# RAM SINGH v. SONIA AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2007] 2 S.C.R. 651
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2007-02-15
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 895 of 2005
- **Bench:** B.N. Agra Wal, P.P. Naolekar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ram-singh-v-sonia-and-ors-22591
- **Pages:** 37

## Headnote

B
Penal Code, 1860: Section 302 rlw Sections 34 and 120-B.
Murder-'Rarest of rare' cases-Death sentence-Imposition ofJustification-Extrajudicial confession-Circumstantial evidence-Accused C
A-1 (daughter) along with her husband accused A-2 had not only murdered
her step brother and his whole family, which included three children of 45
days, 2 112 years and 4 years but also her own father, mother, sister and
sister-in-law while they were sleeping so as to prevent her father from giving
the property to her step brother and his family-Trial court convicted the D
accused persons on the basis of confession and circumstantial evidence and
imposed sentence of death on them-However, High Court commuted the
death sentence into life imprisonment-Correctness of-Held: The fact ~hat
the murders in question were committed in such a diabolic manner while the
victims were sleeping, without any provocation whatsoever from the victims'
side indicates the cold-blooded and premeditated approach of the accused E
to cause the death of the victims-The act was diabolic of the most superlative
degree in conception and cruel in execution and that both the accused
persons were not possessed of the basic humanness and completely lack the
psyche or mindset which could be amenable for any reformation-This is an
act which is not only revolting but also dastardly-The case ~ndoubtedly
falls within the category of 'rarest of rare' cases-Hence, High Court .not
justified in commuting the death sentence into life imprisonment-High Court
judgment set aside and that of the trial court restored-Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, Ss. 164 and 463.
F
According to the prosecution, when PW-57, one of the employees of the G
deceased, and A-2 were sitting at the saw mill located by the side of a farmhouse
of the deceased, a telephone call was received by A-2 from A-1 conveying her
desire to celebrate the birthday of her deceased sister and that she would bring
her from the school in which she was studying. At about 9.30 pm, A-1 along
651
H
y
'
., .
RAM SINGH v. SONIA
653
Sections 34 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them to death. A
The High Court, while upholding their convictions, had commuted the sentence
-of death into life imprisonment. Hence the appeals.
On behalf of the accused persons, it was contended that A-I was forced
to write the suicide note after having been tortured in police custody; that the
judicial confession made by A-I to PW-62 was not recorded according to the B
procedure prescribed by Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
which could not be cured by Section 463 Cr.P.C.; that A-I was kept under
direct or indirect police surveillance and, therefore, she was in police custody
when she made the confession; that the hospital record was tampered with;
that the fingerprints from the iron rod used to commit the crime were not
lifted and that the FIR was ante timed.
C
Allowing the appeal filed by the State and dismissing the appeal filed by
the accused persons, the Court
HELD:I. There is overwhelming evidence to show the presence of A-1
at the place of occurrence on the intervening nights on the day of the incident. D
The trial court and the High Court have relied on the evidence of PW-57,
PW-58, PW-46, PW-25 and PW-64 after close and careful scrutiny of the
same. The view taken by the trial court and the High Court is the correct
one. [Para 12] (663-G; 664-A)
2. A bare perusal of the suicide note which was addressed by A-1 to
none other than A-2 {her husband], would show that in the very first line she
has confessed of having eliminated everybody and that she was ending her
E
F
life as well. In this very letter of hers, A-l has admitted having written it
immediately after the occurrence. This fact stands proved by the evidence of
PW-57 who, in his evidence, has stated that he picked up the said letter from
A-l's bed and thereafter left for the police station. Therefore, there was no
reason for any of the police officials to be pr

## Text

_Characters 0–39,754 of 98,131. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39754 for what follows._

-
'
i.
RAM SINGH
A
v.
SONIA AND ORS.
FEBRUARY 15, 2007
[B.N. AGRA WAL AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.]
B
Penal Code, 1860: Section 302 rlw Sections 34 and 120-B.
Murder-'Rarest of rare' cases-Death sentence-Imposition ofJustification-Extrajudicial confession-Circumstantial evidence-Accused C
A-1 (daughter) along with her husband accused A-2 had not only murdered
her step brother and his whole family, which included three children of 45
days, 2 112 years and 4 years but also her own father, mother, sister and
sister-in-law while they were sleeping so as to prevent her father from giving
the property to her step brother and his family-Trial court convicted the D
accused persons on the basis of confession and circumstantial evidence and
imposed sentence of death on them-However, High Court commuted the
death sentence into life imprisonment-Correctness of-Held: The fact ~hat
the murders in question were committed in such a diabolic manner while the
victims were sleeping, without any provocation whatsoever from the victims'
side indicates the cold-blooded and premeditated approach of the accused E
to cause the death of the victims-The act was diabolic of the most superlative
degree in conception and cruel in execution and that both the accused
persons were not possessed of the basic humanness and completely lack the
psyche or mindset which could be amenable for any reformation-This is an
act which is not only revolting but also dastardly-The case ~ndoubtedly
falls within the category of 'rarest of rare' cases-Hence, High Court .not
justified in commuting the death sentence into life imprisonment-High Court
judgment set aside and that of the trial court restored-Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, Ss. 164 and 463.
