# 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 901 SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE THR. CBI

- **Citation:** [2010] 13 S.C.R. 901
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2010-10-06
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2007
- **Bench:** Harjit Singh Bedi, Chandramauli Kr. Prasad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/13-addl-s-c-r-901-santosh-kumar-singh-v-state-thr-cbi-26426
- **Pages:** 56

## Headnote

A
8
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 376, 302 - Conviction based on
circumstantial evidence - Victim found dead in her house with
C
19 injuries on her person with three broken ribs - Trial court
acquitted the accused holding that although few
circumstances were in favour of prosecution, however, DNA
report was not reliable and, therefore, case against the
accused was not proved beyond reasonable doubt - High o
Court9relying on the circumstantial evidence, convicted the
accused ulss. 302, 376 and awarded death sentence - On
appeal, held: Circumstances formed a chain so complete that
there was no escape from the conclusion that within all
probability the crime was committed by the accused - There
E
were oral evidence with regard to continuous stalking and
sexual harassment caused to the victim by accused - On the
day of incident also, accused was seen in her college and near
her house which constituted a strong chain in prosecution's
case - Helmet of accused seized from his house was
F
besmeared with spec of blood - Its visor was broken - Pieces
of visor were found near the dead body of the victim
besmeared with her blood -
Medical evidence clearly
supported the prosecution version that the fracture on right
hand of the accused was sustained during the course of the G
rape and murder - False plea of accused that fracture was
sustained 10 days prior to the incident was another link in the
chain - DNA test conducted on vaginal swabs and the blood
samples of appellant showed that rape was committed, and
that too by the accused - Plea that DNA report was not reliable
901
H
902
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A
as the vaginal swabs and slides taken from the dead body
were tampered with, was far fetched as there was no evidence
of tampering - Also, there was no doubt regarding the sanctity
of blood samples of the accused - In the light of evidence,
the order of conviction upheld - However, as regards the
B
sentence, balance sheet tilted marginally in favour of accused
- Crime was committed when accused was 24 years old -
After acquittal, he got married and was the father of a girl child
- Nothing to show that he would not reform - In the interest of
justice, sentence commuted to life imprisonment - Sentence/
c
Sentencing -
Criminal law - Evidence -
Circumstantial
evidence - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.313.
D
E
F
Evidence:
Circumstantial evidence -
False plea taken by an
accused in a case of circumstantial evidence is another link
in the chain - Plea.
Expert evidence - Expert opinion on technical subject -
Held: Court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of an
expert, more particularly in a science such as DNA profiling
- DNA report.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s.313 - Object of - Held: While recording statement u/
s. 313, all incriminating material circumstances must be put
to an accused, however, if any material circumstance is left
out that would not ipso-facto result in the exclusion of that
evidence from consideration unless it could further be shown
by the accused that prejudice to him and miscarriage of
G justice was caused - In the instant case, the question that the
helmet was used as weapon of offence, was not specifically
put to the accused but absolutely no prejudice or miscarriage
of justice was caused to him on that score as the death was
caused not by the use of the helmet but by strangulation -
H
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 376, 302.
SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE THR. CBI
903
Appeal against acquittal -
A~quittal by trial court- Scope
A
of interference by appellate court - Discussed - Penal Code,
1860 -
SS. 376, 302.
I
Administration of criminal justice: Principle of - Greater
caution on court while dealing with criminal cases.
Sentence/Sentencing: Where the option is between life
sentence and death sentence, and if the court itself feels some
difficulty in awarding one or the other, it is only appropriate
that the lesser sentence should be awarded - Mitigating
circumstances need to be taken into acco

## Text

_Characters 0–39,883 of 112,973. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39883 for what follows._

[2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 901
SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH
v.
STATE THR. CBI
(Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2007)
OCTOBER 6, 2010
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR.
PRASAD, JJ.]
A
8
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 376, 302 - Conviction based on
circumstantial evidence - Victim found dead in her house with
C
19 injuries on her person with three broken ribs - Trial court
acquitted the accused holding that although few
circumstances were in favour of prosecution, however, DNA
report was not reliable and, therefore, case against the
accused was not proved beyond reasonable doubt - High o
Court9relying on the circumstantial evidence, convicted the
accused ulss. 302, 376 and awarded death sentence - On
appeal, held: Circumstances formed a chain so complete that
there was no escape from the conclusion that within all
probability the crime was committed by the accused - There
E
were oral evidence with regard to continuous stalking and
sexual harassment caused to the victim by accused - On the
day of incident also, accused was seen in her college and near
her house which constituted a strong chain in prosecution's
case - Helmet of accused seized from his house was
F
besmeared with spec of blood - Its visor was broken - Pieces
of visor were found near the dead body of the victim
besmeared with her blood -
Medical evidence clearly
supported the prosecution version that the fracture on right
hand of the accused was sustained during the course of the G
rape and murder - False plea of accused that fracture was
sustained 10 days prior to the incident was another link in the
chain - DNA test conducted on vaginal swabs and the blood
samples of appellant showed that rape was committed, and
that too by the accused - Plea that DNA report was not reliable
901
H
902
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A
as the vaginal swabs and slides taken from the dead body
were tampered with, was far fetched as there was no evidence
of tampering - Also, there was no doubt regarding the sanctity
of blood samples of the accused - In the light of evidence,
the order of conviction upheld - However, as regards the
B
sentence, balance sheet tilted marginally in favour of accused
- Crime was committed when accused was 24 years old -
After acquittal, he got married and was the father of a girl child
- Nothing to show that he would not reform - In the interest of
justice, sentence commuted to life imprisonment - Sentence/
c
Sentencing -
Criminal law - Evidence -
Circumstantial
evidence - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.313.
