, 1972, he  (Rama Nand)  went away  to Simla  from Jherwin and returned home  three or  four days  thereafter" was  put  to Ramanand, he   replied:   "It   is wrong. I went to Simla on 17-5-72 evening  and returned  on 19th  morning". He  denied that he  and his father implored Som Krishan Shastri that he should save  them from  the  police  at  Jherwin.  When  the negative circumstance  appearing in  evidence, to the effect that the  Salwar (Ex.  P-14) was  not of Sumitra, was put to him, he  asserted that  the Salwar  (Ex. P-14)  was that  of Sumitra; and that his father had shown the Salwar (Ex. P-14) indicating that his daughter-in-law, Sumitra had gone in the river when  the (Ramanand) was weeping. In reply to the last question, Rama  Nand narrated  more or  less the  same story which was given by them (accused) to 451 the police  in the  Report,  PAQ.  Among  other  things,  he stated: "It was found on the river side that her Salwar (Ex. P-14) and  shoes (Ex.  P-15) were  lying by  the river  bank giving indication  that she  had jumped into the river. Then we were  in mourning  and the  villagers also  verified that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

Sumitra was seen going to the river".      Shish Ram  accused admitted  that Sumitra  had come  to their house  at Jherwin  on May 13, 1972 and had disappeared on May  14, 1972.  He admitted having lodged the report (Ex. PAQ) in  the Police Station, Karsog. He admitted that he had produced the  Salwar (Ex.P-14)  and shoes  (Ex. P-15) before the police during investigation. He also maintained that the Salwar (Ex. P-14) belonged to Sumitra. He denied that he and his co-accused  were threatening  to teach  Sumitra and  her father the  lesson of  life  for  keeping  Sumitra  employed against their wishes at Chanayana. He repeated the substance of the  story which he had earlier stated in the report (Ex. PAQ), and  reiterated that  since Sumitra’s Salwar and shoes were found on the river bank, she had either jumped into the river or run away somewhere.      The learned  Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment, dated December  1, 1973,  convicted Rama  Nand under Section 302, Penal  Code, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life.  He further  convicted Kali  Datt  and  Shish  Ram accused under Section 201, Penal Code, and sentenced each of them to  one year’s  rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. Keshar  Chand accused  was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.  The appeal  by  the  convicted  persons  was dismissed by  the High Court as per its judgment, dated June 7, 1974.  Hence this appeal by special leave. The conviction of  the  appellants  is  based  entirely  on  circumstantial evidence.      In convicting  Rama Nand,  appellant under Section 302, Penal Code,  for the murder of his wife, Sumitra, the courts below have  concurrently  relied  upon  these  circumstances which, according  to  them,  had  been  established  by  the prosecution.      (1) Rama Nand accused had a strong motive to murder his wife, Sumitra.      (2)  Sumitra  was  last  seen  alive  with  Rama  Nand, appellant in  the family  house  at  Jherwin  on  the  night between 13th  and 14th  May, 1972.  The other two co-accused were also present in the same house      (3) (a) Rama Nand and the other co-accused falsely gave out that  she had  committed suicide  by  jumping  into  the river. They  ’planted’ a  Salwar and  a pair of shoes on the bank of  the Sutlej  and gave  out that they belonged to the deceased, and Shish Ram lodged 452 a false  report with  the police  to the effect that she had committed suicide  by jumping into the river. The Salwar and the shoes,  which had  been ’planted’  there to  manufacture false clues  by the  accused, did not belong to Sumitra, and the accused have falsely asserted that these articles belong to the deceased.      (b) The  story given  out by  the accused  persons that upto 11  a.m. on May 14, 1972, Sumitra was planting chillies along with  Sheela and  other members  of the  family of the accused, was false.      (4) The  gold chain  (Ex. P-1)  and the watch (Ex. P-2) which Sumitra  used to  wear on her person all the 24 hours, and the  clothes (Ex.  P-5 to  P-10) which  she had  on  the person and  the basket  (Ex. P-11)  and umbrella  (Ex. P-12) which she  was carrying  when on the evening of May 13, 1972 she came  to the  house of  the  accused  at  Jherwin,  were recovered from the house of the accused.      (5) Some  days after  the occurrence,  one Paranda  was found from  the jungle  near this village. There was a bunch of hair  in the  plaited tail  of  this  Paranda.  The  tail appeared to  have been  cut.  These  hair  sticking  in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