F
According to the prosecution, when PW-57, one of the employees of the G
deceased, and A-2 were sitting at the saw mill located by the side of a farmhouse
of the deceased, a telephone call was received by A-2 from A-1 conveying her
desire to celebrate the birthday of her deceased sister and that she would bring
her from the school in which she was studying. At about 9.30 pm, A-1 along
651
H
y
'
., .
RAM SINGH v. SONIA
653
Sections 34 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them to death. A
The High Court, while upholding their convictions, had commuted the sentence
-of death into life imprisonment. Hence the appeals.
On behalf of the accused persons, it was contended that A-I was forced
to write the suicide note after having been tortured in police custody; that the
judicial confession made by A-I to PW-62 was not recorded according to the B
procedure prescribed by Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
which could not be cured by Section 463 Cr.P.C.; that A-I was kept under
direct or indirect police surveillance and, therefore, she was in police custody
when she made the confession; that the hospital record was tampered with;
that the fingerprints from the iron rod used to commit the crime were not
lifted and that the FIR was ante timed.
C
Allowing the appeal filed by the State and dismissing the appeal filed by
the accused persons, the Court
HELD:I. There is overwhelming evidence to show the presence of A-1
at the place of occurrence on the intervening nights on the day of the incident. D
The trial court and the High Court have relied on the evidence of PW-57,
PW-58, PW-46, PW-25 and PW-64 after close and careful scrutiny of the
same. The view taken by the trial court and the High Court is the correct
one. [Para 12] (663-G; 664-A)
2. A bare perusal of the suicide note which was addressed by A-1 to
none other than A-2 {her husband], would show that in the very first line she
has confessed of having eliminated everybody and that she was ending her
E
F
life as well. In this very letter of hers, A-l has admitted having written it
immediately after the occurrence. This fact stands proved by the evidence of
PW-57 who, in his evidence, has stated that he picked up the said letter from
A-l's bed and thereafter left for the police station. Therefore, there was no
reason for any of the police officials to be present at the place of occurrence
from the time the crime was committed until the arrival of the police officials
after the lodgment of the FIR. Both the courts below have relied upon the
evidence of PW-57 and PW-26 on this point and there is no reason to disbelieve G
their testimony. (Para 14) [664-C, D, E]
3.1. In her Suicide Note, A-1, towards the end, has written that after
finishing them all she was ending her life. PW-52 has also statecl that at the
time of her admission hers was a case of suspected poison and, therefore, she
was declared to be·unfit to make any statement. There is not an iota of evidence H
654
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2007) 2 S.C.R.
A on record to show that in order to keep any direct or indirect vigil on the
movements of A-1 the police personnel remained present in or outside the
room in which A-1 was recuperating or in the hospital since the time of A-1 's
admission until her discharge therefrom or that the police personnel made
frequent visits to the hospital, thereby restricting A-1 's movement. [Para 15J
B
[665-B, C, DJ
3.2. In the absence of any evidence to show that from the moment of A1 's admission to, and discharge from, the hospital the police personnel were
either present in the room wherein she was kept for treatment or even in the
vicinity of the hospital or they made frequent visits to the hospital, it cannot
be said that A-1 's movements were restricted or she was kept in some sort of
C direct or indirect police surveillance and that she was in police custody for
the purpose of Section 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872. [Para 17] [666-B, C, DJ
Pllramhansa Jadab v. State, AIR (1964) Ori 144, held inapplicable.
4. A-1 was admitted to the hospital as a suspected case of poison and,
therefore, she was declared to be unfit to make any statement. The prosecution
D rightly sent for PW-62 for recording the dying declaration of A-1. [Para 21J
[667-E, FJ
5. It is evident from the certificate appended to the confessional statement
by PW-62, the Judicial Magistrate, that the confessional statement was made
by the accused voluntarily. Of course, he failed to record the question that
E was put by him to the accused whether there was any pressure on her to give
a statement, but PW-62 having stated in his evidence before the Court that he
had asked the accused orally whether she was under any pressure, threat or
fear and he was satisfied that A-1 was not under any pressure from any corner,
that in the room in which the said confessional statement was recorded it was
only he and PW-32 who were present and none else and that no police officer
F was available even within the precincts of the hospital, the said defect is cured
by Section 463 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as the mandatory
requirem'ent provided under Section 164(2) Cr.P.C., namely, explaining to the
accused that he was not bound to make a statement and if a statement is made
the same might be used against him has been complied with and the same is
G established from the certificate appended to the statement and from the
~vidence of PW-62. Therefore, the judicial confession having been recorded
according to the procedure set out in Section 164 read with Section 281 and
the defect made while recording the same being curable by Section 463, it is
admissible in evidence. [Para 23J [668-F, G, H; 669-A, BJ
'•
H
State of UP. v. Singhara Singh, AIR (1964) SC 358, relied on.