D
E
F
Evidence:
Circumstantial evidence -
False plea taken by an
accused in a case of circumstantial evidence is another link
in the chain - Plea.
Expert evidence - Expert opinion on technical subject -
Held: Court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of an
expert, more particularly in a science such as DNA profiling
- DNA report.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s.313 - Object of - Held: While recording statement u/
s. 313, all incriminating material circumstances must be put
to an accused, however, if any material circumstance is left
out that would not ipso-facto result in the exclusion of that
evidence from consideration unless it could further be shown
by the accused that prejudice to him and miscarriage of
G justice was caused - In the instant case, the question that the
helmet was used as weapon of offence, was not specifically
put to the accused but absolutely no prejudice or miscarriage
of justice was caused to him on that score as the death was
caused not by the use of the helmet but by strangulation -
H
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 376, 302.
SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE THR. CBI
903
Appeal against acquittal -
A~quittal by trial court- Scope
A
of interference by appellate court - Discussed - Penal Code,
1860 -
SS. 376, 302.
I
Administration of criminal justice: Principle of - Greater
caution on court while dealing with criminal cases.
Sentence/Sentencing: Where the option is between life
sentence and death sentence, and if the court itself feels some
difficulty in awarding one or the other, it is only appropriate
that the lesser sentence should be awarded - Mitigating
circumstances need to be taken into account - Penal Code,
1860 -
SS. 376, 302.
B
c
On 24th January, 1996, the dead body of the victim
was found lying under the bed with the cord of the electric
heat convector tied around her neck and blood stains o
around the body. As per the post mortem report, there
were 19 injuries on the dead body; the death was a result
of strangulation by ligature and the injuries on the dead
body were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
course of nature.
There was no eye witness to the incident. The trial
court noted 13 circumstances against the appellant which
were: (1) The accused had been continuously harassing
the deceased right from the end of 1994 to January 1996,
E
a few days before her death; (2) The accused had more
F
than once given an undertaking that the accused would
not harass the deceased in future while admitting that the
accused had been doing so earlier; (3) The motive of the
accused was to have the deceased or to break her; (4)
On the day of occurrence, the accused was seen in the
G
premises of Faculty of Law, University of Delhi in the
forenoon, where the deceased had gone to attend LLB.
class. The accused was no more a student of Faculty of
Law at that time; (5) At the crucial time before murder, the
accused was seen outside the door of the flat of the
H
904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A deceased with a helmet in his hand which had a visor;
(6) On the day of occurrence after murder, the accused
had reached late to attend class at Indian Law Institute,
Bhagwan Dass Road, where the accused was a student;
(7) Immediately after the murder, the mother of the
B deceased had raised suspicion that the accused had a
hand in the murder of her daughter; (8) When the
accused joined investigation on the night between 23/
24.1.96, the accused had an injury on his right hand.
There was swelling and fracture on 5th metacarpal of
c right hand. There was no plaster or bandage on his hand;
the injury was fresh, having been caused 24 to 38 hours.
The blood pressure of the accused at that time was high
which showed anxiety; (9) DNA Finger Printing Test
conclusively established the guilt of the accused; (10)
0 The helmet of the accused which was taken into
possession had broken visor; before murder, it was
found by PW-2, PW-32 that the helmet of the accused had
a visor; violence was detected on both sides of visor; the
Helmet was besmeared with a spec of blood; at the spot
E pieces of visor were found near the body of the deceased
besmeared with her blood; (11) The deceased had 19
injuries on her person besides three broken ribs; these
injuries were suggestive of force used for rape. A tear
mark over the area of left breast region on the T-shirt of
the deceased suggested that the force was used for
F molestation; (12) The accused took a false defence that
fracture on the hand of the accused was sustained by the
accused in an accident that occurred 10 days prior to the
incident and it was not a fresh injury; the accused also
gave false replies against proved facts; and (13) The
G influence of the father of the accused resulting in
deliberate spoiling of the case.
