# SMT. GARGI v. STATE OF HARYANA

- **Citation:** [2019] 13 S.C.R. 1
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-09-19
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1046 of 2010
- **Bench:** A. M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/smt-gargi-v-state-of-haryana-33248
- **Pages:** 48

## Headnote

Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 - Conviction under - Prosecution
case was that appellant had killed her husband by strangulation
and with the help of co-accused persons (her brothers), thereafter,
hanged the dead body in one of the rooms in the house, as if it were
a case of suicide - The matter rested on circumstantial evidence
where, according to the prosecution, the relations of the deceased
(husband) and the appellant (wife) were too strained; the deceased
had stated threat perceptions that his wife might kill him, for she
was involved in illicit relations and was desirous of grabbing his
property - PW-7 (brother of deceased) and PW-8 (sister of deceased)
testified in support of the prosecution case - Trial Court convicted
all the accused persons - However, the High Court found that
circumstances brought on record were not sufficient against the
brothers of the appellant and acquitted them but, affirmed the
findings against the appellant - Appellant filed appeal before the
Supreme Court - Held: Both the Trial Court and the High Court
convicted appellant with reference to the testimony of PW-7 and
PW-8 - A combined look at the testimony of PW-7 and PW-8 brings
to the fore one of the significant facts that there was an ancestral
house of the family and the same was sold by PW-7 alone and the
sale proceeds were utilised by him in multiple ventures, which resulted
in closure or failure - Appellant had stated categorically that the
property and money were the root of discord in the family and the
same was the cause for family of the deceased to implicate her -
DW-3 also testified that the deceased had his tense moments because
of money demands of his brother i.e. PW-7 - As per sketch prepared
by PW-3, there was a bathroom-cum-toilet attached with room where
deceased was putting up as per witnesses PW-7 and PW-8 - It belied
the suggestion that deceased was forced to use the washroom of the
 [2019] 13 S.C.R. 1
1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
tenant on the ground floor - Trial Court and High Court totally
overlooked these factors - Strong elements of doubts surfaced on
record as regard to the reliability of the PW-7 and PW-8 - Further,
there was no direct and cogent evidence on record that the appellant
was involved in illicit relations or was forcing the deceased to transfer
property - Other prosecution witnesses did not even remotely indicate
any traces of discord in the relations of the deceased and the
appellant - Insofar as last seen together theory is concerned, the
gap between the point of time when the appellant and deceased
were last seen together (29.04.1997) and when the deceased was
found died (01.05.1997) was not that small possibility of any other
person being the author of the crime can be rendered totally
improbable - That apart, the investigating agency and the
prosecution were not forthright - The relevant aspects of crimes
were not investigated properly and relevant witnesses like mother,
daughter and brother-in-law of deceased were not examined -
Further, investigating agency avoided independent witness in the
investigation - In the circumstances, the benefit of doubt given to
the appellant - Hence, conviction of the appellant u/s.302 set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Alleged last statement of deceased and motive of
appellant
1. A combined look at the testimony of PW-7 (brother of
deceased) and PW-8 (sister of deceased) brings to the fore one
of the significant facts that there had been an ancestral house
belonging to the family that was sold by PW-7 alone and the sale
proceeds were utilised by him to open a grocery shop, one of the
multiple ventures he had tried, mostly resulting in closure or
failure. The appellant had been categoric in her assertion that
the property and money had been at the root of discord in the
family and the same had been the cause for the family of the
deceased implicating her. DW-3 has also testified to the effect
that the deceased had his tense mome

## Text

_Characters 0–39,778 of 112,315. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39778 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
SMT. GARGI
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1046 of 2010)
SEPTEMBER 19, 2019
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 - Conviction under - Prosecution
case was that appellant had killed her husband by strangulation
and with the help of co-accused persons (her brothers), thereafter,
hanged the dead body in one of the rooms in the house, as if it were
a case of suicide - The matter rested on circumstantial evidence
where, according to the prosecution, the relations of the deceased
(husband) and the appellant (wife) were too strained; the deceased
had stated threat perceptions that his wife might kill him, for she
was involved in illicit relations and was desirous of grabbing his
property - PW-7 (brother of deceased) and PW-8 (sister of deceased)
testified in support of the prosecution case - Trial Court convicted
all the accused persons - However, the High Court found that