' ...
J-...
'(
"
•
r'
~
RAM SINGH v. SONIA
655
Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab, [1963! 3 SCR 749, referred to.
A
Nazir Ahmadv. King Emperor, AIR (1936) PC 253, Preetam v. State of
MP., (1996] 10 SCC 432 and Tutsi Singh v. State of Punjab, [1996] 6 SCC
63, held inapplicable.
6. The medical evidence that the injuries could be caused with the iron
rod, the statement of PW-57 that he had seen A-1 removing the iron rod from
the store room at the place of occurrence and its recovery from the bed of AI leave no scope for any doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case as
against A-1. Finding of bloodstains on the salwar of A-1 and its matching
with the blood group of the deceased further strengthens the case of the
prosecution. [Para 34] [674-D, E]
7. The case against A-1 has been proved by the prosecution beyond a
reasonable doubt and, therefore, the order of conviction of A-1 passed by the
trial court and upheld by the High Court is unassailable. [Para 36] [674-G]
8. The principle for basing a conviction on the basis of circumstantial
evidence has been indicated in a number of decisions of this Court and the
law is well settled that each and every incriminating circumstance must be
clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances
so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible
conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other
hypothesis against the guilt is possible. This Court has clearly sounded a
note of caution that in a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence,
there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of
legal proof. The Court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the
chain of events have been established clearly and such completed chain of
events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of
the accused. It has also been indicated that when the important link goes, the
chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other circumstances cannot in
any manner, establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
It has been held that the Court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of
allowing the suspicion to make the place of legal proof, for some times
unconsciously it may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and
legal proof. It has been indicated by this Court that there is a long mental
distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' and the same divides
conjectures from sure conclusions. [Para 39] [675-C, D, E, F, G]
9.1. In view of the evidence of PW-12 and PW-30 and the confession of
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
+
656
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2007] 2 S.C.R.
A A-1, the prosecution has been able to establish that A-2 accompanied A-1 to
+-
the place of occurrence in the night of the incident. (Para 42) (676-G]
9.2. One of the deceased was lying dead on the floor with her mouth,
hands and feet tied which is indicative of the fact that before she was killed,
she had shown resistance and in order to overpower her, her mouth, hands
B and feet were tied. By no stretch of imagination it could be perceived that
tying of mouth, hands and feet of a person could be possible by one person. It
..
would not have been possible for A-1 alone to tie the mouth, hands and feet
herself which further establishes the fact of the presence of A-2 at the place
)
of occurrence and his having participated in the crime along with A-1. This
I
c
is the second circumstance in the chain which stands established and points
a finger towards none other than A-2 of his having participated in the crime
with A-1. [Para 43) [677-A, B, C)
9.3. There was no reason for A-1 to leave the place of occurrence in the
morning of the incident after having taken a decision to end her life by
D
consuming poison. Her leaving the place of occurrence and coming back after
half an hour to that very place lends further support to the evidence of PWs
57 and 58. T_hat she initially thought of ending her life in accident and that is
. ~
why she left the place of occurrence in the morning in a jeep and having
decided against it on the way and returned to the place of occurrence after
...
half an hour does not inspire confidence at all. Therefore, in the absence of
E any infirmity in the evidence of PWs 57, 58 and 46, which evidence is
supported by none other than A-1 in her judicial confession made to PW-62,
the third circumstance stands also proved by the prosecution. [Para 44)
(677-D, E, F]
10. A-1 had left the place ofoccurrence in the morning of the day of the
F incident along with A-2 so as to provide him a safe exit and to give a slip to
the prosecution. This is the fourth circumstance that the prosecution has been
}-
able to establish. (Para 45] (678-E]
II. In view of the recovery of ash of the bloodstained clothes and that of
the bag at the instance of A-2, the prosecution has been able to establish this
G link also in the chain of circumstances. [Para 46] (678-H)
12.1. The extrajudicial confession made by A-2 to PW-48 is supported
by the fact that the weapon used in the crime i.e. tractor rod, mention of which
'""-..
has been made by A-2 in his confession to PW-48, was found on the bed of AI and on the disclosure statement made by A-2 to the police, the ash of the
H bloodstained cloths of his and A-1 and that of the bag containing the said cloths
RAM SINGH v. SONIA
657
was also recovered. (Para 471 [ 679-E, Fl
A
--t
12.2. Indisputably, extrajudicial confession was made by A-2 to PW-48
prior to his arrest by the police and, therefore, question of it being made under
any inducement, threat or promise does not a rise. Moreover, there was
absolutely no reason for PW-48 to unnecessarily implicate the accused, as
he had no animus against him. [Para 49) [681-C, DI
B
Gursa Singh v. State of Rajasthan, [20011 2 SCC 205, relied on.
