REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.683 OF 2009

Ranjeet Singh @ Dara                         … Appellant

VERSUS

State of Madhya Pradesh                    …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

1. This appeal is against the final Judgment and order of  

the  High  Court  of  Madhya  Pradesh,  Bench  at  Indore,  in  

Criminal Appeal No: 469/2000 wherein the order of conviction  

of the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302  

IPC,  passed by  the  Special  Judge  (S.C & S.T  Prevention  of  

Atrocities)  and  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Indore  has  been  

confirmed.

1

2. The  deceased  Jayawati  was  the  second  wife  of  Machi  

Singh. The prosecution version of the tragic episode, leading to  

the death (murder) of Jayawati (hereinafter referred to as the  

deceased) has been primarily narrated by Hukum Singh (PW  

11). He is the son of Machi Singh and the deceased. The first  

wife  of  Machi  Singh,  Kaushalya Devi  had given birth  to  13  

children. She had produced 8 sons, namely, Surendra Singh,  

Narendra Singh, Balwant Singh, Nanak Singh, Ranjit Singh @  

Dara (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), Jasbir Singh,  

Santosh Singh, Trilochan  Singh (PW 12), and five daughters.  

3. The  deceased  Jayawati  used  to  reside  with  her  son  

Hukam Singh (PW 11) at A.H. Sukalya Road on the first floor.  

Trilochan Singh @ Lucky (PW 12) used to reside on the ground  

floor with his wife Surendra Kaur @ Poli (PW 1). The appellant  

was a regular visitor at the house situated at Sukalya. On the  

morning  of  6/9/97,  the  appellant  had gone  to  Indore  from  

Bhopal by car and reached the house at around 11:30 am. He  

came in to visit, after parking the car outside. On the same  

2

day Jayawati was found dead in the same house around 2 to 3  

pm.  

4. It is further the case of the prosecution that one Ranjeet  

Singh  had  telephonically  informed  that  someone  had  

committed a murder at house NO: A.H. 37 Sukalya, and that  

the accused had been caught and detained. This information  

was recorded by Brijesh Mishra (PW13),SHO, in the General  

Diary at Serial No: 357 (Ex P/19 – C at 14:50 hours). The SHO  

then proceeded along with Constable Balkishan (PW8) to the  

house in question. On reaching the house when he went to the  

first floor, he found that the door was closed from inside. He  

asked the person inside to open the door. When the door was  

opened by the appellant from inside, he had a blood stained  

sword in his hand. His hands were soiled in blood. There were  

also stains of blood on the door. Jayawati was lying on the  

double bed and her body was smudged with blood. Trilochan  

Singh @ Lucky (PW 12) then asked the accused “Dara, what  

have you done?” The appellant replied that “I have done the  

right  thing  –  you  shut  up  and  go  away  from  here.”  SHO,  

3

Brijesh Mishra (PW 13) persuaded the accused to hand over  

his sword and it was laid down on the floor by him. Constable  

Balkishan (PW 8) was deputed to stand guard.

5. Soon the senior officials of the Police, on being apprised  

of  the  incident,  also  arrived  at  the  scene  of  the  murder.  

Hukum Singh (PW 11) gave report Ex P/16 in writing and on  

the basis thereof Dehati Nalish P/17 was recorded. Summons  

were issued for  holding inquest  and inquest  report  Ex.  P/8  

was prepared. PW8 was entrusted with the duty of taking the  

dead body of Jayawati  for post mortem examination. At the  

instance of Trilochan Singh (PW 12) spot map Ex P/20 was  

prepared.  In  the  presence  of  Rajesh  Dubey  (PW  3)  and  

Nanuram (PW 4), the sword was seized from the floor, one gold  

“bala” lying near the leg of the deceased., the cotton in which  

the blood was collected, simple cotton, the sheath of the sword  

lying behind the door, the blood stained bed sheets and pillow  

cover were seized vide Ex. P/13.  Accused was arrested under  

Memo Ex P/6. His clothes namely shirt, jeans, shoes and the  

blood  removed  from  his  hands  were  seized  vide  Ex  P/4.  

4

Accused was taken to Police Station Heeranagar and case No:  

165/97 under Section 302 IPC was registered vide Ex P/21.  

Accused  was  also  sent  for  medical  examination  by  issuing  

medical form Ex P/22.  

6. By order dated 7/3/2000, the Trial Court convicted the  

appellant  herein  for  the  offences  punishable  under  Section  

302  IPC  and  sentenced  him  to  imprisonment  for  life  and  

imposed a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of which he had to  

further  undergo  rigorous  imprisonment  for  one  year.  

