# RAJIVSINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR &ANOTHER

- **Citation:** [2015] 12 S.C.R. 1
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2015-12-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1708 of2015
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/rajivsingh-v-state-of-bihar-another-30338
- **Pages:** 54

## Headnote

[2015] 12 S.C.R. 1
RAJIVSINGH
v.
STATE OF BIHAR &ANOTHER
(Criminal Appeal No. 1708 of2015)
DECEMBER 16, 2015
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.]·
1
A
B
Penal Code, 1860: ss.3048, 201, 498A - Unnatural
death of woman - Appellant and his wife 'A' went on c
honeymoon trip after 4 months of marriage and spent 4-5
days there -
While travelling on their way back, 'A'
disappeared from the train - After 3 days, a dead body of a
woman was found near the railway track of the same train
route - Body had been lying prostrate due to which the face D
was not recognizable - The cousin of 'A' surveyed the dead
body and opined that it was not of 'A' - As per post mortem
report, the time lag between the death and post mortem
examination was more than 6 days- Pending investigation,
mother of 'A' filed complaint against appellant alleging dowry E
demand- Testimony of co-passengers was to the effect that
'A' was seen by them to be hale and hearty in the train till
Katihar much beyond Azamgarh where dead body was found
- Trial court held the appellant-husband guilty - High Court
affirmed the same - On appeal, held: There was discrepancy F
in the wearing apparel of the dead body and that of 'A'. -
Even the parents of 'A' were not convinced that the dead body
found by the side of the railway track was that of their daughter
- This was proved by the fact that the mother had filed a writ G
of habeas corpus which having regard to ongoing
investigation was dismissed - Viscera of the dead body
contained poisonous substance, however prosecution failed
to establish how and when she was administered poison since
according to the co-passengers she was in a normal state,
H
1
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 12 S.C.R.
A neither restive nor irritating, pungent or sick - DNA test was
not carried out in a government laboratory and instead was
done at a private laboratory in violation of the norms - Thus,
DNA test report and evidence of the Director of the FSL failed
to inspire confidence in view of shortcomings and
l::s
deficiencies -
Prosecution failed to establish beyond
reasonable doubt the death of 'A' - The evidence as a whole
bearing on dowry demand and harassment or ill-treatment
in connection therewith was also not convincing - Courts
below failed to examine and evaluate the evidence on record
C in the right perspective both factual and legal and thus have
grossly erred in returning a finding of guilt against him on
the above charges.
Criminal jurisprudence: It is a well entrenched principle
D of criminal jurisprudence that a charge can be said to be
proved only when there is certain and explicit evidence to
warrant legal conviction and that no person can be held guilty
on pure moral conviction - Howsoever grave the alleged
offence may be, and otherwise stirring the conscience of any
E court, suspicion alone cannot take the place of legal proof -
The well established cannon of criminal justice is "fouler the
crime higher the proof' - In unmistakable terms, it is the
mandate of law that the prosecution in order to succeed in a
F criminal trial, has to prove the charge(s) beyond all
reasonable doubt.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. If the testimony of co-pas.
gers PWs 5,
G 6 and 7 in particular is to be believed, 'A' was with her
husband, the appellant, in the train till Barauni junction
which is several stations away from Azamnagar Station
and distanced by a journey of approximately 6 & 1/2
hours. Axiomatically therefore, from the consistent
H evidence of these witnesses, who have not been
. RAJIV SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR
3
decl~red hostile by the prosecution, it is very unlikely A
that the dead body recovered .near Azamnagar station
could have been, to start with, that of 'A'.
Even the
parents of 'A' or any of her family members have not
claimed that the dead body was of 'A'. Significantly as
well, the letter addressed by the cousin of 'A' to the B
Station House Officer, Mokamah G.R.P.S., divulges in
clear terms that on repeated survey of the dead

## Text

_Characters 0–39,682 of 102,670. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39682 for what follows._

[2015] 12 S.C.R. 1
RAJIVSINGH
v.
STATE OF BIHAR &ANOTHER
(Criminal Appeal No. 1708 of2015)
DECEMBER 16, 2015
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.]·
1
A
B
Penal Code, 1860: ss.3048, 201, 498A - Unnatural
death of woman - Appellant and his wife 'A' went on c
honeymoon trip after 4 months of marriage and spent 4-5
days there -
While travelling on their way back, 'A'
disappeared from the train - After 3 days, a dead body of a
woman was found near the railway track of the same train
route - Body had been lying prostrate due to which the face D
was not recognizable - The cousin of 'A' surveyed the dead
body and opined that it was not of 'A' - As per post mortem
report, the time lag between the death and post mortem
examination was more than 6 days- Pending investigation,
mother of 'A' filed complaint against appellant alleging dowry E
demand- Testimony of co-passengers was to the effect that
'A' was seen by them to be hale and hearty in the train till
Katihar much beyond Azamgarh where dead body was found
- Trial court held the appellant-husband guilty - High Court
affirmed the same - On appeal, held: There was discrepancy F
in the wearing apparel of the dead body and that of 'A'. -
Even the parents of 'A' were not convinced that the dead body
found by the side of the railway track was that of their daughter
- This was proved by the fact that the mother had filed a writ G
of habeas corpus which having regard to ongoing
investigation was dismissed - Viscera of the dead body
contained poisonous substance, however prosecution failed
to establish how and when she was administered poison since
according to the co-passengers she was in a normal state,
H
1
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 12 S.C.R.