circumstances brought on record were not sufficient against the
brothers of the appellant and acquitted them but, affirmed the
findings against the appellant - Appellant filed appeal before the
Supreme Court - Held: Both the Trial Court and the High Court
convicted appellant with reference to the testimony of PW-7 and
PW-8 - A combined look at the testimony of PW-7 and PW-8 brings
to the fore one of the significant facts that there was an ancestral
house of the family and the same was sold by PW-7 alone and the
sale proceeds were utilised by him in multiple ventures, which resulted
in closure or failure - Appellant had stated categorically that the
property and money were the root of discord in the family and the
same was the cause for family of the deceased to implicate her -
DW-3 also testified that the deceased had his tense moments because
of money demands of his brother i.e. PW-7 - As per sketch prepared
by PW-3, there was a bathroom-cum-toilet attached with room where
deceased was putting up as per witnesses PW-7 and PW-8 - It belied
the suggestion that deceased was forced to use the washroom of the
 [2019] 13 S.C.R. 1
1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
tenant on the ground floor - Trial Court and High Court totally
overlooked these factors - Strong elements of doubts surfaced on
record as regard to the reliability of the PW-7 and PW-8 - Further,
there was no direct and cogent evidence on record that the appellant
was involved in illicit relations or was forcing the deceased to transfer
property - Other prosecution witnesses did not even remotely indicate
any traces of discord in the relations of the deceased and the
appellant - Insofar as last seen together theory is concerned, the
gap between the point of time when the appellant and deceased
were last seen together (29.04.1997) and when the deceased was
found died (01.05.1997) was not that small possibility of any other
person being the author of the crime can be rendered totally
improbable - That apart, the investigating agency and the
prosecution were not forthright - The relevant aspects of crimes
were not investigated properly and relevant witnesses like mother,
daughter and brother-in-law of deceased were not examined -
Further, investigating agency avoided independent witness in the
investigation - In the circumstances, the benefit of doubt given to
the appellant - Hence, conviction of the appellant u/s.302 set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Alleged last statement of deceased and motive of
appellant
1. A combined look at the testimony of PW-7 (brother of
deceased) and PW-8 (sister of deceased) brings to the fore one
of the significant facts that there had been an ancestral house
belonging to the family that was sold by PW-7 alone and the sale
proceeds were utilised by him to open a grocery shop, one of the
multiple ventures he had tried, mostly resulting in closure or
failure. The appellant had been categoric in her assertion that
the property and money had been at the root of discord in the
family and the same had been the cause for the family of the
deceased implicating her. DW-3 has also testified to the effect
that the deceased had his tense moments because of money
demands of his brother i.e., PW-7. Unfortunately, the Trial Court
as also the High Court have totally overlooked these factors and
features hovering over the prosecution story. [Para 24][40-C-D]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
2. Going further deep into the prosecution story, it is clear
that there is no direct and cogent evidence on record that the
appellant was involved in illicit relations or was forcing the
deceased to transfer the property. It had not been the assertion
of PW-7 or PW-8 that the alleged illicit relations of the appellant
and/or her pressurising the deceased to transfer the property
had been the matters of their personal knowledge. No particulars
of any person having illicit involvement with the appellant are to
be found on record. Such assertions have been made by these
witnesses on the basis of the statements allegedly made by the
deceased to each of them individually and at different point of
time. The High Court and the Trial Court have readily accepted
the suggestions of PW-7 and PW-8 that the deceased made the
statements to them as alleged; and have even labelled the
statement allegedly made to PW-7 as being the dying declaration
of the deceased. Strictly speaking, the alleged statement made
to PW-7 could not have been taken as a 'dying declaration' for
the reason that at time of making of such statement, the deceased
was not labouring under his imminent death and he was not
recounting the circumstance of the transaction relating to his
death. For the sake of arguments, and on the broad phraseology
of the first part of Section 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act, even
if it be assumed that the statement made by the deceased, before
the cause of death had arisen, or before he had any reason to
anticipate his killing, may also be taken as admissible, such an
alleged statement cannot be directly acted upon without concrete
corroboration. In the present case, what to say of corroboration,
even making of such statement by the deceased appears to be
doubtful. [Para 25][41-E-H; 42-A-B]
Last seen theory: Proof and effect
3. On the facts of the present case, it emerges that as per