Paranda and  those found  entangled in  the Dupatta  of  the deceased were  according to  the Forensic  Expert of one and the same person.      (6) A  legless decomposed corpse was recovered from the Sutlej near  village Randol in a mutilated condition. From a burnt mark  on the  flesh sticking  to the  buttock  of  the corpse it was identified as that of Sumitra, deceased.      The High  Court further  held that  even if  any  doubt remained with  regard to  the identity  or recovery  of  the corpus  delicti,   the  telling     circumstances  otherwise complete the  chain of  evidence to  establish beyond  doubt that Sumitra  had been  murdered and  the charges  had  been established against  the accused as held by the trial court. In the  result  it  dismissed  the  appeal  of  the  accused respondents.      Shri Hardayal  Hardy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contents  that these  circumstances have not been satisfactorily established.  He has placed great emphasis on the evidence  of the medical experts, according to which the mutilated corpse  found at  Randol was that of a child, aged about 8 or 9 years. It is submitted that the dead-body found was not  that of  Sumitra deceased,  and as  a  result,  the courts below were not justified in holding that the death of Sumitra had been established by the prosecution.      On the  other hand,  the learned  counsel for the State has argued in support of the judgment of the High Court. 453      It is well settled that where the inference of guilt of an  accused  person  is  to  be  drawn  from  circumstantial evidence only, those circumstances must, in the first place, be cogently established. Further, those circumstances should be of  a definite tendency pointing towards the guilt of the accused, and  in their totality, must unerringly lead to the conclusion that  within all  human probability,  the offence was committed by the accused and none else.      The first  circumstance which  has  been  found  to  be established by  the courts  below against  the appellant  is that he  had "a  very strong motive" to commit the murder of Sumitra. To substantiate this fact, the prosecution produced four letters  written by Rama Nand appellant. There are: Ex. PAJ, Ex.  PAH, Ex.  PAB/1  and  Ex.  PC.  The  accused  also tendered in  evidence the letter (Ex. DA) dated November 14, 1971 written by Som Krishan to Sumitra.      As already  mentioned, Rama  Nand accused  has admitted that the letters (Ex. PAJ, PAH, PAB/1 and P.C.) were written by him.  Ex. PAJ  purports to  have been written by him from village Jherwin  on October  14, 1971.  In this letter, Rama Nand very clearly informed his father-in-law that his father Shish Ram was not in favour of Sumitra taking up service and residing away  from the  accused’s house at Jherwin. In this letter, Rama  Nand urged  his father-in-law  that the latter should either come to Jherwin along with Sumitra or send her alone.  This   letter  also   indicates  that   Sumitra  was persisting in taking up service elsewhere against the wishes of the accused persons.      Chronologically,  the  next  letter  is  Ex.  DA  dated November 14,  1971. It  is addressed  by Som  Krishan to his daughter, Sumitra.  In this  letter, the  father informs the daughter that he had obtained her appointment letter and she would be  required to  join by the 17th to start the Nursing School at  Balwari. He  wanted her  to come  to his house to take up  the appointment. In this letter, he also wishes her daughter to  convey to  Rama Nand appellant and his brother, Kesar Chand  (acquitted accused)  that they  should agree to Sumitra’s taking  up this  employment and  that they  should

