# RAJINDER KUMAR AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB - **Citation:** [1963] 3 S.C.R. 281 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1961-01-05 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 1961 - **Bench:** J. L. Kapur, K. C. Das Gupta, Raghubar Dayal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/rajinder-kumar-and-another-v-the-state-of-punjab-2614 - **Pages:** 9 ## Headnote 281 Murder -Motive not established-Want of proof of motive, not a ·reason for doubting evidence of crime-Indian Penal Oode (Act 45 o.f 1860), 88. 201, 302. The first appellant was convicted under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of a three and a half year old boy, T, and sentenced to death, while his father, the second" appellant, was convicted under s. 201 for having concealed 'I's dead body. The prosecution case was that on January 5 1961, between 3-30 p.m. and 4 p.m. when T was at the hoilse of the appellants and the other inmates of the house were away, the first appellant killed T by stuffing his mouth with a cloth and kept the dead body in the garage in their house; and that on that very night he and his father buried the dead body in the compound after putting it in a gunny bag. The evidence showed that a few days before January 5, i961, relations between the first appellant and T's father had become strained because the first appellant had talked to T's mother in a way which her husband did not like and the latter asked the first appellant to stop his visits to their house; and T who used to be a frequent visitor to the first appellant stopped his visits for some days, bu.t resumed them three or four days before January 5; and that on that date Twas last seen alive at about 3-30 p m. in the first appellant's house playing. with him. Both the trial court and the High Court found that the prosecution case was fully established by the evidence. It was contem;!ed for the appellants that the findings of the lower courts were not justified, and that no reasonable motive for the crime had been proved. Hela, that the appellants had been rightly convicted; that though the motive for the murder does not appear from the evidence that can be no reason for doubting the conclusion which flows 'clear from the circumstances. The motive behind a crime is a relevant fact of which evidence can be given; absence of motive is also a relevant circumstance. That has to be comidered along with other circumstances. It often happens that only the culprit knows the motive behind his action. 1962 May 0 p. m. (4) At ttbout 4 p. m· Tonny's mother Sudha called out ~o Tonny after preparing the tea 1962 RaJinder Kumar "· Stale of Punjab Das Gupta J, ltajinder Kumar v. Stale of Punjab DasG11pta J, 284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) . hut 'not getting any response asked Rajind<'r Kumar, whom she saw coming from the direction of the Garage as to where Tonny was. (5) Rajinder Kumar said that Tonny had gone with his wife to the house of Jagdish Goyal. Rajinder's wife came back to the house just at that time and in reply to Sudha said that Tonny had not gone with her but had been playing about with her husband. Sudha then enquired again from R1tjinder about 'l'onny and he said Tonny might have izone to the shop of Baba to fetch a toast. (6) At the same time Bhagat Ram returned with his cycla and wanted to keep it into the Garage but finding that Rajinder had lo~ked the Garage he asked him to open the lock but Rajinder asked him to put the cycle in the house saying that he had put some important articles in the Garage and so would not open the Jock. (7) That niglit Bhagat Ram slept in th"l kitchen and Rajinder Kumar who had gone out of the house after 4 {)' clock pretending to take part in the search for Tonny returned home at 12 midnight and put on the light in the kitchen where Bhagat Ram had laid himself down and asked him why he had not gone to sleep. (8) At about 2 O' clock when Bhagat Ram came out to answer a call of nature he saw Rajinder and hie father in front of the Garage talking to each other but they ·kf'pt quiet when he drew near. (I!) B.ajinder remained outside the house for a.bout another two hours·during which Bhagat Ram was a.wake. (10) Un January 9, Rajinder met Raj Kumar a teacher in a primary school on the bridge in Mohalla Jori Bhatia and asked for his assistance in removing the dead body of the child after confessing to him tb:at he had murdered him. ( 11) Rajinder was interro~ated by the polioe on the 3rd and 4th February, and ultimately on the 5th February when he was taken by the policA to his own house he made a statement that he had buried the dead. body of the child at a distance of 6 to 7 ft. from the mstin - 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 285 gate towards the right, wrapped in a gunny bag olose to the Gui Mohar tree. (12) Then Rajinder Kumar pointed out a place, dug there about 4 ft. deep and Tonny's body was found there in a gunny bag with his own garments on and with a banian thrust in his mouth. (13) There was also a towel which has been identified by Bha~at Ram as belonging to the accused Rajinder Kumar, inside the bag. ( 14) Human blood was detected on the ·hanian towel and the bag as also on the garments on the body of the child. