# DR. SUNIL CLIFFORD DANIEL v. STATE OF PUNJAB

- **Citation:** [2012] 7 S.C.R. 1100
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2012-09-14
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2001 of 2010
- **Bench:** Dr. B.S. Chauhan, Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dr-sunil-clifford-daniel-v-state-of-punjab-28276
- **Pages:** 33

## Headnote

PENAL CODE, 1860:
ss. 302 and 201 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence -
Conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded by
courts below - Held: The statement of prosecution witnesses,
the medical evidence, the serological report, the conduct of
D the accused remaining absconding, and the recoveries made
pursuant to disclosure statement of the accused on his arrest,
make the chain of circumstances complete leading to the guilt
of the accused - There is no reason to interfere with the
concurrent findings recorded by two courts below - Evidence
E - Circumstantial evidence - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - s. 313.
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973:
s. 313 - Examination of accused - Held: It is obligatory
F on the part of the accused wHile being examined u/s 313, to
furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating
circumstances associated with him, and the court must take
note of such explanation even in a case of circumstantial
evidence, to decide as to whether or not the chain of
G circumstances is complete - In the instant case, the accused
could not furnish any explanation as to how the blood stained
clothes were found in his room.
H
ss. 162 (1) and 162 (2) - Statement made to police officer
1100
DR. SUNIL CLIFFORD DANIEL v. STATE OF
1101
PUNJAB
- Held: There is a prohibition in peremptory terms and law
A
requires that a statement made before the Investigating Officer
should not be signed by the witness - However, in the event
that a police officer, ignorant of the statutory requirement asks
a witness to sign his statement, the same would not stand
vitiated - At the most, the court will inform the witness, that he
B
is not bound by the statement made before the police -
However, the prohibition contained in s. 162(1) is not
applicable to any statements made uls 27 of Evidence Act,
as explained by the provision uls 162(2) - Merely because
the recovery memo was not signed by the accused, will not c
vitiate the recovery itself, as every case has to be decided on
its own facts - In the instant case, it cannot be said that the
recoveries are vitiated.
CRIMINAL LAW:
D
Motive - Held: In a case of circumstantial evidence,
motive assumes great significance and importance, for the
reason that the absence of motive would put the court on its
guard and cause it to scrutinize each piece of evidence very
closely in order to ensure that suspicion, emotion or E
conjecture do not take the place of proof.
F
The appellant was prosecuted for committing the
murder of his wife and throwing her dead body at a
distant place. The case of the prosecution was that the
appellant and the deceased, both qualified doctors and
working in the same hospital, were living in separate
hostels. On 9.3.1996, the appellant handed over a set of
blood stained clothes to the Medical Superintendent
(PW1) stating that when he reached his room, he found
the same therein. PW-1 informed the said fact to the
G
police on the same day. PW-2, the mother of the
deceased, residing in a different city (Jagadhari) reached
the place of her daughter on 10.3.1996 and when she
found her missing, she lodged an FIR on the same day
H
1102
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 7 S.C.R.
A at 9.40 p.m., expressing her apprehension that the
appellant might have abducted her with the intention to
kill her. PW-13, the ASI entrusted with the investigation
went to the appellant's hostel, but found his room locked
from outside and could not trace him anywhere. PW-1
s then handed over the blood stained clothes to the 1.0. On
11.3.1996, the SHO (PW-14), on receiving a wireless
message from a Police Chowki at about 20 kms away
from the city, went alongwith PW-2 there and recovered
the dead body of the deceased which was found lying
c in the bushes. The post-mortem report disclosed that the
deceased died of strangulation and also had grievous
injuries. The case u/s 364 IPC was converted to one u/
ss 302 and 201 IPC. The trial court found the appellant
guilty on both the counts and sentenced

## Text

_Characters 0–39,613 of 61,774. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39613 for what follows._

A
B
c
[2012] 7 S.C.R. 1100
DR. SUNIL CLIFFORD DANIEL
V.
STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No. 2001 of 2010)
SEPTEMBER 14, 2012
(DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ)
PENAL CODE, 1860:
ss. 302 and 201 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence -
Conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded by
courts below - Held: The statement of prosecution witnesses,
the medical evidence, the serological report, the conduct of
D the accused remaining absconding, and the recoveries made
pursuant to disclosure statement of the accused on his arrest,
make the chain of circumstances complete leading to the guilt
of the accused - There is no reason to interfere with the
concurrent findings recorded by two courts below - Evidence
E - Circumstantial evidence - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - s. 313.
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973:
s. 313 - Examination of accused - Held: It is obligatory
F on the part of the accused wHile being examined u/s 313, to
furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating
circumstances associated with him, and the court must take
note of such explanation even in a case of circumstantial
evidence, to decide as to whether or not the chain of
G circumstances is complete - In the instant case, the accused
could not furnish any explanation as to how the blood stained
clothes were found in his room.