Challenging the aforesaid judgment, the appellant herein filed  

Criminal  Appeal  No:  469  of  2000  before  the  High  Court  of  

Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore. The High Court vide order  

dated  13/3/2006  confirmed  the  conviction  of  the  accused  

under Section 302 IPC. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the  

appellant herein has filed the present appeal before this Court.

7. We have heard Mr. K.T.S Tulsi, learned Senior Advocate  

for  the  appellant  and  Mr.  C.D.  Singh  on  behalf  of  the  

respondent-State.

5

8. After taking us through the relevant materials relied on  

by  the  prosecution,  Mr  K.T.S  Tulsi,  learned  Senior  

Advocate submitted that initially Machi Singh, father of  

the appellant, had been made the accused. According to  

Mr.Tulsi,  this  is  a  case  of  false  implication.  The  real  

culprit, possibly Machi Singh is sought to be shielded. He  

then set out the sequence of events which according to  

him  would  make  it  atleast  very  doubtful,  if  not  

impossible,  for  the murder to have been committed by  

the appellant. He submits that in this case, the FIR had  

been recorded at 7.00 p.m. However, the first document  

mentioning the details of the incident is the inspection  

report  of  Dr.  Sudhir  Sharma (PW10).  Both  the  Courts  

below  have  illegally  discarded  the  evidence  of  this  

witness. Mr.Tulsi emphasized that PW13 Brijesh Mishra,  

SHO, who was the Investigating Officer did not conduct  

the spot inspection according to the directions issued by  

PW10.  Investigation  in  this  case  being  incomplete,  no  

reliance could have been placed on the evidence of PW13.  

6

Learned senior counsel  further emphasized that at  the  

time  of  the  murder,  the  appellant  was  already  in  the  

custody  of  the  police.  He  had  been  sent  for  medical  

examination  to  Dr.R.C.Choudhary.  On  medical  

examination,  this  witness  had  recorded  the  time  of  

examination at 11.45 hrs. The appellant had suffered five  

injuries on his hands. According to Mr.Tulsi, the nature  

of the injuries would make it impossible for the appellant  

to wield a sword, to inflict the kind of injuries that were  

found  on  the  deceased.  According  to  Mr.Tulsi,  the  

registration of the FIR was deliberately delayed in order  

to  shield  the  real  culprit.  Learned  senior  counsel  

submitted that obviously the delay had occurred whilst  

the  concerned  individuals  were  trying  to  concoct  a  

plausible version to protect the real assailant. Apart from  

the  delayed  registration  of  the  FIR,  there  is  no  

explanation as to why a copy of the FIR was not sent to  

the  Magistrate  for  the  next  five  days.  This  could  be  

sufficient  to  discredit  the  version  of  the  prosecution.  

According  to  Mr.Tulsi,  the  inherent  weaknesses  in  the  

7

prosecution case have been totally ignored by both the  

courts below. The benefit of these shortcomings ought to  

have  been  given  to  the  appellant.  In  support  of  his  

submissions, learned counsel relied on the judgments in  

the cases of Rangaiah Vs. State of Karnataka [(2008)  

16 SCC 737],  Ghurey lal  Vs. State of U.P [(2008) 10  

SCC  450],  and  Abdulwahab  Abdulmajid  Baloch  Vs.  

State of Gujrat [(2009) 11 SCC 625]. With regard to the  

effect  of  delayed receipt  of  the  copy of  the  FIR by the  

Magistrate,  learned counsel  relied  on  Budh Singh  Vs.  

State  of  U.P  [(2006)  9  SCC  731] and  Rajeevan  Vs.  

State of Kerala [(2003) 3 SCC 355].

9. Learned counsel for the State, however, submitted that  

both the courts below have held that the delay in sending the  

copy of the FIR has not caused any prejudice to the appellant.  

Both the courts below have found that sufficient explanation  

has been given about the delay by PW 13. In any event, the  

delay in sending the copy of  the FIR would not in itself  be  

sufficient to discard the entire prosecution evidence. Learned  

8

counsel also relied on  Dharamver & ors.  Vs. State of U.P  

[(2010)  4  SCC  469],  Rabindra  Mahto  Vs. State  of  

Jharkhand  [(2006)  10  SCC  432] and  Aqeel  Ahmed  Vs.  