The trial court found circumstances 1 to 5, 7 and 10
to 13 in favour of prosecution. It, however, rejected the
H DNA report and held that the case against the appellant
SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE THR. CBI
905
could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt and A
acquitted him. The High Court, however, held that all the
13 circumstances were proved in favour of the
prosecution and held the appellant guilty under Sections
376, 302 IPC and passed death sentence.
In the instant appeal challenging the order of B
conviction and sentence, it was contended for the
appellant that the defence story with regard to
circumstances 8 and 12 was required to be considered;
that as the callus formation had set in, the injury could C
not be of 24th January, 1996 and had been sustained
much earlier; that the post mortem did not reveal any
evidence of rape; that the DNA test did not conclusively
prove the involvement of the appellant in the rape as the
vaginal swabs and slides taken from the dead body and
the blood samples of the appellant were tampered with; D
and that since the case rested primarily on the factum of
rape and there was no evidence of rape, the case of
murder would also fall through.
Dismissing the appeal with modification in respect of E
sentence, the Court .
HELD: 1.1. There were oral and documentary
evidence with regard to the allegation that right from the
year 1994 to January 1996, that is a few days before the
murder, the appellant had been continuously harassing
F
the deceased. The appellant was seen in the Faculty of
Law even on the morning of the incident. There did not
seem to be any reason for him to be present at that place
as he had passed out in the year 1994. He was also seen
by the neighbour, PW-2 outside the house of the G
deceased at about 5 p.m. carrying a helmet with an intact
fixed visor, and was seen moving out of the Colony by
two witnesses soon after 5 p.m. (though these witnesses
ultimately turned hostile). The only argument against PW2 was that his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was H
906
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A
recorded after three days. No adverse view can be taken
of this matter as there was utter confusion in the
investigation at the initial stage. Moreover, PW-2 was a
next door neighbour and a perfectly respectable witness
with no bias against the appellant. 1;1 addition, the
B
recovery of the helmet with a broken visor and the
recovery of glass pieces apparently of the visor from near
the dead body and the fact that the appellant himself
sustained injuries while mercilessly beating the deceased
with his helmet (as per the F.S.L. Report) and causing 19
c injuries including three fractured ribs, were other
circumstances with regard to the murder. [Para 20) [934C-H]
1.2. Regarding circumstances 8 and 12, the doctor,
PW-28 categorically stated in his medical report that the
D
presence of swelling on the right hand of the appellant
was symptomatic of a recent injury. The doctor, PW-27
was still more emphatic. He put the maximum duration of
the injury between 48 to 72 hours and deposed that a
fracture of the 5th metacarpal was generally produced by
E direct violence, the most common factor being the
striking of the hand against an opponent during an
altercation. A perusal of the evidence revealed that since
the injury was recent, the swelling on the fracture had not
settled down, and the callus formation had not yet started
F
as the crepitus was still present. The appellant had taken
a stand that he had sustained the said injury on 14th
January 1996 in a road accident in which the visor of the
helmet was also broken. The CBI had accordingly
collected certain documents from the Diagnostic Centre
G and the hospital where the appellant was alleged to have
been treated for the injuries suffered by him. Those
documents were exhibited as defence documents. No
evidence was produced in defence to prove the
documents or to test their veracity. Moreover, no doctor
H from the Centre and the hospital was summoned as
SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE THR. CBI
907
witness. The medical evidence clearly supported the A
version that the injury was sustained by the appellant on
the 24th of January 1996 during the course of the rape
and murder. It has been held time and again that a false
plea taken by an accused in a case of circumstantial
evidence is another link in the chain. The finding on B
circumstances 8 and 12 by the trial court was reversed
by the High Court on the ground that the onus to prove
his defence lay on the appellant and he had admittedly
not led any evidence to support his plea. This Court
endorses the said findings of the High Court. The onus. c
to prove his defence and the circumstances relating to
his injury t1nd treatment were within the special
knowledge of the appellant. He could, therefore, not keep
silent and say that the obligation rssted on the
prosecution to prove its case. (Paras 9, 13, 15, 16] (9280
C-H; 929-B-G; 930-0-G; 931-H; 932-A]
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra 2006
(10) sec 681, referred to.
2.1. The plea of the appellant that the DNA report E
could not be relied upon on the ground that the vaginal
swabs and slides taken from the dead body at the time
of the post-mortem examination were tampered with, was
far fetched as it would mean that not only the
investigating agency, that is, the senior officers of the CBI
and the DSP in particular, the doctors who had taken the
F
vaginal swabs and slides, the doctors and other staff
who had drawn the blood samples, and the scientists in
Hyderabad had all been in a conspiracy to harm the
appellant. This premise was unacceptable. The post
mortem report and the endorsement thereon showed that G
one bundle containing a full sleeved T-shirt having a cut
mark over the area of the left breast region, one jeans, 0ne
pair of woolen socks, one brassiere and one underwear
were sealed and handed over to the investigating officer.