1.
Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh v. State of Punjab,
AIR (1964) SC 322, Maghar Singh v. State of Punjab, [1975) 4 SCC 234,
Narayan Singh v. State of MP., [19851 4 SCC 26, Baldev Raj v. State of c
Haryana, AIR (1001) SC 37, Piara Singh v. State of Punjab, [19771 4 SCC
452 and Madan Gopal Kakkadv. Naval Dubey, [1992) 3 SCC 204, relied on.
13. Insofar as motive qua the crime committed is concerned, it is clearly
borne out from the factual matrix of the case on hand that both the accused
had an eye on the property of the decPased, which was in crores and in order D
to gain full control over the property and to deprive the deceased from giving
J
•
it to anybody else, both the accused persons have eliminated his whole family.
.,.
A-2, in his extrajudicial confession made to PW-48, has indicated that as the
deceased was not parting with the share of A-1 in the property, both A-1 and
A-2 together have done to death his whole family. Therefore, the motive qua E
the crime committed stands prov~d in the present case. [Para 51) (681-E, Fl
14. The extrajudicial confession made by A-2 to PW-17 is hit by Section
26 of the Evidence Act, 1872, it having been made by A-2 while in police
custody and, consequently, cannot be admitted into evidence and, therefore,
has to be eschewed from consideration. However, even the exclusion of the F
extrajudicial confession made by A-2 before PW-17 would be of no help to
this accused as the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond
reasonable doubts against A-2 on the basis of circumstantial evidence
enumerated above as well as the extrajudicial confession made by A-2 before
PW-48. [Para 571 683-D, E, Fl
G
Kishore Chand v. State of H.P., [1991) 1 SCC 286, relied on.
~
15. As there are other materials sufficient for upholding the conviction
of A-2 the question of admissibility or otherwise of the result of the Polygraph
(Lie Detection) Test conducted on A-2 is not gone into. [Para 58) (684-A)
H
658
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 2 S.C.R.
A
Romeo Phil/ion and Her Majesty The Queen, [1978] 1 SCR 18, R. v.
+-
Beland, [1987] 2 SCR 398 and Mallard v. Queen, (2003) WASCA 296,
referred to.
[
16. The instant case is one wherein the accused A-1, along with the
accuse4 A-2 (her husband) has not only put an end to the lives of her step
B brother and his whole family, which included three tiny tots of 45 days, 21/2
years and 4 years but also her own father, mother and sister in a very diabolic
manner so as to deprive her father from giving the property to her step brother
and his family. The fact that the murders in question were committed in such
': ,
'
a diabolic manner while the victims were sleeping, without any provocation
c
whatsoever from the victims' side indicates the cold-blooded and premeditated
approach of the accused to cause the death of the victims. The brutality of the
act is amplified by the grotesque and revolting manner in which the helpless
victims have been murdered which is indicative of the fact that the act was
diabolic of the most superlative degree in conception and cruel i.n execution
and that both the accused persons are not possessed of the basic humanness
D and completely lack the psyche or mindset which can be amenable for any
reformation. If this act is not revolting or dastardly, it is beyond comprehension
as to what other act can be so. In view of these facts, there would be failure of
. \
justice in case death sentence is not awarded in the present case as the same
"'
undoubtedly falls within the category of 'rarest ofrare' cases and the High
E
Court was not justified in commuting the death sentence into life
imprisonment. [Para 66] [687-F, G, H; 68~A, B, Cl
Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, [1980) 2 SCC 684 and Machhi Singh
v. State of Punjab, [1983] 3 SCC 470, referred to.
F
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 895 of
2005.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 12.4.2005 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 556-DB/2004
and Murder Reference No. 3/2004.
G
WITH
Crl. A. No. 894 of2005 & Crl. A. No. 142 of2006.
~.
K.T.S. Tulsi, Sushi! Kumar, U.U. Lalit, Prem Malhotra, Rishi Malhotra,
H
Manish K. Saryal, Gaurave Bhargava, Atriar Dey, Lal Bahadur, Vinay Arora,
RAM SINGH v. SONIA [B.N.AGRA WAL, J.]
659
..