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

further bring round Shish Ram by reminding him that they had earlier consented  to her  taking up  Service.  This  letter further indicates  that Sumitra  was much distressed because of the  hostile attitude adopted by her in-laws towards her. To console her, the father wrote: "Don’t worry. Whatever God does is  good. Have self-confidence and do not repent on any failure".      8. The  third letter,  dated December  13,  1971,  (Ex. PAH), written  by Rama  Nand  to  Sumitra,  shows  that  the opposition of the appellant, 454 his father  Shish Ram  and brothers  to Sumitra’s  taking up service away  from the matrimonial home, had passed from the serious to  the sardonic  stage. It  starts with  the words: "Wish you  happy luxury  !" Read in accord with the tenor of the letter,  it conveys a biting ironical taunt. These words were capable  of being  construed as  conveying an  innuendo that she was merry-making de-hors the matrimonial home in an extra-marital way.  May be,  the appellant  was doubting her fidelity. He  informs her that he had visited Jherwin in the hope that  he would  join her  there, but  this hope did not materialise. He  complains against  this attitude of neglect on the  part of  his wife  when he says: "Today you have not seen to  my condition, and have defamed me. To whom should I blame ? It is the wind and to which side it blows it must do something. I  was thinking to save (you) from this wind." He further reproaches and upbraids her: "You did not think over it seriously  and you  did not  care for  it nor others. You have taken  it as  a prestige issue. I cannot do anything so long I am not heartily happy and I weep to my fate." He then warns her  in a  contemptuous and peremptory tone: "It would be better  that you should resign your job now and come down here .  .. If  you intend to reside with me, then you should agree to  my words....otherwise it will be a dog’s life. You should either come to this place or to village Jherwin after resigning the  job and  from there  you may come to Simla on any day.  As you know, a friend in need is a friend in-deed. When this  is lost,  one cannot take the shelter of others." He reminds  her that  her marriage  had been solemnised with him. "To do service entirely depends upon you and me and not upon (your)  father... It  is time to resign the Service..." He repeats:  "It  is  against  the  respect  of  my  family, yourself and  myself that  I should  allow you to serve at a monthly pay of Rs. 120/- and only for a tenure of six months and myself  to stay  at Simla  in the  Hotel."  He  then  in stronger language  demanded her  to resign her job within 24 hours and  come to  his house direct without waiting for her resignation to  be accepted.  He closes  the letter  with an ominous threat  veiled as  a warning:  "If you do not resign the job, our relations will become strained."      In the  next letter  (Ex. PC), dated December 16, 1971, Rama Nand  wrote to  Sumitra that  he did not understand why she did not "improve his (?) life’ and why she was acting at the beck  and call  of others. He urged her that it would be better to  ’live for a more’. He added: "You obey me or not, you yourself  will understand  the significance of this when you give  place to it in your mind". He sternly repeated the warning: "I  once again  request you to keep in mind your as also my  honour, what  you have to do, as the time has come. There is  no example  in the  history of  world that  a girl after marriage 455 should act  on the  advice  of  her  father,  which  may  be harmful." He again urged her: "Do not think this letter as a mere piece  of paper,  but each  and every  line in  it will