A neither restive nor irritating, pungent or sick - DNA test was
not carried out in a government laboratory and instead was
done at a private laboratory in violation of the norms - Thus,
DNA test report and evidence of the Director of the FSL failed
to inspire confidence in view of shortcomings and
l::s
deficiencies -
Prosecution failed to establish beyond
reasonable doubt the death of 'A' - The evidence as a whole
bearing on dowry demand and harassment or ill-treatment
in connection therewith was also not convincing - Courts
below failed to examine and evaluate the evidence on record
C in the right perspective both factual and legal and thus have
grossly erred in returning a finding of guilt against him on
the above charges.
Criminal jurisprudence: It is a well entrenched principle
D of criminal jurisprudence that a charge can be said to be
proved only when there is certain and explicit evidence to
warrant legal conviction and that no person can be held guilty
on pure moral conviction - Howsoever grave the alleged
offence may be, and otherwise stirring the conscience of any
E court, suspicion alone cannot take the place of legal proof -
The well established cannon of criminal justice is "fouler the
crime higher the proof' - In unmistakable terms, it is the
mandate of law that the prosecution in order to succeed in a
F criminal trial, has to prove the charge(s) beyond all
reasonable doubt.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. If the testimony of co-pas.
gers PWs 5,
G 6 and 7 in particular is to be believed, 'A' was with her
husband, the appellant, in the train till Barauni junction
which is several stations away from Azamnagar Station
and distanced by a journey of approximately 6 & 1/2
hours. Axiomatically therefore, from the consistent
H evidence of these witnesses, who have not been
. RAJIV SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR
3
decl~red hostile by the prosecution, it is very unlikely A
that the dead body recovered .near Azamnagar station
could have been, to start with, that of 'A'.
Even the
parents of 'A' or any of her family members have not
claimed that the dead body was of 'A'. Significantly as
well, the letter addressed by the cousin of 'A' to the B
Station House Officer, Mokamah G.R.P.S., divulges in
clear terms that on repeated survey of the dead body,
he had in clear terms opined that it was not of 'A' and
had cited as many as nine reasons in support of his
unqualified conclusion to that effect. He was however C
not examined by the prosecution for reasons best known
to it. [Paras 44, 45] [38-C-F, G]
2. The finding recorded in the post-mortem report
as to the probable time of death also compounds the D
mounting difficulties of the prosecution. Apart from being
silent about the cause of death of the female whose
dead body was subjected to autopsy, it mentioned in ·
no uncertain terms that the time lag between the death
and the post-mortem examination was more than six E
days. Arithmetically, thus death had occurred to the
female concerned prior to 13.8.2007 which
argumentatively as well suggests to rule out the
possibility that it was that of 'A'. as she was alive and
traveliing in train in the inte..'1ening night of 14.8.2007 and F
15.8.2007 much past the Azamnagar Station. PW8 who
had conducted the post-mortem, has also affirmed in his
testimony, the margin of time between death and the
post-mortem examination of the dead body to that effect. G
Apart from that, there was inconsistency in the
description of the wearing apparels of 'A' and that of the
dead body. Whereas PWs 5,6 and 7 have in unison
deposed that she haJ been wearing a green coloured
salwar suit, the inquest report on the dead body H
4
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 12 S.C.R.
A disclosed that a white and pink salwar sameej was found
on the dead body. Whereas the prosecution had made
an endeavour to prove that the wearing clothes of the
dead body were that of 'A', her family members on being
shown the same, had in categorical terms denied that
B those were hers. [Paras 46, 47) [38-H; 39-A-E]
3. It is a matter of record that the report of the FSL
did disclose that the viscera of the dead body did contain
highly poisonous substance as mentioned therein.