H
ss. 162 (1) and 162 (2) - Statement made to police officer
1100
DR. SUNIL CLIFFORD DANIEL v. STATE OF
1101
PUNJAB
- Held: There is a prohibition in peremptory terms and law
A
requires that a statement made before the Investigating Officer
should not be signed by the witness - However, in the event
that a police officer, ignorant of the statutory requirement asks
a witness to sign his statement, the same would not stand
vitiated - At the most, the court will inform the witness, that he
B
is not bound by the statement made before the police -
However, the prohibition contained in s. 162(1) is not
applicable to any statements made uls 27 of Evidence Act,
as explained by the provision uls 162(2) - Merely because
the recovery memo was not signed by the accused, will not c
vitiate the recovery itself, as every case has to be decided on
its own facts - In the instant case, it cannot be said that the
recoveries are vitiated.
CRIMINAL LAW:
D
Motive - Held: In a case of circumstantial evidence,
motive assumes great significance and importance, for the
reason that the absence of motive would put the court on its
guard and cause it to scrutinize each piece of evidence very
closely in order to ensure that suspicion, emotion or E
conjecture do not take the place of proof.
F
The appellant was prosecuted for committing the
murder of his wife and throwing her dead body at a
distant place. The case of the prosecution was that the
appellant and the deceased, both qualified doctors and
working in the same hospital, were living in separate
hostels. On 9.3.1996, the appellant handed over a set of
blood stained clothes to the Medical Superintendent
(PW1) stating that when he reached his room, he found
the same therein. PW-1 informed the said fact to the
G
police on the same day. PW-2, the mother of the
deceased, residing in a different city (Jagadhari) reached
the place of her daughter on 10.3.1996 and when she
found her missing, she lodged an FIR on the same day
H
1102
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 7 S.C.R.
A at 9.40 p.m., expressing her apprehension that the
appellant might have abducted her with the intention to
kill her. PW-13, the ASI entrusted with the investigation
went to the appellant's hostel, but found his room locked
from outside and could not trace him anywhere. PW-1
s then handed over the blood stained clothes to the 1.0. On
11.3.1996, the SHO (PW-14), on receiving a wireless
message from a Police Chowki at about 20 kms away
from the city, went alongwith PW-2 there and recovered
the dead body of the deceased which was found lying
c in the bushes. The post-mortem report disclosed that the
deceased died of strangulation and also had grievous
injuries. The case u/s 364 IPC was converted to one u/
ss 302 and 201 IPC. The trial court found the appellant
guilty on both the counts and sentenced him to
0 imprisonment for life and 2 years' RI respectively. The
High Court dismissed the appeal of the accused.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:
E
1.1 In Sha rad Birdhichand Sarda's case*, this court
held that the onus is on the prosecution to prove that the
chain is complete and that falsity or untenability of the
defence set up by the accused cannot be made the basis
for ignoring any serious infirmity or lacuna in the case of
F the prosecution. The Court further indicated the
conditions which must be fully established before a
conviction can be made on the basis of circumstantial
evidence. [Para 17] [1121-C-D]
G
*Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra,
H
1985 (1) SCR 88= AIR 1984 SC 1622
- relied on.
1.2 In the instant case, a conjoint reading of the
complete evidence and material on record, suggests that:
DR. SUNIL CLIFFORD DANIEL v. STATE OF
1103
PUNJAB
(i) The, deceased had informed her mother (PW-2)
A
residing in a different city, on 6.3.1996 that she would
reach there on 7.3.1996. However, she did not make it
there. Therefore, PW.2 came to the place of deceased to
search for her on 10.3.1996. [para 39] [1129-F-H]
(ii)On 9.3.1996, the appellant handed over certain
B
blood
stained
clothes
to
PW.1,
the
Medical
Superintendent, stating that he had found the same in his
room, when he returned from the hospital. PW.1,
informed the police about the said incident, on the same
C
date. [para 39] [1130-A-B]
(iii)On 10.3.1996, PW.2 filed a complaint about the
incident and an FIR was lodged. The Investigating Officer
went to the room of the appellant, as well as of the
deceased, in their respective hostels but the rooms were
D
found to be locked from the outside. He then made an
attempt to search for the appellant but was unable to
trace him. [Para 39] [1130-B-C]
Admittedly, the appellant, after handing over the said
E
blood stained clothes to PW.1 on 9.3.1996, became
untraceable as a result of which, he could only be
arrested on 11.3.1996, at 6.00 p.m. This circumstance was
not taken into consideration by the courts below.
However, act of absconding, on the part of the accused,
alone does not necessarily lead to a final conclusion
regarding his guilt. [Para 18-19] [1122-D-F]
F
Matru v. State of UP., 1971 (3) SCR 914 =AIR 1971 SC
1050; State thr. CBI v. Mahender Singh Dahiya, 2011 (1)
SCR 1104 = (2011) 3 SCC 109; and Sk. Yusuf v. State of G
West Bengal, 2011 (8) SCR 83 = AIR 2011 SC 2283 =
referred to.
(iv) On 11.3.1996, PW.1 was informed that the
H
1104
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 7 S.C.R.