the version of PW-7, the deceased was lastly in his company on
28.04.1997 when he allegedly expressed his dejection and fear
as also his plan to return with luggage. The appellant has pointed
out that the deceased was with her in the morning of 29.04.1997
when he pointed out his tour programme commencing that day
with scheduled return on 03.05.1997. It is not in dispute that the
deceased was regularly on tour for longer durations of about two
SMT. GARGI v. STATE OF HARYANA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
4
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
weeks in connection with his duties. The dead body was recovered
on 01.05.1997 and as per post-mortem report, the probable time
that had elapsed between death and post-mortem (on 02.05.1997
at 12.30 p.m.) was 24 to 72 hours. On the basis of this opinion, it
cannot be assumed by way of arithmetical calculation that the
deceased might have met with his end on 29.04.1997. The
possibility of it being a day later is not ruled out. [Para 28.2]
[44-D-F]
4. In the given set of circumstances, the last seen theory
cannot be operated against the appellant only because she was
the wife of the deceased and was living with him. The gap between
the point of time when the appellant and deceased were last seen
together and when the deceased was found dead had not been
that small that possibility of any other person being the author of
the crime is rendered totally improbable. [Para 28.3][44-G]
Subsequent conduct of the appellant and other
circumstances
5. Admittedly, the corpse was emitting foul smell and DW8 reached the spot at about 4.30 in the morning though the
appellant had noticed the dead body the previous evening and
had taken steps for informing the concerned through DW-3,
Surinder Kumar Bhat. In the given circumstances, no fault could
be foisted on the appellant if she did not remain with the dead
body all through and until arrival of PW-8. The expression
'enjoying tea' was coined by this witness PW-8 alone and for want
of corroboration and for omission of such a fact in the police
statement, there appears no reason to accept the same. If at all
anything of subsequent conduct of appellant is to be taken into
consideration, it is evident that she attended her office on
30.04.1997 and 01.05.1997. It is not the case of the prosecution
that during these two days, any abnormality in her behaviour was
noticed by anyone. The appellant neither concealed herself nor
altered the scene of crime in any manner and there had not been
any evidence about any oddity in her manners and demeanour.
[Para 29][45-D-F]
6. This Court would hasten to observe that merely for the
reason of acquittal of co-accused, another accused in a criminal
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
5
case may not be acquitted if cogent evidence against him is
available and his case could be segregated from the case against
the acquitted co-accused. However, on the basic facts of the
present case, it is evident that the gruesome act in question had
not been the handiwork of one person and it would be rather
preposterous to assume that the appellant hanged the dead body
by ceiling fan all by herself. In the given circumstances, when the
alleged collaborators of the appellant are acquitted, the already
existing clouds of doubts on the prosecution story get congealed.
The High Court has proceeded with over-simplification of the
matter by leaving the missing link as merely a fault of the
investigating agency. In view of this Court, as soon as the brothers
of the appellant were acquitted, the High Court ought to have
examined the consequence of such acquittal that an important
link in the prosecution theory was snapped and it was difficult to
conclude that the prosecution has established its case against
the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. [Para 31.1]
[46-F-H; 47-A]
The prosecution case not established beyond reasonable
doubt
7. Thus, as regards the circumstances relied upon by the
prosecution, the position obtainable from the material placed on
record and the surrounding factors is that (a) the death of
deceased was homicidal in nature and had not been suicidal though
it was sought to be projected as suicide by the culprits by hanging
the dead body from a ceiling fan in his room; (b) there is no cogent
and convincing evidence on record to come to a definite conclusion
that the relations of the deceased and the appellant were strained
or that the appellant was indulgent in illicit relations or she was
insisting for transfer of property in her name; (c) it is also difficult
to come to a definite conclusion that the deceased had expressed
imminent danger to his life at the hands of the appellant; and (d)
even if the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the
appellant, the time gap between such last seen and finding of his
dead body had been of about 2 to 3 days. [Para 32][47-B-D]
Chandmal and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan: (1976) 1 SCC
621;
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
SMT. GARGI v. STATE OF HARYANA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
6
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
Maharashtra: (1984) 4 SCC 116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88;
Hanumanth v. State of Madhya Pradesh: AIR 1952 SC
343: [1952] SCR 1091; Pakala Narayana Swami v. The
King-Emperor: AIR 1939 PC 47 - relied on.