C Having regard to the fact that 'A', in the company of the
appellant, while travelling throughout the evening and
as seen by the prosecution witnesses PWs 5,6 and 7
was overall in a normal state, neither restive nor irritating,
pungent or sick, it was the burden of the prosecution to
IJl
establish as to how and when she was administered
poison, in order to substantiate that the dead body
recovered was of hers. There is no semblance of either
an endeavour or any evidence in this regard. [Para 48)
[39-F-H; 40-A)
E
4. The report of the DNA test was to the effect that
the sample of the tissue of the viscera of the dead body
was the generic product of the parents of'A'. This report
was sought to be proved through PW10 who on the date
F of the receipt of the sample was the Director In-charge,
FSL, Patna. Significantly, though in terms of Section 293
Cr.P.C. the report being one from the government
scientific expert, the same could have been per se used
as evidence in the trial by the trial court in its discretion,
G the prosecution had voluntarily offered this witness to
prove the same. A bare perusal of the contents of the
report as a whole, however, does not disclose any
scientific data on which the above conclusion had been
H arrived at. It is also patent from the testimony of PW10
·that the samples were not analyzed at the laboratory of
RAJIV SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR
5
· FSL, Patna but had been forwarded to a private laboratory A
i.e. Lab India. It has been admitted by the witness, that
he has no expertise in the discipline of DNA test/serology
and he himself was not present when the analysis was
conducted. He admitted to have sent a technician, who
had taken two days training in the same laboratory, to B
undertake the exercise. The prosecution has omitted
to examine the said technician to establish clearly the
process that was pursued to conduct the analysis. The
evidence with regard to collection of blood samples of
the parents of 'A' is shaky and unconvincing as well. The C
samples, as the PW11 Investigating Officer has admitted,
have been forwarded by her directly without routing the
same through the court. The witness (PW10) has
admitted as well, that in case facilities for such analysis 0
are not available with the FSL, Patna, as per the prevalent .
official terms, the same should be got tested in another
government laboratory. The evidence of this witness
thus does not provide the details of the tests undertaken
in support of the conclusion as recorded in the report. E
The samples were not accompanied by
the
authentication card for DNA test as was necessary. This
assumes significance as the authenticatioh card has to
have the photograph of the person(s) offering the
samples for DNA test. This witness conceded that he F
was not deposing as an expert of DNA but in the capacity
of Director, FSL alone.
The DNA test report and the
evidence of PW10, in view of the shortcomings and
deficiencies, thus fail to inspire the confidence of this
Court to accept the same as the basis to hold that the G
dead body was that of 'A'. The prosecution has failed to
prove beyond reasonable doubt that the dead body
retrieved from the bush near the railway tracks in the
vicinity of Azamanagar Police Station was that of 'A'.
[Para 50, 51, 52) (40-D-H; 41-A-E)
H
6
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 12 S.C.R.
A
5. The DNA test report being bereft of the particulars
of the tests conducted and the results thereof permitting
the conclusion arrived at, is not a self contained one and
ipso facto also does not meet the requirements of an
expert opinion to decisively conclude that the dead body
B was that of 'A'. It would thus be wholly unsafe to rely on
this document to conclude that the dead body was that
of 'A'.
Consequently, on the basis of the investigation
and the materials produced, the prosecution has failed
to prove the factum of death of 'A'. [Para 53] [41-H; 42C A-8]
6. PW3, the mother of 'A' had also filed a writ petition
seeking a writ of habeas corpus in the year 2008 before
the High Court at Patna which having regard to the
D ongoing investigation was dismissed. This move on the
part of the PW3 though understandably was a desperate
bid to locate her missing daughter, is equally suggestive
of the fact that she along with her family was not fully
convinced that the dead body was that of hers. [Para
E 54] [42-C-D]
7. A plain perusal of the testimony of the
investigating officers involved, indicates that prior to the
complaint, no allegation of cruelty or harassment for or
F in connection with dowry demand was made against the
appellant or his family members. The testimonies of
PW11 and DW4 in particular are in ample support of this
determination. Even the contents of the complaint do
not unassailably establish cruelty or harassment for or
G in connection with dowry demand as contemplated by
Sections 498A and 3048 IPC when juxtaposed with the
testimony of PW11 and DW4. Both the father and the
brother of 'A' in their depositions have admitted as well
H that the money invested in the mutual funds had neither
RAJIV SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR
7
been withdrawn by the appellant nor had been diverted A
for his use or appropriation.
Queerly, a diary said to
have been written by 'A' had been seized by the police
in the course of investigation by.Mokamah G.R.P.S. and
was claimed to have been seen by PW1 as well. This \
diary has not been produced at the trial and as B
complained by the PW11, Investigation Officer, it had
not been handed over to her as well even when sought
for. In this premise, the improvement in the versions of
PW1, PW2 and PW3 with regard to demand for dowry
and ill-treatment do not commend for acceptance. All C
these, in a way fade tnto insignificance as well in the face
of failure of the prosecution to prove the death of 'A' .
[Para 55] [42-F-H; 43-A-D]
8. Having regard to the contents of the complaint D
dated 5.9.2007, there have been visible improvements
with regard thereto at the trial which make these
imputations untrustworthy on this ground also. Though
the conduct of the appellant in not informing the parents
of 'A' in time about the episode and in lodging the E
complaint at Mokamah G.R.P.S. belatedly has been
severely condemned and viewed to be a part ofthe plot
to cover up his misdeeds in collaboration with his family
members, in absence of any overwhelming evidence in F
support of such perception, such an indictment cannot
be entertained. Besides the fact that individuals react
differently at varying situations, it was not unlikely that
the appellant having found 'A' missing from her berth
while the train was nearing Bakhtiarpur, in the early G
morning, he had made frantic searches for her in the train
and in the process, had reached Patna junction. His
version that he being in a bewildered and anxious state
of mind had been directed at Patna to lodge the FIR at
Mokamah G.R.P.S. and that he eventually did file his H
8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 12 S.C.R.