A deceased had been missing from the hostel since
9.3.1996. On the same day, PW.14, SHO, received a
wireless message from the Police Chowki that the dead
body of a female was lying in the bushes near an area of
thoroughfare, closeby. He then rushed to the place
B alongwith PW.2, and recovered the dead body of the
deceased. [para 39] [1130-0-F]
(v) During the course of the investigation, PW.14, the
SHO came to know that the appellant had borrowed the
car of CW.2 which was parked in the same compound.
C It was taken into possession by the police, and a mat
having blood stains on it, was recovered and sealed.
[para 39] [1130-F-G]
(vi) On 12.3.1996, experts were called and the room
D of the appellant was searched. Blood stains were found
on the floor, which were scraped off and alongwith the
same, a pair of chappals, also having blood stains on
them, were recovered. The said articles were sealed.
[para 39) [1130-H; 1131-A]
E
(vii) The appellant was arrested on 11.3.1996 and he
made a disclosure statement in the presence of police
officials and also one 'RS', the panch witness, and the
panchnama was prepared and in it, he stated that, he
would help in the recovery of articles, used while
F committing the murder of the deceased. He led the
police party and aided in making recoveries of a gunny
bag, a dumb-bell and one tie, as the same had been
hidden below garbage and bushes. The same were duly
recovered and panchnama was prepared. All the
G materials so recovered were then sent for FSL/
serological report, and the report received stated that all
the said articles contained human blood etc. except for
a few, wherein the blood had dis-integrated and as a
result of which, no report could be submitted. [para 39]
H [1131-A-D]
DR. SUNIL CLIFFORD DANIEL v. STATE OF
1105
PUNJAB
{vii_i) On 11.3.1996, the dead body of the deceased,
A
was sent for post-mortem examination and various
articles of the deceased, including her bangles etc. were
taken into possession by the police. [para 39] [1131-D-E]
{ix) In his statement, u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant
8
changed his version from the one given to PW.1, stating
that the blood stained clothes handed over by him, were
found in the balcony, interconnecting various rooms, as
against his original statement wherein he had disclosed
that he had found them in his room. He could not furnish c
any explanation with respect to how the blood stained
clothes were found in his room. [Para 39] [1131-F]
It is obligatory on the part of the accused while being
examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. to furnish some explanation
with respect to the incriminating circumstances
D
associated with him, and the court must take note of such
explanation even in a case of circumstantial evidence, to
decide as to whether or not, the chain of circumstances
is complete. [Para 37] [1129-B-C]
Musheer Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 2
SCC 748 = 2010 (2) SCR 119 and The Transport
Commissioner, A.P., Hyderabad & Anr. v. S. Sardar Ali &
Ors., AIR 1983 SC 1225 = 1983 (3) SCR 729 - relied on.
State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, (2000) 1 SCC 471 =
1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 215 - referred to.
{x) PW.8, the taxi driver, deposed that, he had gone
E
F
to meet the appellant on 9.3.1996, who told him that he
wanted to go to Jagadhari. At that time, he was told to
G
come later, as the wife of the appellant had purportedly
gone to collect her salary. Admittedly, the appellant and
his wife, the deceased, were living separately and they
did not have a cordial relationship. In such a factsituation, the appellant would not have hired a taxi to go
H
1106
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 7 S.C.R.
A to Jagadhari. More so, if the deceased was living
separately, it was not possible for the appellant to say
that his wife had gone to collect her salary. The evidence
of CW.2, makes it clear that the appellant had in fact taken
his car, used it for one and a half hours, and then brought
B the same back, and parked it in the hostel compound,
after which he handed over the keys for the same to
CW.2. [para 39] [1131-G-H; 1132-A-C]
(xi) The nature of the injuries mentioned in the postmortem report makes it crystal clear that the deceased
C died of strangulation i.e. asphyxia, and she also had
several injuries on her head, which could have been
caused by a dumb bell, which was one of the materials
recovered and found to have blood stains on it. [para 39]
D
[1132-D]
(xii) As the appellant had a strained relationship with
his wife, he no doubt wanted to get rid of her. Although
he has claimed that the petitions for divorce by mutual
consent were pending before the court, he has never
E submitted any documents with respect to this before the
court. Thus, inference may be drawn that the appellant
did in fact wish to get rid of his wife. [Para 39] [1132-E-F]
In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive
assumes greater significance and importance, for the
F reason that the absence of motive would put the court
on its guard and cause it to scrutinize each piece of
evidence very closely in order to ensure that suspicion,
emotion or conjecture do not take th3 place of proof.
Thus, in light of the settled legal proposition, the courts
G below rightly came to the conclusion on this aspect. [Para
20, 23] [1122-H; 1123-A-B, F]
H
Subedar Tewari v. State of UP. & Ors., AIR 1989 SC 733
and Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, 1994 (1) Suppl.
SCR 483 =AIR 1994 SC 2420 - referred to.