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and urged that they had been implicated falsAly on unjustified suspicion. The Trial Court as also the High Court found all the 14 circumstances mentioned above fullv established by evidence. Mr. Chari, who appeared before us, on behalf of both the appellants, does not contest that if these circumstances have bAen proved they follv justi(v the conclusion reached by the courts below. H~, however, tried to persuade us that the High Courl; was wrong in finding some of the circumstances, at least, · to have been proved. It appears to us that if no other circumstances than th~ second, fifth and twelfth circumstances mentioned above have been proved they are by themselves sufficient, without anything more, to justify the conolu.sion that Rejinder Kumar · murdered Tonny. If Tonny was last seen with him at 3. 30 p. m. on the 5th and the dead body is discovered in his own house buried under the earth and this fact is known to him and it is further found that about 4 p. m. on the 5th he marie contradictory statements as to where Tonny had gone, these three circumstances are incapable of expla.nation on any other reasonable hypothesis than that he killed the boy between 3.3(} and 4 p.m. 1962 Rajinder Kumar v, State of Punji6 Das Gupta J. 1982 Rojinder Kumar v, State of Punjab Dai GuptaJ. 288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] on that . day and some time later buried the body. Mr. Chari suggested that it might be thr t Tonny was killed somewhere else by some unknown person and then that killer found some opportunity of bringing the· dead body into the appellant'.; house and buried it there. This appears to us as an absurd suggestion, hardly worth serious consideration. If somebody else killed Tonny t:lsewhere, wha.t could be the reason for his taking the trouble of carrying the body to the appellant's house and burying it there at the risk of being surpri~ed by ,somebody before he had finished the job ? Apart from that the fact remains, as proved beyond shadow of doubt, that the place where the body had been buried was known to Rajinder and it was R1tjinder himself who dug the ground at the right place for the recovery of the body. Mr. Chari drew our attention to the statement of prosecution witness No. 5 Mrs. Gurdeep Kaur Girin that .the police came to the house of the accused two days before the recovery of the child's deadbody and that some pits were dug by the police on that day and that Rajinder was with them. All the police officers have denied that any digging was done before the 5th. It seems to UB clear that Mrs. Gurdeep Kaur while giving evidence in June 1961 has made a mistake about the date on which she saw the digging being done. But even assuming that what she says was correct it would not show that Rajinder did not know the place where the body bad been kept; it would merely show that even then be was keeping quiet about it. Some comment has beep made by the learned Counsel on the . failure of the police to discover by themselves during their numerous visits to the · appellant's house that the ground was disturbed. We find nothing surprising in this. Few people not even the police officers who bad som'e suspicion against the a<'cused from the very commencement of the investigation would e:xi:ect the accusEd 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 287 to be so daring as to bury the dead body in the compound of his own house. The fact that any disturbed condition of the ground was not discovered by the police before the 5th February can be therefore no ground for thinking, as the learned Counsel suggestB, that the bndy had been brought there from somewhere else shortly before the 5th. · While we think the few circumstances mentioned above are by themselvPs sufficient to justify the conviction of Rajinder Kumar under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Cl)de, we think it proper to add that nothing has been shown to us that would justify us in interfering with the conclusion of the courts below that the 6th, 7th, 8th and the 9th circumstances mentioned above have also been proved. Mr. Chari wanted us to believe ·that Bhagat Ham was taken into policA custody on the 31st January and it is strange that his statement was not recorded by the policfl before the 5th February. The High Court bas believed the evi· dence of the Inspector of Police, Ram Nath Paras, that Bhagat Ram was not available