A complaint, cannot per se be brushed aside to be a
contrivance on his part to delay or misdirect the
investigation in the matter. Incidentally, the mother of
'A' had talked to him over cell phone while he was at
Mokamah and on the instructions of PW1, the complaint
B was lodged at Mokamah G.R.P.S.[Para 56] [43-E-H; 44A-8]
9. Even assuming that the suggested case of the
prosecution is that the appellant had administered
C poison to 'A' after the train had reached Katihar junction
and that thereafter he had disposed of her moribund
body out of the running train, it is very unlikely that these
activities would have gone unnoticed by any of the
passengers in the packed compartment of a sleeper
D coach. This is also in view of the short duration runs of
the train through the intervening stations with intervals
of an average of 15 minutes in between, in course
whereof it might have stopped to enable the passengers
to alight and disembark. In all, such a proposition is
E wholly incredible and in defiance of logic. In the facts
of the present case, the presumption engrafted under
Sections 3048 IPC and 1138 of the Indian Evidence Act
is not available to the prosecution as the essential
F foundational facts to trigger such presumption have
remained unproved. The prosecution has failed to
establish beyond reasonable doubtthe death of 'A'. The
evidence as a whole bearing on dowry demand and
harassment or ill-treatment in connection therewith, is
G also not convincing. On a cumulative scrutiny of the
H
· evidence on record, in the facts and circumstances of
the case, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge
· under Sections 3048/498A/201 IPC against the appellant.
[Para 57, 58, 59] (44-D-H; 45-A-8]
10. It is a well entrenched principle of criminal
RAJIV SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR
9
jurisprudence that a charge can be said to be proved A
only when there is certain and explicit evidence to
warrant legal conviction and that no person can be held
guilty on pure moral conviction. Howsoever grave the
alleged offence may be, otherwise stirring the
conscience of any court, suspicion alone cannot take B
the place of fogal proof. The well established canon of
criminal justice is "fouler the crime higher the proof'. In
unmistakable terms, it is the mandate of law that the
prosecution in order to succeed in a criminal trial, has
to prove the charge(s) beyond all reasonable doubt. The C
evidence adduced by the prosecution dominantly is
. circumstantial in nature with no direct proof of the
perpetration of the alleged offence by the appellant. It is
a trite proposition, judicially evolved, that circumstantial 0
evidence if is to form the basis of conviction must be
such so as to rule out every possible hypothesis of
innocence of the accused and must without any element
of doubt unerringly point to such culpability. The theory
of "last seen together" as an incriminating factor qua E
the appellant is, thus of no avail to the prosecution having
regard to the state of evidence on record.
It would be
wholly unjustified to uphold the conviction of the
appellant for the offences charged on the basis of the
evidence, oral and documentary adduced by the F
prosecution. The conviction and sentence of the
appellant is set-aside and he is ordered to be set at
liberty, if not wanted in an connection with any other case.
[Paras 60, 67- 69) [45-C-D; 49-A-B; 50-D; 51-C-D)
11. There were several shortcomings and pitfalls G
in the investigation process. The diary of 'A' though
seized, was not produced at the trial. The evidence of
the cousin of 'A' who had opined that the dead body was
not that of 'A' was withheld. The Technician, FSL, Patna H
who, as claimed by the prosecution, had conducted the
10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 12 S.C.R.
A DNA test, was not produced. The DNA test was not
carried out in a government laboratory and instead was
done at a private laboratory in violation of the norms.
PW10 who was examined in connection with the DNA
test, admittedly had no expertise in the line and his
· B evidence is, thus, for all intents and purposes of no utility.
No searching effort was made by the Investigating Officer
to ascertain when and how and by whom poison was
administered as found in the viscera of the dead body.