H
908
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A
It also mentioned that these items along with two vaginal
swabs and two slides were also handed over to the 1.0.
26th to 28th January 1996 were holidays which was
perhaps the cause as to why some of the items including
the semen swabs and stains and the clothes of the
B deceased remained in the custody of the hospital
authorities till the 29th. These items were taken by the
inspector from the malkhana on the 31st January 1996
in a sealed condition and in a glass jar and handed over
to the CCMB Hyderabad in an identical condition. PW-49
c (Dr. Lalji Singh) deposed on oath that all the said items
along with several others were received in a sealed
condition as his organization did not accept any item
which was without a seal. No adverse inference against
the prosecution can, thus, be drawn with regard to the
0
retention of the items in the malkhana. There was no
suggestion put either to the Doctors or to the DSP or to
the Sub-Inspector that the seals of the said articles were
tampered with. [Paras 21, 22] (935-A-H; 937-8-H; 938-A]
2.2. Regarding the blood samples of the appellant, no
E suspicion could be raised with regard to their sanctity.
There was ample evidence to suggest that the blood
samples were kept in the hospital in a proper way and
handed over to the Inspector who took them to the
CCMB, Hyderabad and that the explanations tendered by
F
PW-34 and the doctor of CCMB of Hyderabad as to why
the quantity of blood may have been reduced were worth
acceptance. The High Court was, therefore, fully justified
in holding that the trial court's conclusions on the
question of the retention and dispatch of the swabs and
G slides, the clothes of the deceased and the blood
samples, was faulty and based on a perverse assessment
of the evidence. The Court cannot substitute its own
opinion for that of an expert, more particularly in a
science such as DNA profiling. The expertise and
H experience of PW-49 in his field was recognized by this
SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE THR. CBI
909
B
Court in *Kamalan.tha & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu. CW-1
A
is a scientist of equal repute and he had in fact
conducted the tests under the supervision of PW-49.
These two scientists were persons of eminence and the
laboratory in question was also held in the highest
esteem in India. The statements of PW-49 and CW-1
revealed that the samples were tested as per the
procedure developed by the laboratory and the samples
were sufficient for the purposes of comparison and that
there was no possibility of the samples having been
contaminated or tampered with. The two scientists gave c
very comprehensive statements supported
by
documents that the DNA of the semen stains on the
swabs and slides and the underwear of the deceased
and the blood samples of the appellant was from a single
source and that source was the appellant. It is significant
0
that not a single question was put to PW-49 as to the
accuracy of the methodology or the procedure followed
for the DNA profiling. The trial court referred to a large
number of text books and gave adverse findings on the
accuracy of the tests carried out in the instant case. Such
coriclusions cannot be accepted as the court has
substituted its own opinion ignoring the complexity of the
issue on a highly technical subject, more particularly as
the questions raised by the court had not been put to the
expert witnesses. The trial court was not justified in
rejecting the DNA Report, as nothing adverse could be
pointed out against the two experts who had submitted
it. Therefore, the DNA report is accepted as being
scientifically accurate and an exact science. [Paras 23-25]
[940-B-H; 941-B-E; 942-D-E]
*Kamalantha & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu 2005 (5) SCC
194; Bhagwan Das & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1957 SC
; Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1982 SC 1157 -
relied on.
E
F
G
H
910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A
Smt. Kamti Devi v. Poshi Ram AIR 2001 SC 2226,
referred to.
3. Motive alone cannot form the basis of conviction
but in the light of the other circumstances, the motive
B goes a very long way in forging the links in the chain. In
the instant case, the motive stood proved beyond any
doubt. As the appellant's overtures were rebuffed by the
deceased, he had resorted to harassing her in a manner
which became more a11d more aggressive and crude as
time went by; It came in the evidence of the mother of the
C deceased (PW-44) that the police officers before whom
the appellant was brought, on the complaints of
harassment made by the deceased had desisted from
taking any action against him and had, on the contrary
harassed her, her. husband and the deceased by
D summoning and detaining them in the Police Station at
odd hours and for long periods of time. It was this
behaviour that led the trial court to comment very
adversely on the conduct of some of the police officers
involved. The findings of the trial court that the conduct
E of these officers deserved to be condemned as
reprehensible is endorsed. [Paras 27, 28] [945-F-G; 946A-D]
Arulve/u & Anr. v. State & Anr. (2009) 10 SCC 206;
Ashraf Ali v. State of Assam (2008) 16 SCC 328; Sharad
F Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC
116; Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar 1995 Supp (1)
sec 80 - referred to.