Adolf Mathew, Sudershan Singh Rawat, Mukesh Kumar, Sanjay Jain, Aditya A
~
Kumar, Rajeev Gaur, 'Naseem', Nitin Sangra and T.V. Geroge, for the appearing
parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B.N. AGRAWAL, J. 1. Sonia [A-I] and Sanjiv [A-2], respondents in B
Criminal Appeal No. 895 of 2005, were tried and convicted by the trial court
under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal
Code ['!PC' for short] and sentenced to death and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/
~
y
- each. A-1 and A-2 were further convicted under Sections 25(1-B)(b) and
25(1-B(a) of the Arms Act respectively and sentenced to undergo rigorous c
imprisonment for a period of one year. A-2 was further convicted under
Section 20 I IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three
years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default whereof to further undergo
imprisonment for one month. The sentences were, however, ordered to run
concurrently. Tried along with A-I and A-2 were eight other accused persons
but they were acquitted by the trial court for want of evidence. The order of D
convictions and sentences gave riJe to a murder reference by the Sessions
..
Judge, Hisar and appeals by both the accused before the Punjab & Haryana
High Court. By the impugned judgment, while upholding their convictions
f
under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 120-B of the !PC and other
provisions, the High Court has commuted the sentence of death into life
E
imprisonment. Hence these appeals by special leave.
2. While Criminal Appeal Nos. 895 of2005 and 894 of2005 have been
preferred by Ram Singh, brother of deceased - Relu Ram, and the State of
Haryana respectively for enhancement of sentence from life imprisonment to
death, Criminal Appeal No.142 of2006 is by the accused assailing the impugned F
..I,
judgment of their convictions and sentences .
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.8.2001 when Jeet Singh [PW
57], one of the employees of deceased - Relu Ram, and A-2 were sitting at
the Saw Mill located by the side of Farm House of Relu Ram, a telephone call
was received by A-2 from A-1 conveying her desire to celebrate Priyanka's G
[deceased sister of A-1] birthday at the Kothi at Litani Mor [place of
..,.l
occurrence] and that she would bring her from the hostel of Jindal School at
Hisar the school she was stu_dying in. At about 9.30 p.m. A-1 along with
Priyanka reached home in a jeep. Thereafter, between 11 - 12 p.m., on hearing ·
some noise of footsteps, PW 57, who was present at the Farm House, woke
H
660
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2007] 2 S.C.R.
A up and noticed that light in the room, where the spare parts of tractors etc.
were' kept, was on and upon inquiry found that A- I was there in the room
and he saw her taking a rod to the first floor which rod is used for raising/
tilting the tractor from the ground. He again heard the noise of explosion of
fire works, but, thinking that Priyanka' s birthday was being celebrated, he
B went to sleep. PW 57 further stated that on 24.8.200 I at about 4.45 a.m. when
he was sitting on his cot, he saw A- I coming down and taking the Jeep at
a very fast speed and returning after half an hour. Thereafter, at about 5.30
a.m. Ram Phal, the Milk Vendor, brought milk, but on seeing him coming
upstairs, A-I instructed him to leave the milk on the ground floor. At about
6.15 a.m. the School' Van came to take Lokesh [deceased], son of Sunil
C [deceased], but it left after waiting for some time as Lokesh did not come
down despite blowing of horn. PW 57 thereafter sent Rohtas, another servant
of Relu Ram, to the first floor for bringing Lokesh down for being dropped
in the School on motor-cycle. Upon being called by Rohtas, PW 57 went to
the first floor and found that A-1 was lying in the porch with froth coming
out of her mouth and was mumbling that she be saved and Sanjiv [A-2] be
D called. Reaching inside the house, PW 57 found that Relu Ram [father],
Krishna [mother], Sunil [brother], Shakuntala [sister-in-law], Priyanka@Pamma
[sister]; Lokesh [nephew] and Shivani and Preeti [nieces] of A-1 had been
murdered in different rooms. He also found that Shakuntla's hands and feet
were tied with cot. The tractor rod that PW 57 had seen A-1 removing from
E the room on the previous night was lying on the bed of A-1. Noticing a letter
[Suicide Note Ext. 227] lying on the bed of A-1 written in Hindi, PW 57 picked
up the same and left for the Ulkana Police Station. While giving description
of what had been seen by him at the place of occurrence and handing over
the said Suicide Note to S.I. Vinod Kumar, PW 59, PW 57 also stated that it
may be possible that A-1 under a conspiracy had either administered some
F poisonous substance or made them to inhale poisonous thing and upon
becoming unconscious they had been murdered. It was further stated by him
that about six months prior to this incident, A-I with an intention to kill
deceased Sunil had also fired a shot from the licensed gun of deceased Relu
Ram over a dispute of property, but the matter was hushed up in the house.
G
H
4. On the basis of sequence of events that had taken place at the place
of occurrence from the evening of 23rd August until 24th morning, described
by PW .57 to PW 59 and the Suicide Note alleged to have been written by
A-1, FIR was registered in the UlkanaPolice Station at 8.15 a.m. by PW 59
wherein contents of Suicide Note were also reproduced.
\
RAM SINGH v. SONIA [B.N.AGRA WAL, J.]