Investigation is also wanting in the matter of identification
C of the dead body and the prosecution relied on
inferences, conjectures and surmises to connect the
appellant with the crime. The investigation in the case,
therefore, has left gaping cracks in it incapable of being
0
sealed or mended. [Para 72] [52-8-F]
12. The investigating agency as the empowered
mechanism of the law enforcing institution of the State
is entrusted with the solemn responsibility of s.ecuring
the safety and security of the citizens and in the process,
E act as the protector of human rights. The police force
with the power and resources at its disposal is a pivotal
cog in the constitutional wheel of the democratic polity
to guarantee the sustenance of an orderly society. It is
usually the first refuge of one in distress and violated in
F his legal rights to seek redress. The police force, thus is
bestowed with a sacrosanct duty and is undisputedly
required to be impartial, committed and relentless in their
operations to unravel the truth and in the case of a crime
G committed, make the offender subject to the process of
law. The investigating agency, thus in the case of a
probe into any offence has to maintain a delicate balance
of the competing rights of the offenders and the victim
as constitutionally ordained but by no means can be
H casual, incautious, indiscreet in its approach and
RAJIV SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR
11
application. A devoted and resolved intervention of the A
police force is thus an assurance against the increasingly
pernicious trend of escalating crimes and outrages of
law in the current actuality. As a criminal offence is a
crime against the society, the investigating agency has
a sanctified, legal and social obligation to exhaust all its B
resources, experience and expertise to ferret out the truth
and bring the culprit to book. The manifest defects in
the investigation in the case
demonstrate an
inexcusable failure of the authorities concerned to abide
by this paramount imperative. [Paras 73, 74) [52-G-H; C
53-A-E]
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of
Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 : 1985 (1)
SCR 88; Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya vs.
State of Rajasthan (2013) 5 SCC 722:
201 3
(8) SCR 599; Kali Ram vs. State of H.P (1973) 2
SCC 808 : 1974 (1) SCR 722; Amitbhai
Anilchandra S!J_ah vs. Central ·Bureau of
Investigation and Anr. (2013) 6 SCC 348: 2013
(6 ) SCR 623 - relied on.
Sultan Singh vs. State ofHaryana (2014)14 SCC
664; Sher Singh @ Partapa vs. State of Haryana
(2015) 3 sec 724: 2015 (1) scR 29; Mohd.
lmran Khan vs. State Government (NCT of Delhi)
(2011) 10 sec 192: 2011 (15) SCR 1030; State
of Gujarat vs. Anirudhsing and Anr. (1997) 6 SCC
514: 1997 (2) Suppl. SCR 234; Rajesh Kumar
and another vs. State Government NCT of Delhi
(20q8) 4 SCC 493:2008 (3) SCR 391; State of
H.P vs. Mast Ram (2004) 8 SCC 660: 2004 (4)
Suppl. SCR 269;
Rattiram and Ors. vs. State
of\Madhya Pradesh through Inspector of Police
(2012) 4 SCC 516: 2012 (3) SCR 496; Rohtas
D
E
F
G
H
12
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 12 S.C.R.
A
Singh & Ors. vs. State & Another (2011) II AD
(Delhi) 612; Abeed vs. State of Kamataka (2015)
1AKR360; State vs. Coetzee (1997) 2 L.R.C.593
- referred to.
B
Case Law Reference
(2014)14 sec 664
referred to. Para 19
2015 (1) SCR 29
referred to. Para 19
2011 (15) SCR 1030
referred to . Para 20
.
c
1997 (2) Suppl. SCR 234
referred to. Para 20
2008 (3) SCR 391
referred to. Para 20
2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 269
referred to. Para 20
2012 (3 ) SCR 496
referred to. Para 20
D
(2011) II AD (Delhi) 612
referred to. Para 20
(2015) 1 AKR 360
referred to. Para 20
2013 (8 ) SCR 599·
relied on.
Para 61
1974(1) SCR 722
relied on.
Para 62
E
(1997) 2 L.R:C.593
referred to.
Para 66
1985 (1) SCR 88
relied on.
Para 67
2013 (6) SCR 623
relied on.
Para 67
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
F Appeal No. 1708 of 2015
From the.Judgment and Order dated 16.05.2014 of the
High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.
1169 of 2011
G
R. Basant, Amit Pawan, S. Prakash Tiwari, Abhishek
Amritanshu for the Appellant.
Subramonium Prasad,Abhay Kumar, Tenzing Tsering,
Utkarsh Shrivastava, Tanya Shree (for Abhinav Mukerji) for the
H Respondents.
RAJIV SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
AMITAVAROY, J. 1. Leave granted.
13
A
2. Afond honeymoon trip of a newly wed young couple
met with a tragic end, with the mysterious disappearance of B
the wife from the company of her husband, in the train in which
they were traveling on their way back home. The appellant, the
husband, in the attendant facts and circumstances, stands
arraigned and ~onvicted under Sections 304B, 201, 498A of
the Indian Penal Code (for short, hereinafter to be referred to c
as 'IPC') and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for varying terms for the offences involved. The
High Court of judicature at Patna, having affirmed the conviction
& sentence recorded by the learned trial court, the appellant
seeks redress in the instant proceedings, challenge being laid o
to the judgment and order dated 16.05.2014 rendered in
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1169 of 2011.
3.
