VIRBHAN SINGH AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 600

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI

Case summary

The Sess"ions Judge'found, on a careful and analytical consideration of the evidence, all the accused guilty, convicted them under Section 302 I.

Judgment text

VIRBHAN SINGH AND ANR. . ' v. . / STATE OF U. P. August 12, 1983 [E. S. VENKATARAMIAH AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ. ] Evidence-Circun1stantial evidence-Several circumstances supported by medi"cal evidenc. J lead to the only conclusion that the deceased was murdered in a most brutal andheinpus fashion and then hung by rope by the accused so as to give an appearance of a case of suicide-Conviction and sentence for the offence ofmurder shauld be confirmed. For the offence of inurde; of Smt. Gyani, her husband Virbhan Singh his mother Smt. Gyani Devi (both appellants before the Supreme Court) alongwith his father Sileti Singh were arraigned before the Sessions Judge, Etawah, u/s. · 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution the motive was the selfish ani1nal nature in the husband and his parents which has· come out in the form of their determination that the husband.

should remarry after doing away with the obstacle in the shape of his existing wife on the sole ground that she was inauspicious due to the fact that she did not bear children for four or five years after the marriage and that even though thereafter she cone eived. twice and successfully'. gave birth to two n1ale babies, both those babies did not survive beyond a few weeks or days. The further ev~dence . of the prosecution were that the accused assaulted the deceased and then hung her with a rope to give the imp~ession of suicide, did not inform anyone and kept the body in the room, that an attempt made by Sileti Singh to remove the body in a Jorry failed, that when P. W. l, the sister of the deceased went alongwith P. W. 4 her brothef-in-law to see the deceased on the 14th of August, 1968, the husband and the mother told a lie that the deceased ·had gone out to get medicine, that again on the 15th August, 1968 after P. W,l's repeated insistence.

the dead body was shown to her in a decomposed condition, t~at Sileti Singh only thereafter lodged a report at the police station Jawaharnagar to t_he effect that thedeceased committed Suicide which version was accepted by the Police and the Panchas; that on the insistance of P. W. 1, the dead body was sent for postmortem, that the postmortem revealed (a) five ante-mortem injuries including the brCakage of the right side hyoid bOne under the ligature niark, (b) death should have taken place between 5. 30 P. M. on August 13th. 1963 and 5,30 A. M. on August 14th, 1968, (c) death was· due to shock and haemorrhage a5 a resnlt of injury to liver aud ston1ach as well as asphyxia due to hanging and (d) in view of the antemortem injuries found, there was littl~ possibility of the deceased hanging herself. The Sess"ions Judge'found, on a careful and analytical consideration of the evidence, all the accused guilty, convicted them under Section 302 I. P. C.

and sentenced the tl~ree of thCm to: Jife impri&onment. In the appeal filed the Vli>. iiitAN SINGH I>. tl. P. 601 High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the present appellants and acquitted· Sileti Singh; the father. There was no appeal by the State against the acquittal. Dismissing the appel, the Court HELD : 1 : 1. The conviction and senctence of the appellant$ are perfectly correct and sound, as they are guilt of the murder of the deceased in n a brutal and heinous fashion. l : 2. The-case no doubt turns purely on circllmstantial evidence. But the circumstances are so telling that the on! y conclusion reasonably possible is the one arrived at by the courts below that the deceased. did not commit suicide by hanging hereself hilt was done to death by being brutally assaulted and thereafter hung by the neck with a rope. The medical evidence clearly goes tO prove that it would hot have heen possible for the deceased·, 'who.

had sustained severe injuries of the _type and nature decribed in the post-mortem report in the stomach and liver, to hang herself. The husband, Virbhan Singh and his mother, Smt. Gya~i Devi, were throughout present in the house and nq outsider had come to the house at ihe relevant time. According to the opinion of the doctor, the latest point of time at which the death of the deceased could have taken place was 5,30 a. m. on-14. 3. 1968 but even on the evening of that day when P. W. l, Shrimati Ram Kumari, sister of the deceased Went to their house and enquired for the deceased, she was Jold by _Virbhan_ Singh and his mother that the deceased had gorie out with the father-in-law for getting some •. """ J medicip. e. On the next da)' (15th August, 1968) rumours spread in the village that the deceased had been done to death and it was only when P. W. 1 accompanied by her brother-in-law, P. W.

4 went to the house of the accused and insisted on being shown the body that she was finally allowed to see the dead body of her sister which, by then, was already in a state of decomposition. Significantly, it is only subsequent thereto that Sileti Singh went to the police Station and lodged the report stating that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging. The conduct of the appeUants is consistent only with their active involvement in the commission of the crime. It has come out in the evidence that on the evening of the 14th August 1968 at ·about 7. 30 or 8. 00 p·. m. Si! eti Singh had made attempts to remove clandestinely the dead body froffi the locality for which purpose he had met Brahma Nand (P. W. 3), a trlick owner, and unsuccessfully tried to hire his true~ to transport the dead bOdy.