661
-t
5. On completion of the investigation, chargesheet was submitted against A
A-1, A-2 and eight other accused persons, cognizance taken and they were
committed to the court of Sessions to face trial.
6. Defence of the accused persons was that they were innocent and
falsely implicated. The stand taken by A-I was that she was picked up by
the police of CIA Staff on 24th August from Faridabad and was brought to B
Hisar, kept in illegal custody, tortured and threatened that in case she would
not make the statement according to what they say, her only son would be
r'
killed and thereafter they forcibly obtained her signatures on blank papers.
A-2 took the defence, inter a/ia, that he was falsely implicated at the instance
of the employees ofRelu Ram who had embezzled a lot of money of his father- c
in-law and by those people who had taken a loan from him and that it were
they who had committed the murder of Relu R.im and his family members.
7. So far as A-I is concerned, the prosecution case principally rests on
(I) the Suicide Note [Ext. 227] alleged to have been written by her wherein
she admitted having murdered eight persons, including three tiny tots, who D
were none other than her own immediate family members, (2) the judicial
confession [Ext. 187] made by her to the Magistrate in the hospital where she
was removed by the Police immediately after the occurrence and (3)
-r
bloodstained clothes of A-1, blood group of which tallied with the blood
group of deceased Sunil and Lokesh.
E
8. So far as A-2 is concerned, the case of the prosecution revolves
around circumstantial evidence, extra-judicial confessions made by him to
Sunder Singh, PW.48, and Rajni Gandhi, Scientific Assistant, PW 17, the
result of the polygraph test to which he was put by the prosecution and the
recoveries made at his instance by the police.
F
-~
9. Mr. Sushi! Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents, has submitted that the suicide story is a total concoction by the
prosecution as, even according to the medical evidence, A- I did not show
any symptom of having consumed poison, she was not administered any
treatment as such, though prescribed and, therefore, her having not consumed G
any poison, there was no reason for her to write the alleged Suicide Note, as
- ,)'
there was no risk to her life, which, he says, is a document that she was forced
to write after having been tortured in police custody. So far as judicial
confession [Ext. 187] made by A-I to Pardeep Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, I st
Class [PW 62] is concerned, his submission is that it is a piece of evidence
which needs to be eschewed from consideration by this Court on two counts H
662
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 2 S.C.R.
A i.e., admissibility and truthfulness as the approach of the recording magistrate
-t"-
was very casual and it has not been recorded according to the procedure
prescribed by Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code ['Cr.PC' hereinafter].
According to the learned counsel, non-compliance of Section 164 by the
recording magistrate cannot be cured by Section 463 Cr.P.C. as it cures only
B
the defect of reco;ding the statement and not its non-compliance. In support
of this submission, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel upon the
deCisions in the cases of Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, AIR (1936) PC 253,
Preetam v. State of MP., [I996] 10 SCC 432, and Tutsi Singh v. State of
Punjab, [1996] 6 SCC 63. Learned counsel further submits that since it is not
and cannot be disputed that A-1 was removed from the place of occurrence
c to ~he hospital by Head Constable Ashok Kumar [PW.25], she came to be
under police custody since the time of her such removal until her formal arrest
by the police on 26th August, 2001 and her movements having been restricted
and she having been kept under direct or indirect police vigil, as per the legal
position, she was in police custody. In support of this submission, he has
D
placed reliance upon Paramhansa Jadab & Anr. v. State, AIR {1964) Orissa
144. Learned senior counsel has also pointed out other infirmities in the
prosecution case, such as tampering of hospital record [Exts. P-193 and P192], non-lifting of fingerprints from the iron rod used to commit the crime and
;
ante-timing of FIR.
.,.
E
JO. On the other hand, Mr.K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 895 of 2005 has submitted
that in view of admission by A-1 in the Suicide Note as well as in the judicial
confession [Ext. 187] made to PW 62 of having committed the murder and
handwriting on the Suicide Note having been proved to be that of A-1, there
is no scope left for doubting the veracity of the prosecution case. It has been
F further submitted by Mr. Tulsi that insofar as judicilll confession recorded by
PW.62 is concerned, it was recorded according to the procedure set out in
}.
Section 164 Cr.P.C. and that the alleged breach of Section 164(2) i.e., failure
of magistrate to record reasons to believe that her statement was voluntary
is a defect curable by Section 463 of the Cr.P.C. and is covered by a decision
G
ofa 3-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Babu Singh v. State of Punjab,
[1963] 3 SCR 749. Adopting the line of argument identical to that of Mr. Tulsi,
' r
Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State,
submitted that even ifthere is a violation of Section 164 Cr.P.C., the Court can
.,-
admit such an evidence as the violation of that Section is cured by Section
463·Cr.P.C. if it had not injured the accused in his defence on the merits.
.....
H
RAM SINGH v. SONIA [B.N.AGRAWAL,.l.]