A short preface to the dreadful episode is
indispensable. RaniArchana Sinha (for~hort, hereinafter to. E
be referred to as "Archana") got married on 29.04.2007 with
the appellant according to Hindu rites and had duly joined the
matrimonial home. Archana was a practicing advocate and
had appeared in a competitive examination in which, as per
the results declared on 10.08.2007, she was not selected. The
F
couple planned their honeymoon trip to Darjeeling and
proceeded thereto, by Capital Express on the same date. They
alighted at New Jalpaiguri Station, and after visiting the places
of their interest, as scheduled, they on 14.08.2007 boarded
the same service for the return journey at 1500 hrs. As the G
facts have unfolded from the First Information Report lodged
by the appellant with the Mokamah G.RP.S. on 15.08.2007,
the couple had dinner at Katihar Junction at 2000 hrs whereafter
they retired for the night in their respective berths No. 33
(appellant) and No. 35 (Archana) in coach S-1 of sleeper class
H
14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015) 12 S.C.R.
A
approximately at 2100 hrs. As per the version of the appellant,
he woke up at 0510 hrs on 15.08.2007 at Bakhtiarpur Station,
to find that his wife was missing from her birth whereafter, he
started searching for her on the running train. According to
him, when the train reached Patna Junction, he looked for her
B in the other trains also thereat. His plea is that on being
enquired, the passengers in his coach did affirm that the lady
was available in the train upto 0400-0430 hours. It is the
appellant's assertion that situated thus, he reported the matter
first with the GRP, Patna and eventually lodged the First
C Information Report with Mokamah G.R.P.S ..
4. This account of the introductory facts is available in
the aforementioned First Information Report, in which
noticeably, the appellant did disclose his presumption that his
D wife might have been kidnapped. This information was
registered, as FIR No. 26/2007 dated 15.08.2007 under
I
Section 365 IPC between 0400 PM to 0500 PM./
5. While the matter rested at that, on 18.08.2007 at
E 1430 hours, an information was laid by one Jagdish Chander
Sharma resident of Village Daulatabad, P.S. Azam Nagar,
District Katihar that on the same day at 1200 hours, he was
informed by some children that a dead body was lying by the
side of the railway track whereupon, he visited the spot and
F found the dead body of a female in a putrefied condition in a
pit in a bush. According to him the body was lying prostate
due to which the face was not visible. The informant opined
that the death might have occurred due to fall fmm the train
about four to five days back. He also described the wearing
G apparel of the dead body, to be "check green coloured salwar
suite". He mentioned about detached hairs from the head which
were of black colour.
6. An inquest of the dead body followed on 19.08.2007
H at 10.10 PM and a report based thereon was prepared. The
r
RAJIV SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR [AMIT AVA ROY, J.]
15
findings as recorded inter alia did disclose that nothing was A
clear with regard to the marks of assault of injury, as the dead
body was in the process of rotting. While noting that both feet
were "in semi absent position due to rotting", it was mentioned
as well that the dead body wore "sky coloured white and pink
check salwar and sameeze". It was inferred that the cause of B
death was due to fall from train.
7. Meanwhile, the parents of Archana having enquired
on 15.8.2007, at about 11 A.M. about her whereabouts from ·
the appellant, they had learnt that she had gone missing from C
the train. Having come to know that a dead body had been
recovered as above, the brother of Archana, Mr. Ravi Shankar
Prasad requested his cousin Akhilesh Kumar to identify the
same proposing that he would also reach the place for the
same propose. Incidentally, the dead body had been recovered D
near the railway line atAzam Nagar, and in due course was
brought to the Railway Police Station, Katihar at the first
instance. As it would appear from the letter dated 14.09.2008
of Akhilesh Kumar, addressed to the Station House Officer,
Railway Police Station, Mokamah, he on a survey of the dead E
body was of the opinion that it was not of Archana. According
toAkhilesh Kumar, he along with others had visited the Sadar
Hospital, Katihar to identify the body but failed to do so for the
following reasons.
F
1.
That the hair of head was missing.
2.
The face was comparatively small.
3.
There was no mole on the chick.
4."
The physique of the dead body was comparatively G
thin.
5.
Neither the bangles were found in the hands nor
was it stated by the Jamadar of Azam Nagar that
the same was found at the place of occurrence.
6.
There was no under garments on the body.
H
16
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 12 S.C.R.
A
7.
There was simple salwar-suit on the dead body.
B
8.
The age seems to be l~ss.
9.
At that time I talked to cousin Ravi Shanker and
aunt in relation to built up and appearances of the
dead body many times and after due consideration
with the officer in charge, Katihar GRPS, Jamadar
Azam Nagar GRPS and Jamadar of Mokama
GRPS I came to a conclusion that the dead body
was not of Rani Archana.
C
8. The dead body was also subjected to post-mortem
examination on 19.8.2007 in which it was noted that the same
was in an advance stage of decomposition and that the right
and left foot just below the ankle joint were absent. The exact
cause of death could not be ascertained and the viscera was
D preserved for forensic test. The report prepared on the basis
of the autopsy, however, recorded that the time lag between
the death and post-mortem examination was more than six
days, suggesting thereby that death had occurred on 13.8.2007
E or prior thereto.