at Patiala for recording of his statement till the 7th February, 1 \:J6 l and we cannot see anything that calls for our reappraisal of the evidence on this question. The criticism levelled by Mr. Chari i:tgainst the evidence of prosecution witnesses· Raj Kumar and Mahabir Da.yal for provincr the 10th circumstance mentioned above about Rajinder's extra-judicial confession is more plausible. These two wit11esses are on their own Fbowing persons of sharly character and they would not, be above giving falsfl evirlence to ohlige the police, if the police wanted it. But, it is difficult to see why the police should think it necPS· sary to secure the senrice>1 of these persons for giving false evidP.nOfl when the practicallv conclusive evidence afforded by the disoovery of the deail. body in the appellan-b's compound was already 1962 Rajinder Ku'llar v. St•te of Puojab Da• Gupta .J. 1962 Rajinder Kumar v. Stat, of !'unjab DuGuptc J. 288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] there. The fitory of the extra-judicial c:mfession of Rajinder Kumar, as given by Raj Kumar and supported by Mahabir Dayal is therefore likely to be true. But it is really unnecessary for the purpose of tbe present case to examine the question further. For, any support from this 10th circum.' stance regarding the extra-judicial confession is not needed by the prosecution. What moved Rajinder Kumar to commit this daetardly deed is not clear. Tbe strained ralations between 1'onny's fathn Havinder on the one hand a.nd Raj ind er on the. other because the former had asked Rajinder to stop his visits as mentioned in the first circumstance specifie-l above does not explain his action. Let us as•ume, however, that even this evidence of strained relations had not been giTen. That can Le no reason for doubting the evidence, as regards the other circumstances that has been adduced or for hesitating to draw the ineBcapable ·conclusion from them. The motive behind a crime is a relevant fact of which evidencti can be given. The absence of a motive is a also a circumstance ·which is relevant for assessing the evidence. The circumstances which have been mentioned above as proving the guilt of the acuused Rajinder are however .not weakened at all by this fact that the motive has not - been established. It often happens that only the culprit himself knows what moved him to a certain course of action. This case appears to be one like that. We are satisfied that Rajinder Kumar has rightly been convicted under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death. The case against J agdish . Qhander rests on Bhagat Ram's evidence. This witne.ss, a youth of seven teen, joined the service of t h.e accused about 5 or 6 months before January 1961. He was a servant in the house on the 5th January. He has .;_,, 3 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 289 .f given evidence that when on that day at about 9 or 10 p. m. he asked . for the key of the Garage to bring out his bedding which was there the appellant Jagdish said tha.t he would do it himself and actually brought out the bedding. He has further said that when at about 2 O'clock he got up to make water he saw Rajinder and his father, walking about in front of the Garage, that they were talking ·, to each other but kept quiet when he went out; and also that he could not sleep for about a couple of hours after that and that during all this time both the father and son-Rajinder and Jagdishremained outside the house. We have already ~tated above that there is no ·reason for us to interfere with the view tak~n by the courts below that Bhagat Ram's evidence should be believed. Once that is believed the conduct of J agdish as proved by it becomes incapable of explanation on any other reasonable hypothesis than that after coming to know that Rajinder had murdered Tonny he helped Rajinder in concealing the dead body by burying it underground. Mr. Chari suggested tha.t Rajinder might have told his father that the boy had died accidentally on receiving au electric shoQk and the learned. Counsel drew our attention in this connection to the fact that an electric wire made into a ring was found on the thumb of th'3 dead body. The medical examination shows however that this wire had nothing tn do with the boy's death. Mr. Chari accepts that position, but argues that still Rajinder might have falsely told his father that the death was due to electrocution. There might have been seme force in this argument were it not for the fact that a blood-stained banian was found stuffed in the mouth of the boy and a blood-stained towel was also found in the gunny bag. There is therefore no scope for the argument that Jagdish was misinformed by his son Rajinder about how Tonny had met his death. e circumstances 1 hat have been prov rd clearly IHI Il1jinier ir...., v. si.1, •f l'uaJU D•1 CfJ/t• .f.