DR. SUNIL CLIFFORD DANIEL v. STATE OF
1107
PUNJAB
(xiii) As the recoveries of the blood stained gunny
A
bag, dumb-bell, tie etc. were made on the basis of the
disclosure statement of the appellant himself, the chain
of circumstances is, therefore, complete. [Para 39] [1132F-G]
Most of the articles recovered and sent for B
preparation of FSL and serological reports contained
human blood. However, on the rubber mat recovered
from the car of CW.2 and one other item, there can be no
positive report in relation to the same as the blood on
such articles has dis-integrated. This Court has observed
C
that a failure by the serologist to detect the origin of the
blood due to dis-integration of the serum, does not mean
that the blood stuck on the object would not have been
human blood at all. Sometimes it is possible, either
because the stain is too insufficient, or due to
D
haematological changes and plasmatic coagulation, that
a serologist may fail to detect the origin of the blood.
However, in such a case, unless the doubt is of a
reasonable dimension, which a judicially conscientious
mind may entertain, with some objectivity, no benefit can
E
be claimed by the accused, in this regard. [Para 28-29]
[1125-E-F; 1126-A-C]
Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2001 SC 330 =
2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 408; Prabhu Babaji Navie v. State of
F
Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 51 and Raghav Prapanna Tripathi v.
State of UP., AIR 1963 SC 74 = 1963 SCR 239 Jagroop
Singh vs. State of Punjab 2012 AIR 2600; John Pandian vs.
State represented by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu (2010)
14 SCC 129; State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil & Anr.,
G
2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 144 = (2001) 1 SCC 652; Musheer
Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2010 (2) SCR 119 = (2010)
2 SCC 748 = and The Transport Commissioner, A.P.,
Hyderabad & Anr. v. S. Sardar Ali & Ors., 1983 (3) SCR 729
= AIR 1983 SC 1225 - relied on.
H
1108
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 7 S.C.R.
A
Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna Kartalla Vs
State Of
Maharashtra 2008 AIR 1184 - distinguished
2.1 It is evident from s.162(1) CrPC that there is a
prohibition in peremptory terms and law requires that a
8 statement made before the Investigating Officer should
not be signed by the witness. The same was found to be
necessary for the reason that a witness will then be free
to testify in court, unhampered by anything which the
police may claim to have elicited from him. In the event
that a police officer, ignorant of the statutory requirement,
C asks a witness to sign his statement, the same would not
stand vitiated. At the most, the court will inform the
witness that he is not bound by the statement made
before the police. [Para 25] [1124-B-D]
D
2.2 However, the prohibition contained in s. 162(1)
Cr.P.C. is not applicable to any statements made u/s 27
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as explained by the
provision u/s 162(2) Cr.P.C. Merely because the recovery
memo was not signed by the accused, will
not vitiate
E the recovery itself, as every case has to be decided on
its own facts. In the event that the recoveries are made
pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused,
then, despite the fact that the statement has not been
signed by him, there is certainly some truth in what he
F said, for the reason that the recovery of the material
objects was made on the basis of his statement.
Therefore, it cannot be said that in the instant case, the
recoveries are vitiated. [Para 25-27] [1124-D-E; G-H; 1125A-D]
G
Golakonda Venkateswara Rao v. State of Andhra
Pradesh, 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 96 = AIR 2003 SC 2846 -
relied on.
Jackaran Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1995 SC 2345
H and State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram 1999 (2) SCR 29 =AIR
DR. SUNIL CLIFFORD DANIEL v. STATE OF
1109
PUNJAB
1999 SC 1776; State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, 1999 (5)
A
Suppl. SCR 215 = (2000) 1 SCC 471 - referred to.
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there
is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings
recorded by the courts below. [Para 40] [1132-G-H]
8
Case Law Reference:
1985 (1) SCR 88
1971 (3) SCR 914
2011 (1) SCR 1104
2011 (8) SCR 83
AIR 1989 SC 733
relied on
referred to
referred to
referred to
referred to
1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 483 referred to
AIR 1995 SC 2345
referred to
1999 (2) SCR 29
referred to
2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 96 relied on
2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 408 relied on
AIR 1956 SC 51
relied on
1963 SCR 239
AIR 2008 SC 1184
c2010) 14 sec 129
relied on
distinguished
relied on
2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 144 relied on
2010 (2) SCR 119
1983 (3) SCR 729
relied on
relied on
1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 215 referred to
Para 17
Para 19
Para 19
Para 19
Para 21
Para 22
c
D
Para 24
Para 25
Para 26
E
Para 29
Para 29
Para 29
F
Para 30
Para 32
Para 34
Para 37
Para 37
para 38
G
H
1110
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 7 S.C.R.
A
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 2001 of 2010.
From the Judgment & Order dated 01.04.2009 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal
B No. 399-DB of 2000.
c
Kanchan Kaur Dhodi for the Appellant.