9. While the investigation on the report lodged by the
appellant was underway, the mother of Archana, on 5.9.2007
lodged a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Patna against the appellant, his parents, his brothers and
F sisters which was registered as Complaint Case No. 2544(C)
of 2007. It was alleged therein that as reported by Archana,
her in-laws had "greedy eyes" towards the wealth of her family
and that at the matrimonial home, they used to ill-treat her and
G make her work as a domestic maid for all intents and purposes.
Apart from being ridiculed for not getting selected in the judicial
· service examination to earn a living, her relevance in the
nuptial house was also used to be questioned. According to
the complaint, her in-laws instructed her to bring Rs. 2.50 lakhs
H from her parents so as to complete the construction of their
RAJIV SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR [AMITAVA ROY, J.]
17
house and also to furnish the same. Besides expressing A
serious apprehension in view of the sudden programme of
the couple to visit Darjeeling without prior information to her,
the complainant also accused the appellant and his family
members of a conspiracy to eliminate Archana so as to
facilitate the second marriage of his (appellant) with the B
prospects of earning handsome dowry.
10. The complainant however admitted that on
12.8.2007, her daughter had called her to inform that she was
at Manipal whereafter, she could not talk to her inspite of C
repeated attempts as her cellphone had remained switched
off. The complaint revealed that it was on 15.8.2007 at about
11 A.M., after she had failed to talk to her daughter as her
cellphone continued to be off, that she contacted the appellant
who on being queried, replied that she had lostArchana. On D
this·, the complainant's husband after ascertaining that the
appellant was at Mokamah, advised him to report the incident
to the Mokamah G.R.P.S. The complainant alleged that the
appellant had in fact lodged the FIR with the Mokamah G.R.P.S.
to save himself and his family members who were responsible
E
for the episode. The complainant, apart from alleging, that the
FIR had been lodged by the appellant to mis-guide the
investigation, accused him and his family members of having
murdered her daughter Archana, in course of the journey and
F
disposed of her body so as to efface all incriminating evidence.
She expressed reservation about the course and quality of
the ongoing investigation and requested that the complaint be
forwarded to the Gandhi Maidan Police Station for lodging it
as FIR and to initiate a proper investigation in order to make G
the accused persons stand trial. The complaint was made
under Sections 3048/201 /120B/498A I PC and Sections 3 and
4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
11 .. After the investigation that followed on the complaint, H
18
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 12 S.C.R.
A charge-sheet was submitted under Section 498A IPC against
the appellant alone and the inquisition was kept pending against
the other accused persons. As the materials on record would
disclose, thereafter the learned Magistrate concerned, acting
on an application filed under Section 323 Cr. P. C. on behalf of
B the prosecution and, being satisfied on a consideration of the
further disclosures in the investigation, that pr'ima facie a case
against the appellant under Sections 498N3048/1208/201 I
364 IPC and Sections 3 &4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
had been made out, committed it to the Court of Sessions.
C Charge was subsequent thereto framed against the appellant
under Sections 3048/201 /498A IPC and to which he pleaded
"not guilty and claimed to be tried".
12. At the trial, the prosecution examined twelve
D witnesses whereafter the statement of the appellant was
recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. The appellant also
examined five witnesses in his defence. At the conclusion of
the trial, the appellant was found guilty and was convicted under
Sections 3048/201 and 498A IPC by the learned trial court
E and was sentenced to undergo R. I. for 10 years for the offence
under Section 3048 IPC and fortwq years each for the offences
under Sections 201/498A IPC. For the offences under
Sections 201/498A IPC, the trial court also imposed a sentence
F of fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default whereof, the appellant
was to suffer S. I. for one month. All the sentences were ordered
to run concurrently.
G
H
13. Having unsuccessfully appealed before the High
Court, the appellant seeks redress before this Court.
14. We have heard Mr. R. Basant, learned senior counsel
for the appellant, Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned senior
counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Ms. Tanya Shree, learned
counsel for the respondent No. 2.
RAJIV SINGH v. STATE OF 81HAR [AMITAVA ROY, J.]
19
15. Apt it would be to outline the rival contentions at the A
threshold in order to facilitate a correct insight into the evidence
on record.
16. Referring to the provisions of the Indian Penal Code
under which the appellant stands convicted, Mr. 8asant has 8
persuasively argued that in the facts and circumstances of the
case, none of the ingredients of the offences with which the
appellant had been charged, has been proved and thus, he is
entitled to an honourable acquittal. The learned senior counsel
has pleaded that the prosecution having failed to establish the C
death of Archana beyond all reasonable doubt and further that·
it was as a consequence of demand for dowry or harassment/
cruelty arising therefrom .or in connection therewith, the
essential pre-requisites of the offences under Sections 498A/
3048 IPC had remained unproved. While stoutly disputing D
the identity of the dead body, recovered in the course of
investigation to be that of Archana, learned senior counsel has
urged that even assuming without admitting it was that of the
wife of the appellant, in absence of any proof that it was not
accidental but homicidal, the offence under Section 3048 IPC E
cannot be said to have been established. According to Mr.