4. Undoubtedly, a judgment of acquittal rendered by
G a trial court must be given the greatest consideration and
the appellate court would be slow in setting aside that
judgment, and where two views are possible, the one
taken by the trial court would not be disturbed. On the
contrary, if the trial court's judgment was perverse,
H meaning thereby, that it was not only against the weight
SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE THR. CBI
911
of evidence but was all together against the evidence, A
interference was called for. The High Court was alive to
its limitation in such a matter and while dealing with this
argument, it first expressed its shock and observ,ed that
though virtually all the findings were in favour of the
prosecution, yet curiously, the decision was rendered in
B
favour of the accused. The judgment of the trial court was
accordingly held to be perverse and against the
evidence. The High Court's observations were justified
on the facts. [Paras 30, 31] [947-C-F; 949-8]
5. All incriminating material circumstances must be C
put to an accused while recording his statement under
Section 313, Cr.P.C., but if any material circumstance was
left out that would not ipso-facto result in the exclusion
of that evidence from consideration unless it could
further be shown by the accused that prejudice and D
miscarriage of justi~ had been sustained by him. In the
instant case, the questions pertaining to the helmet and
the ligature marks on the neck were put to the Doctor and
even in a way to the appellant. The defence was,
therefore, alive to the circumstances against the E
appellant. The fact that the helmet was used as weapon
of offence, was not specifically put to the appellant but
absolutely no prejudice or miscarriage of justice was
caused to the appellant on that score as the death was
caused not by the use of the helmet but by strangulation
F
and that the appellant and his counsel were fully alive to
the prosecution story that the helmet had been used as
a weapon to beat the deceased into submission. No
prejudice or miscarriage of justice has, thus, been
occasioned. [Paras 34] [952-B-F]
G
6. In the instant case, the broad principle that a
particularly nasty and revolting crime imposes a yet
greater caution on the court which must resist the
tendency to look beyond the file and not be swayed by
the horror of the crime or the character of the accused,
H
912
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A
was scrupulously adhered to. [Para 35] [953-E-F]
Kashmira Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952
SC 159; Ashish Batham vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2002)
7 sec 317 - relied on.
B
/sh war Singh v. State of U. P. (1976) 4 SCC 355 -
distinguished.
7. Undoubtedly, the sentencing part is a difficult one
and often exercises the mind of the court but where the
c
option is between a life sentence and a death sentence,
the options are indeed extremely limited and if the court
itself feels some difficulty in awarding one or the other, it
is only appropriate that the lesser sentence should be
awarded. This is the underlying philosophy behind 'the
0
rarest of the rare' principle. Furthermore, the mitigating
circumstances need to be taken ~nto account, more
particularly that the High Court reversed a judgment of
acquittal based on circumstantial evidence. The appellant
was a young man of 24 at the time of the incident and,
E
after acquittal, had got married and was the father of a
girl child. There was nothing to suggest that he would not
be capable of reform. The balance sheet tilted marginally
in favour of the appellant, and the ends of justice would
be met if the sentence awarded to him is commuted from
death to life imprisonment under Section 302. IPC. [Para
F
38] [955-C-H; 956-A-B]
Case Law Reference:
2006 (1 o) sec 681
referred to
Para 15
G
2005 (5) sec 194
relied on
Para 24
AIR 1957 SC 589
relied on
Para 24
AIR 1982 SC 1157
relied on
Para 25
H
AIR 2001 SC 2226
referred to
Para 25
SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE THR. CBI
913
(2009) 10 sec 206
referred to
Para 29
(1976) 4 sec 355
distinguished
Para 29
(2008) 16 sec 328
referred to
Para 29
(1984) 4 sec 116
referred to
Para 29
1995 Supp (1) sec 80
referred to
Para 29
AIR 1952 SC 159
relied on
Para 35
(2002) 1 sec 317
relied on
Para 36
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 87 of 2007.
From the Judgment & Order dated 17.10.2006 and
30.10.2006 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal
Appeal No. 233 of 2000.
Sushil Kumar, Amod Kumar Singh, Sumita Singh, Avnish
Sharma, Avinash Kumar, Aditya Kumar, Anmol Thakral,
Meenakshi Kumar, Mahavir Prasad and Aniruddha, P/Mayee
for the Appellant.
P.P. Malhotra, ASG, Ranjana Narayan, P.K. Dey,
Madhurima Mridul, Chetan Chawla, Gaurav Sharma and Arvind
Kumar Sharma for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
This appeal arises out of the following facts:
1. The deceased, Priyadarshini Mattoo, was residing with
A
B
c
D
E
F
her parents at B-10/7098, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and was a G
student of the LLB. course at the University of Delhi Campus
Law Centre, and had at the relevant time completed the 5th
Semester and was in the final 6th Semester. The appellant,
Santosh Kumar Singh had also been a student in the same
faculty and had completed his LLB. in December 1994. It H
914
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A
appears that the appellant had been attracted to the deceased
and even though he had passed out from the Law Centre in
1994, he had continued to visit the campus even thereafter on
his Bullet Motorcycle bearing Registration Number DL-1 S-E/
1222.