State of U.P [(2008) 16 SCC 372]. Learned counsel further  

submitted that the appellant in this case had a clear motive to  

commit the crime. He was apprehensive that the father may  

favour the illegitimate son PW11 over the legitimate sons. The  

plea with regard to the real murderer being shielded is just to  

protect the appellant, who was caught red handed. His hands  

as well as the sword were covered in blood. He had suffered  

injuries by sword whilst committing the murder. According to  

the learned counsel, reliance on Ex.D5 is falsified by Ex.P22.  

Therefore, Ex.D5 has been rightly discarded by the trial court  

as  well  as  the  High  Court.  Ex.P22  clearly  shows  that  the  

appellant has been sent for medical examination after arrest  

because he had suffered injuries  with sword.  The aforesaid  

fact is clearly adverted to by PW 13 in his deposition.

10. We  have  considered  the  submissions  made  by  the  

learned counsel for the parties.

9

11. Undoubtedly, in this case there is no eye-witness account  

of  the  murder.  The  prosecution  has  relied  heavily  on  the  

circumstantial evidence. Both the courts below have examined  

the  entire  evidence  with  great  care  and  caution  and  have  

reached the conclusion that the murder has been committed  

by none other than the appellant herein. The approach of the  

courts  below  is  in  consonance  with  the  well  established  

principles, in matters where the prosecution case is based only  

or  primarily  on  circumstantial  evidence.  Laying  down  the  

principles in such cases, this court in the case of Hanumant  

Govind  Nargundkar  Vs. State  of  M.P.,[1952  SCR  1091]   

observed as follows:-  

“It  is  well  to  remember  that  in  cases  where the evidence is of a circumstantial  nature,  the  circumstances  from  which  the  conclusion  of  guilt  is  to  be  drawn  should  in  the  first  instance  be  fully  established,  and  all  the  facts  so  established  should  be  consistent  only  with  the  hypothesis  of  the  guilt  of  the  accused.  Again,  the  circumstances  should  be  of  a  conclusive  nature  and  tendency and they should be such as to  exclude  every  hypothesis  but  the  one  proposed  to  be  proved.  In  other  words,  there must be a chain of evidence so far  complete as not to leave any reasonable  ground for  a conclusion consistent  with  the innocence of the accused and it must  be such as to show that within all human  

10

probability the act must have been done  by the accused.”

12. Mr.Tulsi has sought to project that the real culprit in this  

case is  being shielded. He has suggested that possibly it  is  

Machi  Singh  who  had  committed  the  murder.  The  only  

evidence linking Machi Singh with a crime is the mention of  

his name by Dr.Sudhir Sharma (PW 10) in the report Ex.P14.  

This report itself indicates that it is based on the information  

received. However, the author has failed to specify the source  

of information, although at one stage, it was stated by PW-10  

that he had talked to the Investigating Officer (PW13). There  

is, however, no confirmation of this fact by the Investigating  

Officer. Thus, the High Court declined to give any credence to  

the suggestion that name of Machi Singh had been correctly  

recorded  in  the  report  Ex.P14.  Both  the  courts  below have  

concluded that the name of Machi Singh may have been the  

result of confusion in the mind of Dr.Sudhir Sharma (PW10).  

The  conclusion  reached  by  both  the  courts  below  on  due  

11

appreciation of the evidence of these two witnesses cannot be  

said to be either unjustified or perverse.

13. On  the  other  hand,  there  is  oral,  medical  and  

documentary evidence, which would undoubtedly connect the  

appellant with the murder. The appellant was the step son of  

the deceased. She was living on the first  floor of the house  

owned  by  Machi  Singh.  The  ground  floor  was  occupied  by  

Tarlochan Singh and his wife, Surinder Kaur, who appeared  

as PW1. She has testified that appellant lives in Bhopal. He  

had come to Indore in the morning of 6/9/1997. His car was  

parked  outside  the  house.  She  had  met  the  appellant  and  

asked if he wanted to have a meal. He had, however, stated  

that he will have the meal along with her husband Tarlochan  

Singh, PW12. Thereafter, she went into her room. After about  

10-15 minutes, Kiran (PW 9), her maid came and told her that  

she had heard screams coming from the room of Jaya aunty.  

Kiran also stated that appellant lives in Bhopal, he comes to  

Indore quite often. She also corroborated the fact that he was  

in the house at the time of the murder. PW-11 stated that on  

12

the day of the murder, he wanted to go and see a movie. He  

left the house around 1.30 p.m to tell his friend to get ready.  

He then came back to the house at about 2.30/2.45 p.m.to  

take some money for the movie, from his mother. Therefore, he  

went upstairs to her room. He heard the voice of the appellant  

from inside the room. It appeared to him, that he was talking  

to  some  one  on  the  telephone.  The  room was  locked  from  

inside.  He knocked at  the  door and asked the  appellant  to  

open  the  door  so  that  he  could  talk  to  his  mother.  The  

appellant told him, “you go for now – I want to talk to Jaya”.  