Jayant K. Sud, AAG, Vishal Dabas, Priya Shahdeo, Kuldip
Singh, Mohit Mudgil for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been
preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated
1.4.2009, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
D Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 399-DB of 2000, by which
it has affirmed the judgment and order dated 21.8.2000 passed
by the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in Sessions Case No. 28 of
1996, convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the
E 'IPC'), and awarded him a sentence to undergo RI for life and
to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of this, to undergo
further RI for a period of 3 months. The appellant has further
been sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine
of Rs.1,000/- and in default of this, to undergo further RI for a
F period of 2 months under Section 201 IPC. It has further been
directed that the sentences would run concurrently.
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal
are as under:
G
A. The appellant got married to Dr. Loyalla Shagoufta,
deceased, on 29.10.1993. Both of them being qualified
doctors, were working in the Christian Medical College
(hereinafter referred to as 'CMC'), Hospital Ludhiana. The
relationship between the husband and wife became strained
H and they have been living separately since June 1994.
DR. SUNIL CLIFFORD DANIEL v. STATE OF
1111
PUNJAB [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.)
B. As per the appellant, a petition for divorce by mutual
A
consent was filed on 20.2.1996, under Section 28 of the
Special Marriage Act, 1954 in the Court of the District Judge,
Ludhiana, and both parties therein, appeared before the District
Judge, Ludhiana on the first motion of the case. However, they
were asked to wait for the second motion.
B
C. On 9.3.1996, the appellant handed over a set of blood
stained clothes to Dr. B. Pawar, the Medical Superintendent,
(PW.1 ), stating that when he came to his room that day, the
same were found therein. Dr. B. Pawar (PW.1 ), informed the
C
police about the said incident on the same date.
D. Dr. Loyalla Shagoufta, wife of the appellant, had
informed her mother Smt. Victoria Rani (PW.2), who was living
in Jagadhari, District Yamunanagar, by way of a telephone call
on 6.3.1996, that she would visit her on 8.3.1996. However, she
D
did not reach Jagadhari on 8.3.1996. Victoria Rani (PW.2), then
came to Ludhiana 011 10.3.1996, and found that her daughter
was missing. Smt. Victoria Rani (PW.2) then lodged FIR No.
16 of 1996 on 10.3.1996, at 9.40 p.m. wherein being the
complainant, she expressed her apprehension that the
E
appellant herein, had abducted her daughter with the intention
of killing her.
E. In the meanwhile, Dr. Namrata Saran, one of the
residents of the hostel in which the deceased resided, also
informed Dr. B. Pawar (PW.1), Medical Superintendent that the
deceased had in fact been missing from the hostel since
9.3.1996. After an enquiry it came to light that the deceased
was on leave from 9.3.1996 to 16.3.1996.
F
F. Piara Singh, ASI (PW.13), took up the investigation of G
the case and went to the appellant's hostel, however, his room
No.2010, was found to be locked. A police party searched for
the appellant, among several other places, in the house of Mr.
Rana, one of his relatives, but he could not be traced/found
H
1112
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 7 S.C.R.
A anywhere. Dr. B. Pawar (PW.1) handed over the blood stained
clothes given to him by the appellant, to the 1.0.
G. On 11.3.1996, Vir Rajinder Pal (PW.14), SHO, Police
Station, Ludhiana received a wireless message at 9.00 a.m.,
8 from the Police Chowki at Lalton Kalan, which is about 20 k.m.
away from the main city, informing him that the dead body of a
female had been found, lying in the bushes, near the main road.
The Investigating Officer took Victoria Rani (PW.2) with him,
while accompanied by other police personnel, and recovered
the body of the deceased from the said place.
c
D
H. Immediately after the recovery of the dead body, Vir
Rajinder Pal (PW.14 ), visited the room of the appellant in the
hostel and conducted a thorough search of the same, in the
presence of Dr. B. Pawar (PW.1 ), Medical Superintendent.
I. The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted by a
Medical Board consisting of three doctors, including Dr. U.S.
Sooch (PW.11 ), on 11.3.1996. He opined that the deceased
had died by way of strangulation and a corresponding ligature
E mark was found on her neck. She also had several grievous
injuries to her head.
J. On 11.3.1996, the Investigating Officer came to know,
in the course of interrogation that, the appellant had used the
car of one Dr. Pauli (CW.2), and that a blood stained mat was
F lying in the dicky of the said car. The police hence took
possession of the said car and mat, and sent the mat for
preparation of an FSL report.
K. The appellant was arrested on 11.3.1996, and his room
G in the hostel was searched yet again, by one Ashok Kumar,
Head Constable from the Forensic Department, who scraped
some blood stained earth from the floor of the room. He also
found a pair of blood stained white V-shaped, Hawaii
chappals. Photographs of the said room were also taken. During
H
DR. SUNIL CLIFFORD DANIEL v. STATE OF
1113
PUNJAB [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
interrogation, the appellant made a disclosure statement on
A
13.3.1996 to the effect that he would be able to help in the
recovery of some relevant material from a place where he had
hidden it. The appellant then led the police party to a place
behind Old Jail, Ludhiana. From there, after removing some
garbage etc., one blood stained gunny bag, a blood stained
B
dumb-bell and one blood stained tie, were recovered.