B
2. As per the prosecution story, the appellant harassed and
intimidated the deceased and despite her requests and then
her remonstrations, did not desist from doing so. The deceased
thereupon made several complaints against the appellant in
different Police Stations during the year 1995 on which he was
C
summoned to the Police Station and was advised to behave
properly and a Personal Security Officer, Head Constable
Rajinder Singh PW-32, was also deputed for the security of the
deceased. It appears that as a consequence of the complaints
against him, the appellant too retaliated and made a report to
D the University on 30th October 1995 alleging that the deceased
was pursuing two courses simultaneously which was in violation
of the University Rules and when no action was taken he sent
two reminders dated 4th December 1995 and 20th December
1995 to the University as well. A show cause notice was issued
E
to the deceased and in response thereto she submitted her
reply dated 1st December 1995 and during the pendency of
these proceedings, the result of her LLB. 5th Semester
examination was withheld. On 23rd January 1996 PW Head
Constable Rajinder Singh, the PSO, did not turn up at the
F
residence of the deceased at the stipulated time on which she
left for the University in her car along with her parents PW-1
Mr. C.L. Mattoo and PW-44 Mrs. Rageshwari Mattoo who had
to visit the Tis Hazari Courts to attend to some civil proceedings.
The parents were dropped off at Tis Hazari at 10.15 a.m. Head
G Constable Rajinder Singh, however, reached the Faculty of Law
directly and saw the appellant present there. The deceased
attended the class from 11.15 a.m. to noon and thereafter
accompanied by the Head Constable left the faculty for Tis
Hazari but finding that her parents had already left the court,
H
she returned to her residence at about 1.45 p.m. and directed
•
SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE THR. CBI
915
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
Head Constable Rajinder Singh to report again at 5.30 p.m.
A
The deceased then had her lunch whereafter Virender Prasad,
the domestic help, left the house at about 2.30 p.m. to meet
his friend Vishnu Prasad @ Bishamber at the residence of PW6 Lt.Col S.K.Dhar at Safdarjung Enclave and returned to Vasant
Kunj at 4.55 p.m. He then took the dog for a walk in the colony.
B
The appellant came to the residence of the deceased at about
4.50 p.m. carrying his helmet in his hand and was seen by PW2 Kuppuswami. PW-3 Jaideep Singh Ahluwalia, Security
Supervisor in the colony. also saw the appellant at 5.30 p.m.
near the residence of the deceased, PW-43 and O.P.Singh, c
Advocate also noticed the appellant riding out of the park area
of B-10, Vasant Kunj at the same time. Head Constable
Rajinder Singh PW reached the residence of the deceased at
about 5.30 p.m., as directed, along with Constable Dev Kumar.
The Head Constable pressed the call bell but eliciting no
0
response from inside, he went to another door which opened
onto the courtyard and knocked but again to no effect. As the
door was slightly ajar the two entered the bedroom of the
deceased and found her dead body lying under the double bed.
The Head Constable immediately informed Police Station,
E
Vasant Kunj about the incident on which SHO Inspector
Surinder Sharma arrived at the site and a daily diary report
(rojnamcha) to the above facts Ex.PW-18/A was also recorded
at 5.45 p.m. Inspector Lalit Mohan, Additional SHO, Vasant
Kunj was entrusted with the investigation on which he along with
Sub-Inspector Sushil Kumar, Sub-Inspector Padam Singh,
F
Head Constable Satish Chand and several other police officers
too reached the residence of the deceased and found her dead
body lying under the double bed with the cord of the electric
heat convector tied around her neck. He also noticed blood
stains around the body. A case under section 302 of the IPC G
was thereafter registered at Police Station, Vasant Kunj, on the
complaint of the father of the deceased, in which the day's
happenings were spelt out. It was further noted that after
completing their work in the Tis Hazari Courts he and his wife
had visited Safdarjung Enclave and from there he had gone on
H
916
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A
to attend an official meeting at Vikas Kuteer, ITO whereas his
wife had visited the All India Institute of Medical Sciences and
it was on returning to his residence at 7.30 p.m. that he found
that his daughter had been murdered.
8
3. During the course of the inquest proceedings initiated
by Inspector Lalit Mohan the crime scene was photographed
and some hair found on the dead body, broken pieces of glass
and blood stains near the dead body were recovered. The
electric cord of the heat convector which had been used for the
strangulation was also taken into possession. The statements
c of PW-6 Lt. Col. S.K. Dhar, PW-1 Mr. C.L. Mattoo, the
complainant, and PW-44 Mrs. Rageshwari Mattoo, the mother
of the deceased, and several others were recorded by
Inspector Lalit Mohan and the dead body was then sent to the
Safdarjung Hospital. In her statement, Mrs. Rageshwari Mattoo
D
raised the suspicion that the appellant was the culprit and he
was joined in the investigation during the night intervening 23rd
and 24th January 1996. He was also brought before Inspector
Lalit Mohan and he noticed tenderness on his right hand and
an injury which was not bandaged or plastered. He was also
E
sent for a medical examination and PW-23 Dr. R.K. Wadhwa
of the Safdarjung Hospital examined him at 3.45 a.m. and
found two injuries on his person - one a swelling on the right
hand dorsum lateral aspect, tenderness with crepitus and the
second, scar marks old and healed multiple both lower limbs
F
and on the chest. The Doctor also advised an X-ray of the right
hand. Nail scrapings and hair samples of the appellant were
also taken and handed over to Sub-Inspector Shamsher Singh
and after the X-ray, a fracture of the 5th metacarpal bone of
the right hand was detected and as per Dr. Wadhwa's opinion
G the injury was grievous in nature and caused by a blunt weapon.