He was told by the appellant  that the deceased was in the  

bathroom. He went out to the gallery and saw that there was  

no  body  in  the  bathroom.  He  again  came  and  asked  the  

appellant  to  open  the  door  of  the  room.  In the  meanwhile,  

Tarlochan Singh, PW 12 also reached there. He also tried to  

get the door opened. He even called out to the appellant. He  

was  also  told  to  go  away  by  the  appellant.  Ultimately,  the  

appellant shouted that he will  open the door only when the  

police arrives. In the meanwhile, the police arrived. On being  

satisfied with the identity of PW 13, the appellant opened the  

13

door.  He  stated  that  he  had  killed  the  deceased.  He  was  

holding a blood stained sword in his hand at  the time.  On  

directions  from  PW13,  he  had  put  the  sword  on  the  floor.  

Hukum Singh PW-11 then went inside the room and saw his  

mother lying on the bed covered in blood. The Dehati Nalish  

was recorded on the basis of the sequence of events narrated  

by him. Thereafter, FIR (P 21) was recorded. This witness was  

cross-examined  at  length.  Nothing  useful  could  be  elicited  

from him. The version given by PW 11 is consistent with the  

testimony of the Investigating Officer PW.13.

14. Apart  from  the  oral  evidence,  the  post-mortem  report  

Ex.P-11  makes  it  abundantly  clear  that  except  for  

injuries  No.  2,  3  and  4,  all  the  injuries  found on  the  

deceased were incised wounds. The post mortem report  

of Dr.P.C.Jain (PW5) indicates the following injuries on  

the body of the deceased:-  

14

1. Incised wound 3 x 2 x 0.5 c. transverse oblique  

in  direction  (tr.06)  on  upper  mid  point  of  

abdomen (9 cm above umbilicus).

2. Contused  abrasion  1.5  x  0.4  cm  on  left  

hypocondrium region.

3. Contused abrasion 3 x 1 cm on public region.

4. Abrasion 1 x 0.5 cm on public  region (3 cm  

below injury no.3).

5. Incised wound – Stab wound internally size 3.4  

cm x 2 cm on the  upper point  of  Abdomen.  

Vert. Oblique direction (Vt 06) present 17 cm  

below the ant. End of axillary fold internally it  

runs obliquely upwards passes through whole  

wideness  of  abdominal  wall  (lat  side),  both  

walls  of  stomach (through and through)  and  

makes cut  mark on Lt.  Lobe of  liver  (size  of  

wound is  1.3  x  0.4  x  3cm deep).  The whole  

abdominal  cavity  full  of  blood and very little  

food  particles  (semi  digested)  come out  from  

15

stomach  and  present  near  wounds  on  

stomach.

6. Incised wound 3 x 2 x 1 cm on lateral part of  

Lt. Inguinal region (vtl.06).

7. Incised wound – chopped size 4 x 2 x 0.3 cm.  

(ms deep) on Lt. Middle finger (dorsum aspect  

and near base Vgt. 06).

8. Incised wound – 4 x 2 x 0.3 cm. (ms deep) on  

Lt. Pain near base of thumb and index finger  

(Vt.06).

9. Incised wound – 2 x 0.5 x 0.2 cm (ms deep) on  

Lt.  Index  finger  (Tr.06)  mid part  and palmer  

aspect.

10. Incised  wound  2.5  x  1  x  0.3  cm  on  Lt.  

Forearm. Present 8 cm above the wrist joint on  

antro medial.

11. Incised wound 6 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm (upto skull  

deep) on Lt. Temporal area of head in sagital (2  

cm  above  the  Ltd.  Ear  pinna  and  runs  

posterior)

16

12. Incised wound 3 x 2 x 0.5 cm. on Lt. Buttock  

(upper and outer quadrant & vt. 06).

13. Incised wound 1.5 x 0.4 x skin deep present  

buttock (upper and outer quadrant).

14. Incised  wound  1  x  0.2  x  skin  deep  (4  cm  

above).

15. Incised wound 7 x 3 x 1 cm on Rt. Forearm  

present at 5 cm above the wrist joint on post  

media.

16. 4 Incised wound 4 x 2 cm chopped cut present  

Rt. Base of thumb and other three 1 cm x 4 cm  

type x skin deep on Rt. Hand of palmer aspect  

in one plane.