8asant, even otherwise, the prosecution case as sought to be
portrayed is inherently improbable and illogical in defianc,e of
logic and thus ought to have been rejected outright by the cqurts F
below.
17. Elaborating the arguments in the above dimensions,
learned senior counsel adverted, in particular to the testimony
9f PWs 5, 6 and 7 to the effect thatArchana had been seen by
them (the co-passengers) to be hale and hearty in the train till G
Katihar/8arauni stations much beyond Azamnagar near which
the dead body was found. He also referred to the post-mortem
report dated 19.8.2007 which recorded that the time lag
between the death and the autopsy was more than six days, to H
20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 12 S.C.R.
A assert that the dead body could not have been that of Archana
as she was alive in the intervening night of 14.8.2007 and
15.8.2007. Apart from contending that the dead body was
identified by Akhilesh, a relation of Archana, to be not that of
her on a thorough examination thereof, which ruled out the
B probability that it was that of the wife of the appellant, the learned
counsel has argued that the absence of any explanation
whatsoever about the presence of poison in the dead body,
did also conclusively evidence the fact that it was not that of
Archana. The learned senior counsel referred to the
C discrepancy in the wearing apparels of the dead body and
that of the wife of the appellant which, according to him,
conjointly considered along with the other factors bearing on
the identification of the dead body, authenticated in
D unmistakable terms that the corpse was not that of Archana.
Mr. Basant dismissed the authenticity and the probative worth
of the report of the DNA test on the ground that the same was
neither conducted in an accredited laboratory as per the
prevalent rules and procedure and also being bereft of any
E proof of the required scientific analysis of the sample being
undertaken and the genuineness of the conclusion arrived at
on the basis thereof. Apart from asserting that there was lack
of authentic evidence with regard to drawal of the blood
samples from the parents of the Archana for the DNA test,
F learned senior counsel also rejected the testimony of Dr.
Shyam Bahadur Upadhyay (PW10), the then Director In-charge
of Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna, Bihar (for short,
hereinafter to be referred to as "FSL") to be wanting in
credence, amongst others, in view of his admission that he
G was neither an expert in the domain of DNA test nor had
received any training in that regard. Mr. Basant urged that the
prosecution having offered to examine this witness, it would
not be permitted to avail the benefits of Section 293 Cr.P.C. to
accept the probative worth of the DNA report dehors the
H testimony of PW10. According to Mr. Basant, even the parents
RAJIV SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR [AMITAVAROY, J.]
21
and other relatives of Archana were not convinced that the dead
A
body found by the side of the railway track in the vicinity of
Azamnagar police station was that of hers and therefore had
filed a writ petition before the High Court of Patna in the year
2008, which, however, stood dismissed on 8.9.2008.
18. Learned senior counsel for the appellantfurther urged
that in absence of any convincing evidence on record that
immediately before the incident, Archana had been subjected
to cruelty/harassment by the appellant for or in connection with
B
the demand for dowry, the charges relatable thereto are wholly C
unfounded. He argued that though in the course of evidence,
it transpired that a personal diary of Archana had been
retrieved, the same for inexplicable reasons had been withheld
by the prosecution. Apart from contending that such an
omission raises an adverse inference against the prosecution,
D
the learned senior counsel also urged that the evidence with
record to investments made in the Tata Mutual Fund by the
brother of Archana is of no avail to the prosecution as the
money invested had not been diverted to the appellant for his
gainful use. Mr. Basant has argued that having regard to the E
proved circumstances pertaining to the travel of the couple in
the train "Capital Express' up to Katihar/Barauni Stations in
the night between 14/8/2007 and 15/8/2007 during which the
Archana was found cheerful in the company of the appellant,
F
the prosecution version of poisoning her by him and disposing
of her body in the dead of the night unnoticed by any of the
passengers in the compartment is wholly impossible,
impracticable, unrealistic and thus, ought to be rejected in
limine.
Without prejudice to these pleas, Mr. Basant has G
maintained that the prosecution having utterly failed to prove
that the wife of the appellant had died a homicidal death, his
conviction under Sections 498A/304B/201 IPC by no means
can be sustained in law, even assuming that the dead body
was that of Archana.
H
22
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 12 S.C.R.
A
19. To drive home the above points, learned senior
counsel pressed into service the following decisions of this
Court .
. (i) Sultan Singh vs. State ofHaryana (2014)14 SCC 664
B (ii) Sher Singh@ Partapa vs. State of Haryana (2015) 3
sec 724.
20. In reply, Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned senior
counsel, feading the arguments on behalf of the respondents,
C urged that the charges leveled against the appellant had been
duly proved and thus his conviction and sentence does not
warrant any interference. Referring to the complaint filed by
the mother of Archana, in particular and the statements on oath
0
made by her parents and the brother i.e.