The appellant was thereafter allowed to go home and was
directed to visit the Police Station at 9 a.m. on the 25th January
1996. The dead body was also subjected to a post-mortem on
25th January 1995 at the Safdarjung Hospital by a Board of
H
Doctors consisting of Dr. Chander Kant, Dr. Arvind Thergaonkar
SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE THR. CBI
917
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
and PW-33 Dr. A.K. Sharma who in their report Ex.PW33/B
A
found 19 injuries on the dead body and also observed that the
private parts showed black, curly non-matted pubic hair, the
hymen intact with no tearing present and admitting only one
finger. The Doctors also took two vaginal swabs and slides
were duly sealed, the swabs and slides in a glass bottle as well
B
as samples of the blood and hair. The clothes of the deceased
were also taken into possession and sealed. The Board also
opined that the death was a result of strangulation by ligature
and that the injuries on the dead body were sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature.
c
4. On the 25th January 1996 itself, after the completion of
the post-mortem proceedings, Inspector Lalit Mohan searched
the house of the deceased and picked up a greeting card
Ex.PW 29/B said to be written by the appellant from her room.
The Inspector also seized a helmet with the visor missing and
D
indicating that it had broken and the Bullet motorcycle belonging
to the appellant. The specimens of his handwriting Exs.PW48/
E1, E2 and E3 were also taken by the Inspector.
5. It appears that as the murder had taken place in very
E
sordid circumstances and the fact that the appellant was the
son of very senior police officer serving in the State of Jammu
& Kashmir and was on the verge of a posting as Additional
Commissioner of Police, Delhi, led to a hue and cry which was
endorsed by the parents of the deceased as they apprehended
F
that they would not get a fair deal from the Delhi Police. Faced
with this situation, the Delhi Government itself requested the
Central Bureau of Investigation vide letter dated January 24,
1996 that the investigation be taken over by that agency. As
per the prosecution, this decision was taken by the Government
G
on the specific request of the Commissioner of Delhi Police to
the Lt. Governor who referred the same to the Delhi
Government.
6. Inspector Lalit Mohan thereupon produced the appellant
before PW-50 DSP Shri A.K.Ohri of the CBI and the
H
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A subsequent investigation was made by the DSP with the
assistance of several other officers from the CBI. The
underwear of the appellant was also seized by the CBI as he
represented that he had been wearing the same underwear for
the last couple of days. DSP Ohri also visited the crime scene
B on the 26th January 1996 but did not find Mr. C.L.Mattoo, the
father of the deceased, present. On the next day, he recorded
the statement of Virender Parshad, the domestic servant and
also directed Shri D.P.Singh, DSP to conduct the house search
of the appellant. On the 28th January 1996, a request Ex.PW34/
c A was made by Mr. S.K.Bhatnagar Additional Director of the
CBI to Dr.A.K.Gupta, Medical Superintendent, Dr.R.M.L.
Hospital for procuring the blood samples of the appellant. DSP
Ohri along with the other staff took the appellant to the l1ospital
and met PW-34 Dr. N.S.Kalra, Head of the Biochemistry
D Department and two blood samples of 10 ml. each were taken
by Ms. Godavari Mangai, Lab Assistant and were handed over
to Dr. Kalra. These samples as well as the other case property
collected by DSP Ohri or entrusted to him by Inspector Lalit
Mohan were deposited with the Moharrir Malkhana on the 29th
E January 1996 and preparations were made to refer the matter
for a DNA test. Specimen hand writings Ex.PW24/A1 to A21
of the appellant were also obtained once again this time by the
:Bl. On 30th January 1996 Shri M.L.Sharma, Joint Director,
CBI addressed a letter to the Director, CCMB, Hyderabad
requesting for DNA profiling. Several articles were accordingly
F entrusted to PW-39 Sub-Inspector R.S.Shekhawat on 31st
January 1996, they being:
1.
One sealed parcel containing clothes of the
deceased such as T-shirt, brassiere, jeans and
G
underwear.
2.
One sealed packet containing underwear of the
accused Santosh Kumar Singh.
3.