17. Incised  wound  5  x  2  x  0.3  cm  (ms.  Deep  

present  from  Rt.  Angle  of  mouth  and  runs  

laterally).   

15. All the aforesaid injuries could be caused with a sharp  

edged weapon such as a sword. Furthermore,  the appellant  

17

has failed to give any explanation for his presence in the room  

of the deceased. There is no explanation about the presence of  

blood stained sword in his hand. All the circumstances taken  

together clearly point towards the guilt of the appellant.

16. The appellant  had tried  to create a  defence by stating  

that he was already in the custody of the police at the time  

when the murder was committed. According to him, he had  

been  beaten  up  by  the  police  which  necessitated  medical  

examination. This, according to the appellant, was conducted  

by Dr.R.C.Chaudhury. He relied on Ex.D5 which had indicated  

that  the  appellant  had  been  examined  on  6.9.1997  in  the  

morning  at  11.30  a.m.  The  story  about  the  medical  

examination at 11.30 a.m. has been disbelieved by the trial  

court on the ground that since appellant had only arrived from  

Bhopal, a little before the murder, there is little likelihood of  

his being in the custody of police at 11.30 a.m. In any event,  

the entry with regard to the time of inspection being 11:30 am  

in the medical report (Injury Report) seems to be in different  

ink from the rest of the report. The High Court further noticed  

18

that Ex.D5 could not be relied upon as the author of the said  

report,  Dr.  R.C.Choudhary  was  never  examined.  The  report  

was produced in Court by DW1 who merely stated that the  

report had been written by Dr.Chaudhary. He had also stated  

that the report bears the signatures of Dr.Chaudhary. In our  

opinion, even this conclusion reached by courts below cannot  

be said to be either erroneous or perverse.

17. The aforesaid conclusions have been reached by both the  

courts below on the basis of due appreciation of the relevant  

material on record. No exceptional circumstances have been  

pointed  out  to  enable  this  Court  to  interfere  in  exercise  of  

jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. We  

may  also  notice  that  most  of  the  submissions  made  by  

Mr.Tulsi  were  in  the  realm  of  appreciation  of  evidence.  

Undoubtedly, the powers of this Court under Article 136 are  

very wide; the interference with concurrent findings of facts  

would  only  be  in  very  exceptional  circumstances.  The  

circumstances  in  which  this  Court  may  interfere  with  the  

concurrent findings have been broadly dealt with by this Court  

19

in  the  case  of  Ganga  Kumar  Srivastava  Vs. State  of  

Bihar,[(2005) 6 SCC 211]  wherein it was observed as follows:  

“10. From the aforesaid series of decisions of  this  Court  on  the  exercise  of  power  of  the  Supreme  Court  under  Article  136  of  the  Constitution following principles emerge:  (i) The powers of this Court under Article 136  of  the  Constitution  are  very  wide but  in  criminal appeals this Court does not interfere  with  the  concurrent  findings  of  fact  save  in  exceptional circumstances. (ii) It is open to this Court to interfere with the  findings of fact given by the High Court, if the  High Court has  acted perversely or otherwise   improperly. (iii) It is open to this Court to invoke the power  under  Article  136  only  in  very  exceptional   circumstances as and when a question of law  of  general  public  importance  arises  or  a  decision shocks the conscience of the Court. (iv)  When  the  evidence  adduced  by  the  prosecution  fell  short  of  the  test  of  reliability   and  acceptability and  as  such  it  is  highly  unsafe to act upon it. (v)  Where  the  appreciation  of  evidence  and  finding  is  vitiated  by  any  error  of  law  of  procedure or found contrary to the principles  of  natural  justice,  errors  of  record  and  misreading  of  the  evidence,  or  where  the  conclusions  of  the  High  Court  are  manifestly  perverse and unsupportable from the evidence  on record.”

20

18. We are  of  the  considered opinion that  the  case of  the  

appellant does not fall within the purview of the aforesaid ratio  

of law.  

19. Mr.Tulsi has tried to point out a number of discrepancies  

and contradictions between the evidence of PW-10, PW-11 and  

PW-13.  We  are  not  much  impressed  by  the  aforesaid  

submissions. The discrepancies have been noticed by both the  

courts below. It was held by both the courts below that the  

discrepancies  are  not  such  as  to  justify  discarding  the  

evidence led by the prosecution.

20. For  the  reasons  stated  above,  we  find  no  reason  to  

interfere with the well  reasoned judgments of the trial court  

and the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.  

                                             …………………………...J. [B.Sudershan Reddy]

21

New Delhi; …………………………….J. September 20, 2010. [Surinder Singh Nijjar]  

22