L. The said recovered articles alongwith the clothes etc.,
found en the body of the deceased at the time of the postmortem, and the blood stained clothes given by the appellant
C
to Dr. B. Pawar (PW.1 ), which were subsequently handed over
to the Investigating Officer, were sent for FSL report.
M. The FSL and serological report was then received, and
it revealed that, all the articles recovered by the police during
investigation, including the blood stained floor of his room, a
D
part of the Hawaii chappals, and the recovered tie, contained
human blood, with the sole exception of the mats found in the
dicky of the car. The blood stains herein, had dis-integrated
and it was therefore not possible to ascertain whether the same
also contained human blood.
E
N. The police completed the investigation of the case and
submitted a charge sheet against the appellant. The case was
converted from one under Section 364, to one under Sections
302 and ~01 IPC. The appellant was thus charged, but as he
pleaded not guilty, he claimed trial. The prosecution examined
15 witnesses and two court witnesses were also examined
under Section 31 ~ of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
(hereinafter called as 'Cr.P.C.').
F
0. After the conclusion of the trial and appreciation of the
G
evidence in full, the learned Sessions Judge, vide judgment and
order dated 21.8.2000 found the appellant guilty on both counts
and hence awarded him the aforementioned punishments.
P. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal
H
1114
SUF'REME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 7 S.C.R.
A No.399-DB of 2000 before the High Court, which was
dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated
1.4.2009.
B
Hence, this appeal.
3. Mrs. Kanchan Kaur Dhodi, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant, submitted that the investigation was not
conducted fairly. She stated that the appellant herein, had no
motive whatsoever to commit the murder of his wife, and that
they were going to separate very soon, as both parties had filed
C an application seeking divorce, by mutual consent. Further, no
recovery was made from the room of the appellant in the hostel,
rather the objects recovered had been planted. The appellant
did not make any disclosure statement. Thus, even the recovery
made from the place in close vicinity of the Old Jail, was not
D made in accordance with law, as there was no independent
witness with respect to the said recoveries, and the recovery
memo also, was never signed by the appellant. It is therefore,
a case of circumstantial evidence. The courts below failed to
appreciate that the chain of circumstances is not complete.
E Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
4. Per contra, Shri Jayant K. Sud, AAG, appearing for the
State of Punjab, has opposed the appeal, contending that the
circumstances in the present case, point towards the guilt of
F the appellant without any exception. The deceased was surely
killed in the room of the appellant. Recoveries were clearly
made in view of the disclosure statement made by the
appellant. Law does not require the recovery memo to be
signed by the accused. He also stated that the appellant
disappeared after the said incident and could only be arrested
G after a period of two days. It is the appellant alone who could
explain the circumstances surrounding the purpose for which
he had borrowed the car of Dr. Pauli (CW.2), and why he had
wanted to hire a taxi to go to Jagadhari, as admittedly, his
relations with his wife had been very strained. The appeal
H clearly lacks merit and is therefore liable to be dismissed.
DR. SUNIL CLIFFORD DANIEL v. STATE OF
1115
PUNJAB [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
5. We have considered the rival submissions made by
A
learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. Dr. U.S. Sooch (PW.11), was among the members of
the Board of Doctors, who conducted the post-mortem of the
body of the deceased on 11.3.1996, at 5.00 p.m. and found
B
the following injuries on her person:
"1. Well defined ligature mark 9" x 3.4" placed horizontally
on the front of neck and both lateral sides of the neck, in
the middle of neck and on the right side of the nee~
reaching below the lobule of the right ear. On exploration
C
of the ligature the subcutaneous tissue was ecchymosed
with laceration of underneath muscles and the hyoid bone
was fractured. The larynx and trachea were congested.
2. An abrasion Yi " x Yi" on the tip of the chin.
3. Abrasion %" x Yi" and 1" below the angle, of left
mandible.
D
4. Lacerated wound 2, Yi" x 1" x bone deep obliquely
placed on the right fronto parietal region and 1" inside the
E
hair line near the midline.
5. Lacerated wound with badly crushed margins 2, Yi'' x
Yi" bone deep on the right occipital region.
6. Defused swelling 3" x 2" on the right occipital region
across the midline.
Therefore, it is evident from the aforementioned injuries,
as also from the medical report, that the deceased Loyalla
Shagoufta was, without a doubt, a victim of homicide.
7. Dr. B. Pawar (PW.1 ), Medical Superintendent, deposed
to the extent that the deceased was supposed to be on leave
from 9.3.1996 to 16.3.1996, and that on the date of the said
incident, she was not present in her hostel. Further, the
F
G
H
1116
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2012] 7 S.C.R.
A appellant had reported to him, that when he came back to his
room, he had found some blood stained clothes therein. The
clothes were thereafter collected in a bag, and were kept in the
office of Dr. B. Pawar (PW.1 ), and the possession of the same,
was subsequently taken, by the police.