663
i
11. We shall first deal with the Suicide Note alleged!y written by A-1. A
PW-57 the informant - while lodging the FIR and in his evidence stated that
the Suicide Note was picked up by him from A-1 's bed and thereafter he left
for the Ulkana Police Station to lodge the FIR. It was handed over by him to
PW.59 who, on the basis of sequence of events narrated by PW.57 that had
taken place at the place of occurrence and on the basis of Suicide Note,
registered the FIR, making the Suicide Note as part and parcel of the FIR by B
reproducing its contents therein.
,
12. So far as presence of A-I at the place of occurrence is concerned,
both PW.57 and PW 58 - Amar Singh, another employee of deceased Relu
Ram who was working as Chowkidar and posted at the main gate of Kothi c
at Litani Mor [the place of occurrence], in their testimony have stated that
they had seen A- I coming to the Kothi at Litani Mor along with deceased
Priyanka@Pamma in a Jeep between 9-10 p.m. on 23rd August, 2001, going
out of the Kothi in the early hours of 24th August in a self-driven jeep at a
very fast speed and returning after half an hour. This fact is corroborated by
the evidence of Head Constable Dharambir Singh [PW.46] who, in his evidence, D
has stated that while he was on patrolling duty at Surewala Chowk from 2 a.m .
•
to 6 a.m. on 24th August, 2001, he had seen A-I at 5.30 a.m. coming from the
'!'
side of Barwala in a Tata Sumo driving at a very fast speed. The evidence,
which further lends support to this fact, is that of Constable Ashok Kumar
[PW 25] and Chhabil Das, PW.64. PW.25, who was asked by PW.59 along with
E
other police personnel to reach the place of occurrence, stated that on
reaching the spot and seeing A- I with froth coming out of her mouth, he
removed and admitted her to the Janta Hospital at Barwala. PW.64, who
happened to be present at the place of occurrence, has stated that on seeing
PW.25 taking A-I to the hospital, he accompanied him to the hospital. The
application [Ext. P.152] moved by PW.25 to the doctor on duty with regard F
to the fitness of A-1 to make the statement and also the indoor chart [Ext.
P.193] which' bears the signature of PW. 64 depict that she was brought by
PW.25. Mr. Sushi! Kumar has drawn our attention to the omission made by
PW .25 in his evidence that this witness has nowhere stated that he was
accompanied by PW.64: This omission by PW.25, in our view, does not affect
G
the case of the prosecution, especially in view of the fact that the indoor cha.rt
._._.....t,
of the hospital bears the signature of PW.64. Therefore, there is overwhelming
evidence to show the presence of A- I at the place of occurrence on the
intervening night of 23rd and 24th August and in the early hours of 24th
August, 200 I. The trial court and the High Court have relied on the evidence
of PW 57, PW 58, PW 46, PW 25 and PW 64 after close and careful scrutiny H
664
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 2 S.C.R.
A of the same. We have on our own considered the evidence on the point and
we are satisfied that the view taken by the trial court and the High Court is
correct one.
13. The factum of A-1 's presence at the place of occurrence having
been established, we now proceed to discern whether the Suicide Note was
B fabricated one. In order to verify the handwriting on the Suicide Note to be
that of A-1, on 10.9.2001 Sl-Ajit Singh [PW 27] moved an application before
· Balraj Singh [PW.26], the then SOM, Hisar, for taking specimen signature and
handwriting of A-I, which were taken and sent to FSL, Madhuban for analysis.
According to the report submitted by FSL, Madhuban, in this regard, the
C handwriting on the Suicide Note tallied with the specimen handwriting.
14. A bare perusal of Suicide Note which was addressed by A-I to none
other than A-2 [her husband], would show that in the very first line she has
confessed of having eliminated everybody and that she was ending her life
as well. In this very letter of hers, A-I has admitted having written it immediately
D after the occurrence. This fact stands proved by the evidence of PW.57 who
in his evidence has stated that he picked up the said letter from A-1 's bed
and thereafter left for the police station. Therefore, there was no reason for
any of the police officials to be present at the place of occurrence from the
time the crime was committed until the arrival of the police officials after the
lodgment of the FIR. Both the courts below have relied upon the evidence
E of PW.57 and PW.26 on this point and we see no reason to disbelieve their
testimony. In this view of the matter, the submission of the learned counsel
thatthe Suicide Note was fabricated has to be rejected.