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

decide our future career...... you should resign your post." He again  administered a  warning, coupled  with a threat of resorting to  violence in case she did not resign her job to live with  the accused  permanently:  "The  present  is  the condition of China’s wall as Lt. General Mr. Kaul was saying that on  China Border  there is  no firing,  no  firing,  no firing. But  what was  the  result  in  the  end,  you  know better............ If  you honour me, your husband, then you should tender  your resignation  from the job forthwith". He further sternly warned her: "If you still do not come round, what  would   happen  in   future,  will  entirely  be  your responsibility and  I may  not be blamed for that". He ended the letter with a hostile note, repeating the threat: "I may write, what  will happen in future. Entire responsibility of future solely  depends upon  you. It is the question of life and not  of service.....  This is  time of  your test. Reply this letter."  The sentence, ’It is the question of life and not of  service’ read in the context, clearly conveys to the wife a threat that the choice open to her was between ’life’ and ’service’,  that is  to say, she would not be left alive if  she   did  not   give  up  the  ’service’.  This  letter unmistakably reveals  that Rama Nand had worked his feelings at his wife’s persistent refusal to give up service and live with him,  into such a frenzied resolve that if his wife did not, as  he desired,  ’mend’ her  ways, he  would ’end’  her life.      Even after  this letter,  there appears to have been no alleviation or  change in  this revengeful  attitude of  the husband towards  his wife.  This is  discernible  from  Rama Nand’s last letter dated  May 9, 1972 (Ex. PAB) addressed to Sumitra. In  this letter also, he cannot conceal his feeling of being "sick of you". He writes, "...... the difference in views can  make life  troubleful or as well can lead towards downfall as  I already  told you", that "to deceive any true person can only be a sin and nothing else". He appears to be giving her  a last  warning, a last chance to come round and come home  when he  writes that  "time is short I will again request you  that if  you try  to come  home on Saturday, it will be  good .... I do not feel good.... you definitely try to come, if you cannot come on Saturday then come on Sunday, otherwise...."      These letters  vividly reveal that despite the repeated persuasions, warnings  and threats proceeding from Rama Nand accused, Sumitra  intransigently and persistently refused to give up  her service  at Chanyana,  and residence  with  her parents, and  declined to  come and  live permanently in the matrimonial home  at Jherwin,  and  as  a  result,  how  the husband’s  feelings   of   tenderness   towards   his   wife progressively 456 changing  into   regret,  persecution  complex,  resentment, exasperation and  smouldering hostility, ultimately hardened into a  revengeful resolve  in the  mind of Rama Nand to end what he  calls "a  dog’s life" by putting an end to the life of his  spouse. We  agree with  the High  Court  that  these letters reveal  that Rama Nand appellant had a strong motive to murder the deceased.      The second  circumstance was  also well established. It had been  admitted even by the appellant and his co-accused. The courts  below have  found, and rightly so, that both the limbs of  circumstance No.  (3) had also been established by evidence produced by the prosecution. Som Krishan (P.W. 33), father of  Sumitra, had  testified  that  when  he  went  to Jherwin on  receiving a  message from  the accused about the disappearance of  his daughter, he was shown the Salwar (Ex.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

P-14) and  shoes (Ex.  P-15/1-2) and told that these clothes were left  behind on  the bank  of the Sutlej river when she disappeared. P.W.  33 further stated that this shabby Salwar (Ex. P-14)  which had  patches on  it,  did  not  belong  to Sumitra and  she never  wore such a Salwar; nor did the pair of  shoes   (Ex.  P-15)  belong  to  her.  P.W.  33  further testified: "Then  Rama  Nand,  Shish  Ram  and  Kesar  Chand accused implored  me that  they may  be  saved  from  police remand. To  this I  said that  I was not conversant with law but you  may tell  the truth". This testimony of P.W. 33 has been accepted by the courts below. We have no reason to take a different view.      As rightly  held by  the courts  below  Sumitra  was  a sophisticated and educated girl. It was difficult to believe that she  would do chilly plantation and wear such a patched and dirty  Salwar as  Ex. P-14.  The very story given out by the accused  persons and  narrated   by  Shish  Ram  in  the report (Ex.  PAQ) made by him to the Police, and repeated by him and  Rama Nand  in their  examination under Section 342, Cr. P.C.,  to effect-that  Sumitra had  after undressing and leaving behind her shoes (Ex. P-15) and Salwar (Ex. P-14) on the bank  of the  Sutlej, committed  suicide by jumping into the  river-was   improbable,  incredible  and  false.  Thus, circumstance 3(a) and (b) had also been clearly and cogently established. This  piece  of  evidence  was  relevant  under Section 8,  Evidence Act  and was a definite pointer towards the guilt  of the accused. Circumstance (4) appearing in the prosecution evidence,  was admitted  by the accused persons. Circumstance (5)  also stood  established. Though  a  feeble pointer towards  the guilt  of the accused, by itself it was not of  a conclusive  character. Circumstance  (6) has  been seriously controverted.  The burden  of the arguments of the learned counsel  for the  appellants is that the prosecution had  miserably   failed  to   establish  that   the  legless decomposed 457 body found  in the  river was  that of  Smt. Sumitra, and in such a  situation, the possibility of her being alive cannot be reasonably ruled out.      Although  the   High  Court  has  held  that  the  body recovered was  that of  Sumitra deceased  and that the bones sent to the medical experts were not parts of the decomposed body found,  but appeared to have been fraudulently replaced with the bones of a child during transmission to the medical experts, we would assume that the identity of the body found in the river was not established beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, we would take it that the corpus delicti, i.e., the dead-body  of the victim was not found in this case. But even on  that assumption,  the question  remains whether the other circumstances established on record were sufficient to lead to  the conclusion  that within  all human probability, she had  been murdered  by Rama  Nand appellant ? It is true that one  of the  essential ingredients  of the  offence  of culpable homicide  required to  be proved by the prosecution is that the accused "caused the death" of the person alleged to have been killed.      This means  that  before  seeking  to  prove  that  the accused is  the  perpetrator  of  the  murder,  it  must  be established  that   homicidal   death   has   been   caused. Ordinarily, the recovery of the dead-body of the victim or a vital part  of it,  bearing marks of violence, is sufficient proof of  homicidal death  of the  victim. There  was a time when under  the old  English Law, the finding of the body of the deceased  was held  to be  essential before a person was convicted of  committing his  culpable  homicide.  "I  would