B
8. Smt. Victoria Rani (PW.2), mother of the deceased
supported the case of the prosecution. She deposed that her
daughter's marriage with the appellant had been quite strained,
since no child could be born out of the wedlock and hence, they
C had started living separately. Her daughter had informed her
by way of a telephone call, that she would visit Jagadhari on
7.3.1996, but she never came. Therefore, the complainant,
Victoria Rani (PW.2), came to Ludhiana to search for her
daughter, but she was found to be missing. Thus, she submitted
a complaint to the police, on the basis of which, an FIR was
D lodged, wherein, she expressed her doubts with regard to the
intention of the appellant, as in her opinion, he had been
wanting to get rid of her daughter, and therefore, he could have
kidnapped her for the purpose of killing her and fulfilling his
purpose, once and for all.
E
9. Some of the witnesses, particularly Sarabjit Singh
(PW.7), Security Guard of the hospital, Anil Kumar (PW.9), a
Cook, working in the canteen of the Junior Doctor's Hostel and
Joginder Singh (PW.12), did not support the case of the
F prosecution and turned hostile. However, the evidence of Kirpal
Dev Singh (PW.8), is highly relevant. He deposed in court that
he was providing services of a taxi and would park the same
in the premises of CMC Hospital, Ludhiana. On 8.3.1996, the
Canteen Contractor Joshi, had asked him to talk to Dr. Sunil
G of CMC, who wished to hire his taxi to go to Jagadhari.
Accordingly, he went to speak to the appellant and became
aware of the fact that the appellant wished to travel to Jagadhari
on 9.3.1996. He then went to the appellant's hostel with his taxi
on 9.3.1996, but was told by him that his wife had presently
gone to collect her salary from Lalton Kalan and therefore,
H asked him to come again at 10.00 a.m. Thus, the said witness
DR. SUNIL CLIFFORD DANIEL v. STATE OF
1117
PUNJAB [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.)
went to the doctor's place again, at 10.00 a.m. but he was yet
A
again asked to come later, this time at 11.30 a.m. It was then,
that tne said witness told the doctor that he was no longer willing
to go to Jagadhari and he may engage another taxi, for this
purpose.
B
10. Piara Singh, ASI (PW.13), deposed that he came to
know about the said incident and henceforth went to CMC
Hospital, Ludhiana, on 10.3.1996, after receiving the complaint
made by Victoria Rani (PW.2). However, he found room No.
2010 of the said hostel occupied by the appellant to be locked
C
from the outside. He then went alongwith a police party, to the
room of the deceased but found that, this too had been locked
from the outside. The witness then attempted to search for the
appellant, and for this purpose, he also went to the house of
Mr. Rana, who was a relative of the appellant and was living in
close proximity to the hospital in Ludhiana itself, but the
D
appellant could not be found either here. He continued his
search at various other places, including hotels but was unable
to find the accused.
On 11.3.1996, he stated that he had accompanied Vir
E
Rajinder Pal (PW.14), and had therefore participated in the
recovery of the dead body of deceased Dr. Loyalla Shagoufta
from Lalton Kalan. He further deposed that on 13.3.1996, one
gunny bag, one iron dumb bell and one tie were recovered in
the presence of panch witness, Randhir Singh. A disclosure
F
statement was also made by the appellant, in his presence to
the effect that, these articles were related to the murder of the
deceased and he had offered to help recover the same.
11. After recording the evidence led by the prosecution,
the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313
G
Cr.P.C. The appellant denied all the allegations made by the
prosecution and pleaded innocence. He stated that the blood
stained clothes had been left in the balcony of his room, when
he was not present therein and that he had produced the said
H
1118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 7 S.C.R.
A clothes before Dr. B. Pawar (PW.1 ), Medical Superintendent,
prior to the lodging of the FIR.
12. Vir Rajinder Pal (PW.14), supported the case of the
prosecution in full, giving complete details from the very
8 beginning of the incident, as he was posted as the SHO, Police
Station, Ludhiana on 10.3.1996. He deposed regarding the
recoveries made from the room of the accused, after the
checking of the room and the preparation of seizure memos.
The keys of the car parked in the premises of CMC hospital,
one blood stained mat, duly attested by the panch witnesses,
C and a photocopy of the registration certificate of the said car,
were taken into possession, as also the recovery of the blood
stained clothes, which were handed over to him by Dr. B.
Pawar (PW.1 ). He further deposed with regard to how the
appellant was arrested as also about the items that were
D recovered from his body, the recovery of the blood stained floor
from the appellant's room and the V-shaped pair of Hawaii
chappals. The articles were all sealed and sent for FSL. He
finally deposed regarding the manner in which the body was
recovered, how the panchnama of recovery was prepared, and
E also about the manner in which, the post-mortem was
conducted.