One sealed jar containing vaginal swabs/vaginal
H
slides of the deceased and
SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE THR. CBI
919
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
4.
The blood samples of the appellant taken in the
A
Dr.R.M.L.Hospital.
The Sub-Inspector thereafter flew to Hyderabad on 31st
January 1996 and deposited the aforementioned articles in the
Office of Dr. Lalji Singh, Officer on special duty at the CCMB,
B
Hyderabad on the next morning and an acknowledgement
Ex.PW49/A relating to the following articles was obtained:
1.
One sealed parcel containing clothes supposed to
be of the deceased, namely, T-Shirt, brassiere,
jeans and underwear.
C
2.
Vaginal swabs/vaginal slides supposed to be of the
deceased.
3.
One thermocole box containing 4 vials marked as
D
S-1,S-2,S-3 and S-4 supposed to be blood of the
accused.
The underwear of the appellant was, however, returned by
Dr. Lalji Singh as it was not relevant for the DNA finger printing
test. On the 1st February, 1996 DSP Ohri re-visited the house
E
of the deceased and recorded the statement of Mrs.
Rageshwari Mattoo and Hemant Mattoo, the brother of the
deceased who told the investigating officer that the appellant
had been noticed by PW-2 Shri Kuppuswami standing near
their house shortly before the time of the murder. The DSP then
F
went to the house of Shri Kuppuswami but he was away. He,
however, recorded his statement on the 4th February 1996.
During the course of the investigation, the appellant disclosed
that he had received the injury on the metacarpal bone in an
accident on the 14th January 1996 and had been treated at the G
Nirmay Diagnostic Centre and Hindu Rao Hospital. Inspector
Terial was thereupon sent to the Centre to collect his medical
records. They were duly collected on the 9th February 1996 and
16th February 1996 and deposited in the malkhana of the CBI.
On 20th February 1996 a letter Ex.PW27/A was addressed to
H
920
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A -the Medical Superintendent, Safdarjung Hospital seeking an
opinion about the injury suffered by the appellant on his hand.
An opinion was rendered by PW-28 Dr. Mukul Sinha and PW27 Dr. G.K.Choubey on the 22nd February 1996 that the injury
seemed to be fresh as there was no evidence of any callus
B
formation. On the completion of the investigation, the appellant
was charged for offences punishable under Sections 376/302
of the IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. As there was no eye witness to the incident, the
prosecution placed reliance only on circumstantial and
C documentary evidence. After 51 witnesses had been examined
by the prosecution and final arguments were being heard, the
trial court decided that it would be in the interest of justice to
call Dr. G.V.Rao of the CCMB as a court witness as he, in
consultation with PW-48 Dr. Lalji Singh, had conducted the
D
DNA test. His statement was recorded as CW -1.
E
F
G
H
In the course of a rather verbose judgment, the trial court
noted that there were 13 circumstances against the appellant.
We quote herein below from the judgment:
"1.The accused had been continuously harassing the
deceased right from the end of 1994 to January 1996, a
few days before her death.
2. The accused had more than once given an
undertaking that the accused would not harass the
· deceased in future while admitting that the accused had
been doing so earlier.
3. The motive of the accused was to have the
deceased or to break her.
4. On the day of occurrence, the accused was seen
in the premises of Faculty of Law, University of Delhi in the
forenoon, where the deceased had gone to attend LLB.
class. While the accused was no more a student of Faculty
of Law at that time.
SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE THR. CBI
921
[HARJIT s:NGH BEDI, J.]
5. At the crucial time before murder, i.e. about 5
A
p.m. on 23.1.96, the accused was seen outside the door
of the flat of the deceased, i.e. B-10/7098 with helmet in
his hand which had a visor.
6. On the day of occurrence after murder, the
8
accused had reached late to attend class at Indian Law
Institute, Bhagwan Dass Road, where the accused was a
student too.
7. Immediately after the murder, the mother of the
deceased had raised suspicion that the accused had a C
hand in the murder of her daughter.
8. When the accused joined investigation on the
night between 23/24.1.96, the accused had an injury on
his right hand. There was swelling and fracture on 5th o
metacarpal of right hand. There was no plaster or bandage
on his hand. That injury was fresh, having been caused 24
to 38 hours. The blood pressure of the accused at that
time was high which showed anxiety.
/
9. DNA Finger Printing Test conclusively establishes
E
the guilt of the accused.
10. On 25.1.96, the helmet Ex.P.3 of the accused
which was taken into possession had broken visor. On
23.1.96 before murder, it was found by PW2 Shri
F
Kuppuswami, PW Personal Security Officer Rajinder
Singh that the helmet of the accused had a visor. Violence
was detected on both sides of visor. Helmet was
besmeared with a spec of blood. At the spot pieces of
visor were found near the body of the deceased G
besmeared with her blood.
11. The deceased had 19 injuries on her person
besides three broken ribs. These injuries were suggestive
of force used for rape.