15. This takes us to the next submissioq made by Mr. Sushil Kumar that
F movements of A-1 having been restricted since the time of her removal to the
hospital until her formal arrest on 26th August, 200 l, she was kept under
direct or indirect police surveillance and, therefore, as per legal position, she
was U!Jder police custody. In support of this submission, he has relied on
Paramhansa Jadab & Anr. v. The State, AIR (1964) Orissa 144, a decision
of a Division Bench of Orissa High Court. We have been taken .~hrough the
G evidence of PW 25, Dr. Jagdish Sethi [PW.521 and PW 62. PW.25 has stated
in his evidence that on his arrival at the place of occurrence, he saw A-I lying
in front of the main door under the porch of the first floor of the house from
where she was removed to the hospital. The factum of admission to the
hospital stands proved from the evidence of PW.52, who was on duty as the
H Casuality Medical Officer at the Janta Hospital, Barwala. In his statement,
t
rx..,, •.
"'
'
RAM SINGH v. SONIA [B.N.AGRA WAL, J.]
665
PW.52 has stated that at the time of her admission to the hospital, A- I was A
unfit to make any statement. PW.62 in his evidence has stated that at the time
of recording of confessional statement of A- I, no police official was present
either in the room in which the statement was recorded nor in the vicinity of
the hospital which fact has been confirmed in his evidence by Dr. Anant Ram,
PW 32, under whose care A-1 was at the time the judicial confession was
being recorded and who was also present at the time of its recording. B
Undoubtedly, movements of A-1 were restricted, but it happened not because
of any direct or indirect vigil kept by the police authorities, as is the contention
of the learned counsel, but because of the treatment that was administered
to her in the hospital. In her Suicide Note, A-I towards the end has written
that after finishing them all she was ending her life. PW.52 has also stated C
that at the time of her admission hers was a case of suspected poison and,
therefore, she was declared to be unfit to make any statement. There is not
an iota of evidence on record to show that in order to keep any direct or
indirect vigil on the movements of A-1 the police personnel remained present
in or outside the room in which A-1 was recuperating or in the hospital since
the time of A-1 's admission until her discharge therefrom or that the police D
personnel made frequent visits to the hospital, thereby restricting A-1 's
movement.
16. In Paramhansa [supra], reliance upon which has been placed by the
learned counsel, the question that arose was whether the accused, who was
formally arrested by the police on 19.2. 1962, could be said to be in police E
custody from the moment when his movements were restricted and he was
kept in some sort of direct or indirect police surveillance. In the said case, the
accused was interrogated on 17.2.1962 and taken to the office of one Dr.
Asthana on 18.2.1962. Accompanied along with the police personnel were
some other persons and while police personnel left Dr. Asthana' s office after p
a while, the accused and other persons who accompanied the police remained
there. Setting aside the conviction of the accused under Section 302/34 and
allowing the appeal, it was held at page 148 as under:
" ..... in the circumstances of this case I would hold that Paramhansa
was in police custody for the purpose of Section 26 of the Evidence G
Act from the date of his interrogation by the Inspector on 17.2.1962
and that he continued to be in police custody when he was brought
and left in Dr. Asthana's residence on 18.2.1962. It is true that when
this appellant made the confession before Dr. Asthana no police
officer was near him. But some persons who came with the police in
H
A
666
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2007] 2 S.C.R.
the Police van were left there. Thus there was indirect control and
surveillance over the movements of the appellant by the police ... "
17. Whether one is or is not in police custody could be discerned from
the facts and circumstances obtaining in each case. Insofar as the case at
hand is concerned, the police party reached the place of occurrence within
B 10 minutes of lodgment of the FIR and PW.25, being aware of the fact that
A-I had consumed poison and under instructions, seeing A-I lying in front
of the porch, removed her to the hospital. PW.52 having opined that A-I was
unfit at the time of her admission in the hospital to give any statement, PW.62
and PW.32 also having stated in their evidence that none else, except them,
was present in the room in which the statement of A-I was recorded and in
C the absence of any evidence to show that from the moment of her admission
to and discharge from the hospital the police personnel were either present
in the room wherein A-I was kept for treatment or even in the vicinity of the
hospital or they made frequent visits to the hospital, it cannot be said that
the.A-1 's movements were restricted or she was kept in some sort of direct
D or indirect police surveillance and that she was in police custody for the
purpose of Section 26 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, in our view, Paramhansa
[supra] is of no help insofar as A-1 is concerned.
18. Turning now to the next submission of learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the accused as to the judicial confession [Ext.187] made by AE I before PW.62, it would be useful to refer to relevant provisions in the
Criminal Procedure Code that deal.with the recording of a judicial confession
by a judicial magistrate and see whether the judicial confession recorded by
PW .. 62 of A-I is according to the procedure prescribed by these provisions
or whether any violation thereof has been made by the magistrate while
F recording it. The relevant Sections in the Cr.P.C. are Sections 164, 281and463.
19. Sub-section (2) of Section 164 Cr.P.C. requires that the magistrate
before recording confession shall explain to its maker that he is not bound
to make a confession and if he does so it may be used as evidence against
him and upon questioning the person if the magistrate has reasons to believe
G that it is being made voluntarily then the confession shall be recorded by the
magistrate.