13. Dr. Pauli (CW.2), deposed that on 9.3.1996, he was
contacted by the appellant at 6.00 p.m. and was told by him
F that his wife was missing, as a result of which, the appellant
was in need of his car. Dr. Pauli (CW.2), therefore, gave his
car to the appellant, bearing registration No. CH01-5653. The
appellant returned after a duration of 1 % hours, parked the car
outside the hostel, and handed over the key to the said witness.
G The possession of the said car was taken by the police on
11.3.1996, and the blood stained rubber mat was then
recovered from the dicky of the car. The said mat was sealed
and taken away by the Investigating Officer (PW.14).
14. The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record
H came to the following conclusions:
DR. SUNIL CLIFFORD DANIEL v. STATE OF
1119
PUNJAB [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
"However, various pieces of circumstantial evidence
A
discussed above i.e. blood scratching lifted from the
hostel room in occupation of accused production of
various blood stained clothes by the accused before the
Medical Superintendent of the Hospital and the recovery
of blood stained neck tie and dumb-be/I on the basis of B
a disclosure statement suffered by the accused and the
blood stained car mat recovered in the case leave no
manner of doubt that Dr. Mrs. Loyal/a Shagoufta was first
done to death in the hostel room no. 2010 in occupation
of the accused by strangulating her as well as causing c
various injuries to her and thereafter the accused
appeared to Dr. Pauli CW. 2 to remove the traces of
evidence appearing against him and was liable for the
murder of Dr Mrs. Loyal/a Shagoufta deceased as well
as for causing dis-appearance of the evidence.
Dr. Loyal/a Shagoufta in fact appeared to have
been murdered in the hostel room in occupation of the
accused. Various blood stains recovered from that room
D
are a clear pointer to the fact that she was murdered in
that room. None else could commit the crime in that room
E
except with the knowledge and consent of the accused
when the accused alone was in occupation of that room
and was responsible for the crime committed in that room.
Production of various blood stained clothes by the
accused before the Medical Superintendent of the
F
Hospital also goes to show that he was fully involved in
the crime. On the fateful evening he also borrowed car
from Dr. Pauli CW2, which was used by him in removal
of the dead body from the place of crime and the recovery
of a blood stained mat from that car a/so goes to show
G
that he in fact removed the dead body in that car. All this
shows that he in fact murdered his wife Dr. Mrs. Loyal/a
Shagoufta and later on removed her dead body to cause
dis-appearance as we// as for causing dis-appearance of
the evidence against him."
H
1120
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 7 S.C.R.
A
So far as the motive is concerned, the court came to the
conclusion that there was sufficient motive to kill the deceased,
as the appellant wanted to now get rid of the deceased. More
so, the appellant could not explain how the deceased happened
to meet her death in his room. The court noted that though there
B were minor discrepancies in the story, the same were not fatal
to the case of the prosecution and added that the case of the
prosecution was fully supported by the FSL report and therefore,
on such grounds, convicted the appellant.
C
15. The High Court concurred with the finding of the trial
court observing as under:
D
E
F
G
H
"Non-production of copy of Divorce Petition shows that
the appellant-accused had the motive to eliminate the
deceased. Admission of the appellant-accused before
Dr. B. Pawar that blood stained clothes were found lying
in his room and later on change of stand when examined
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the bfood stained clothes
were lying in the balcony of the Junior Doctor's Hospital
show that the prosecution story inspires confidence.
Firstly, Dr. Shagoufta was murdered. Blood stained
clothes were recovered from the room and by arranging
car of Dr. Pauli dead body was thrown in the area of
village La/ton Kalan. Dead body lying near the road is
suggesting that the appellant-accused was in hurry to
dispose of the dead body, that is why, after 1 ~hours key
of the car was returned to Dr. Pauli. Tie, dumb-be/I and
gunny bag were recovered as per disclosure statement
and the recovered articles were found to be stained with
blood. On 9.3.1996, Dr. Yogesh through Sarabjit Singh,
Security Guard summoned the appellant-accused to
Operation Theatre, but nothing on the file that the
appellant-accused had attended the Operation Theatre
to assist Dr. Yogesh. PW 7 Sarabjit Singh had gone to
the room of the appellant-accused with the request that
services of the appellant-accused are needed in the
DR. SUNIL CLIFFORD DANIEL v. STATE OF
1121
PUNJAB [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
Operation Threatre. Sarabjit Singh is not related to the
A
deceased. So, there was no idea to disbelieve him.
As per post-mortem examination, death was due to
strangulation as well as by causing various injuries. Neck tie
recovered as per disclosure statement suffered by the
8
appellant-accused was found to be stained with blood."
16. The instant case is a case of blind murder and is based
entirely on circumstantial evidence, as there is no eye-witness
to the said incident.
17. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra,
AIR 1984 SC 1622, it was held by this court that, the onus is
c
on the prosecution to prove, that the chain is complete and that
falsity or untenability of the defence set up by the accused,
cannot be made the basis for ignoring any serious infirmity or o
lacuna in the case of the prosecution. The Court then proceeded
to indicate the conditions which must be fully established before
a conviction can be made on the basis of circumstantial
evidence. These are:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
E
is to be drawn should be fully established.