{605 G·H, 606 A·EJ Observations (i) If society should be ridden of this growing evil, it is imperative that whenever dastardly crimes of this nature are detected and the offence brought home to the accused, the courts must deal with the offender most ruthlessly and impose deterrent punishment. [602 ·E] (i. i) Most strangely, in spite of the body being in a fairly advanced· state of decomposition, thereby clearly indicating that the death had taken place a long time prior to. the report given by Sileti Singh, which should have norm dominal cavity was f1,1U of blood weighing about It lbs. There VIRBHAN SINGH v. U. P. (Balakrishna Eradi, J. ) 605 was a big tear 6' long in the stomach. The abdominal walls were congested. There was a lacerated wound 3" x·i" on the front of left lobe of the liver. Both kidneys were congested and decomposing. Both sides of her heart were empty. Larynx was congested deeply. Both lungs were deeply congested and deeply decomposing.

The large vessels were co~gested in the neck on both sides. In the opinion of the doctor, the· death was due to shock and haemorrhage as result ·of injury to liver and stomach as well as asphyxia due to hanging. The doctor, on being examined as a witness, stated categorically that in view of the injuries mentioned in poSt'mortem report, there waslittle possibility of the deceased hanging herself. °The sessions Judge found, on a careful and analytical consideration of the evidence, that the death of the deceased was caused as result of the injuries inflicted on her by the accused, followed by asphyxiation resulting from the deceased having been hung by her neck by the accused. He found all the acQused -guility of the offence of murder, convicted them u/s 302 I. P. C. and sentenced the three _of them to undergo imprisonment for life.

in the appeal filed by the three accused, the Hjgh Court confirmed the finding that the case was · not one o(suicide but one of calculated murder, the hanging by rope { being part of the process of the deceased being put to death by her assailants. The High Court, however, took the view that the presence of Sileti Singh at the time of the commission of offence was not established beyond doubt and hence it acquitted him giving him the benefit of doubt. The . conviction of Virbhan Singh and his mother, Smt. Gyani Devi, u/s 302 I. P. C. was confirmed by the High Court. This appeal has been preferred by ,the afore-mentioned· two accused. 'We find no merit at all in the appeal. Since we are in complete agreement with the findings entered by the Sessions Judge and the High Court regarding the cause of the death of the deceased and the manner in which she was done to death, it is . unnecessary for us to burden this judgment with a repetition of the details of the evidence.

The case no doubt turns purely on circumstantial evidence. But the circumstances are so telling that the only conclusion reasonabiy possible is the one arrived at by the courts below that the deceased _) ·H did not commit suicide by hanging herself but was done to death by l)ein¥ brutually assaulted an~ . thereafter hun9 hr the neclc wjth (1983} 3 s. c. R. a rope. The medical evidence clearly goes to prove that it would not have been possible for the deceased, who had sustained severe injuries of the type and ·nature described in the post-mortem report in the stomach and liver, to hang herself. The husband, Virbhan .... Singh and his mother, Smt. Gyani Devi, were throughout present in the house and no outsider had come to the house at the relevant time. According to the opinion of the doctor, the latest point of time at which the death of the deceased could have taken place was 5. 30 a. m. · on 14-8-1968 but even on the evenirig· of that day when P. W.

1, Shrimati Ram Kumari, sister of the deceased went to their house and enquired for ttie deceased, she was told by Virbhan Singh and his mother that the deceased had gone out with the father-in-Jaw for getting some medicine. On the next day {15th August 1968) rumours spread in the village that the deceased had been done to death and it was only when P. W. I accompanied by her brother-in-law, P. W 4 went to the house of the accused and insisted on being shown the body that she was finally allowed to see the dead body of her sister which, by then, was already in a state of decomposition. Significantly, it is only subsequent thereto that Sileti Singh went to the Police Station and lodged the report stating that the deceased had commit· ted suicide by hanging. The conduct of the appellants is consistent only with their active involvement in 'the commission of the crime. It has come out in the evidence that on the evening of the 14th August 1968 at about 7. 30 or 8. 00 p. m.

Sileti Singh had made attempts to remove clandestinely the dead . body from the locality for which purpose he had met Brahma Nand (P. W. 3), a truck owner, and unsuccessfully tried to hire his truek to transport the dead body. On a scrutiny of the evidence, we are fully satisfied that the conclusion recorded by the learned Sessions Judge and by the High Court, that the appellants are guilty of the. murder of the deceased in a most brutai and heinous fashion, is perfectly . correct and sound. We may observe that the reasons stated by the High Court in acquitting Sileti Singh, by giving him the benefit of doubt, have not appealed to us as sound and Convincing but since the State has not preferred an · appeal, his acqittal will stand. In the result, the conviction and sentence are confirmed in respect of Virbhan Singh and Smt. Gyani Devi and this appeal is dismissed.

The appellants will forthwith surrender to their bail bonds and will be taken into the custody to serve out their sentence. . ( S. R. Appeal dismissed.