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12  

never convict", said Sir Mathew Hale, "a person of murder or manslaughter unless  the fact  were proved to be done, or at least the  body was  found dead".  This was merely a rule of caution, and  not of  law. But in those times when execution was the only punishment for murder, the need for adhering to this cautionary rule was greater. Discovery of the dead-body of the  victim bearing  physical evidence  of violence,  has never been considered as the only mode of proving the corpus delicti in  murder. Indeed,  very many  cases are  of such a nature where  the  discovery of the dead-body is impossible. A blind adherence to this old "body" doctrine would open the door wide  open for  many a  heinous murderer to escape with impunity simply  because they were cunning and clever enough to destroy  the body  of their victim. In the context of our law, Hale’s  enunciation has  to be interpreted no more than emphasising that  where the  dead-body of  the victim  in  a murder case  is not  found, other  cogent  and  satisfactory proof of  homicidal death  of the  victim must be adduced by the prosecution. Such proof may be by the direct ocular 458 account of an eye-witness, or by circumstantial evidence, or by  both.  But  where  the  fact  of  corpus  delicti,  i.e. ’homicidal  death’   is  sought   to   be   established   by circumstantial evidence  alone, the circumstances must be of a clinching  and definitive  character unerringly leading to the inference  that the victim concerned has met a homicidal death. Even  so, this  principle of caution cannot be pushed too far as requiring absolute proof. Perfect proof is seldom to be had in this imperfect world, and absolute certainty is a myth. That is why under Section 3, Evidence Act, a fact is said to  be "proved",  if the  Court considering the matters before it,  considers  its  existence  so  probable  that  a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case to  act upon the supposition that it exists. The corpus delicti or  the fact  of homicidal  death, therefore, can be proved  by   telling  and  inculpating  circumstances  which definitely lead  to the  conclusion that  within  all  human probability, the  victim has  been murdered  by the  accused concerned. In the instant case, Circumstances (1) to (5), in their cumulative  effect, are not only inconsistent with the innocence  of  Rama  Nand  appellant,  but  ineluctably  and rationally compel  the conclusion  that Sumitra has died and it is  Rama Nand  appellant who has intentionally caused her death. Circumstance  (3) involves  an admission by Rama Nand and Shish  Ram accused  that Sumitra  has met  an  unnatural death. The  only difference  between the prosecution version and the  defence version  is as to whether Sumitra committed suicide or  had been  killed by  Rama Nand appellant. It has been found  that the  story of  the suicide  set up  by  the accused is  false. The  articles Salwar  (Ex. P.14)  and the shoes (Ex.  P-15) do not belong to her. They were planted by the accused  to lay  a false  trail and  to  mis-direct  the investigation. This  circumstance taken  in conjunction with the  others,   irresistibly  and  rationally  leads  to  the conclusion that she has been murdered by Rama Nand appellant and her  dead body  has been  disposed of  by the appellants Shish Ram and Kali Datt.      For the  foregoing reasons,  we dismiss this appeal and maintain the convictions and sentences of the appellants. S.R.                                       Appeal dismissed. 459