Rajkumar v. State of M.P. (2004) 12 SCC 77; Sonvir
alias Somvir v. The State (NCT of Delhi): (2018) 8 SCC
24 : [2018] 7 SCR 830; Ramesh and Ors v. State of
Rajasthan: (2011) 3 SCC 685 : [2011] 4 SCR 585;
SK. Yusuf v. State of West Bengal : (2011) 11 SCC 754:
[2011] 8 SCR 83; Sawal Das v. State of Bihar: (1974) 4
SCC 193 : [1974] 3 SCR 74 - referred to.
A Text Book of Jurisprudence by B.W. Paton, Fourth
Edition, Page 598 - referred to.
Criminal Law by C.S. Kenny - referred to.
Modi: A textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and
Toxicology - referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2004) 12 SCC 77
referred to
Para 8.5
[2018] 7 SCR 830
referred to
Para 8.5
[2011] 4 SCR 585
referred to
Para 8.5
[1974] 3 SCR 74
referred to
Para 8.5
(1976) 1 SCC 621
relied on
Para 13.2
[1985] 1 SCR 88
relied on
Para 13.3
[1952] SCR 1091
relied on
Para 13.3
AIR 1939 PC 47
relied on
Para 25
[2011] 8 SCR 83
referred to
Para 28.3
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1046 of 2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.03.2008 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appeal No. 359-DB of
1998.
Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv., Tarun Gupta, Ms.Vriti Gujral, Ms.Pallavi
Singh and Ms.Japneet Kaur for Ms.S.Janani, Advs. for the Appellant.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
7
Anish Kumar Gupta, AAG, Avdhesh Kumar Singh, Chandra
Shekhar Sumar, Nisarg Chaudhary and Dr. Monika Gusain, Advs. for
the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
Preliminary
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the common
judgement and order dated 05.03.20081 whereby, the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana at Chandigarh has partly affirmed the judgment and order
dated 09.06.1998 in Sessions Case No. 63 of 1997 by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Ambala; and hasupheld the conviction of the appellant
for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
('IPC')even while acquitting the co-accused persons of the charge under
Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC.
1.1. In a brief outline of the material aspects, it may be noticed
that in the present case, the appellant was charged with the
imputationsthatshe killed her husband by strangulation and,with the help
of co-accused persons (her brothers), hanged the dead body in one of
the rooms in the house,as if it were a case of suicide. The matter rested
on circumstantial evidencewhere, according to the prosecution, the
relations of the deceased (husband)and the appellant (wife) were too
strained; the deceased had stated threat perceptions that his wife might
kill him, for she was involved in illicit relations and was desirous of grabbing
his property. Two of the siblings of deceased, one brother and one sister,
testified in support of the prosecution case. Per contra, the appellant,
while denying the imputations, took the plea that she was leading a happy
married life with her husband for 18-19 years with two children; and
thatthe brother of the deceased, on whose statement FIR was registered
and who was the prime prosecution witness, was carrying the ill-intentions
to grab the property of her husband and had managed her prosecution.The
Trial Court convicted all the accused persons while accepting the
prosecution case and rejecting the defence version. In appeal, the High
Court, though found that the circumstances brought on record were not
1in Criminal Appeal Nos. 341-DB of 1998 and 359-DB of 1998.
SMT. GARGI v. STATE OF HARYANA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
sufficient to bring home the charge of conspiracy against the brothers of
the appellant andacquitted them but, affirmed the findings against the
appellant and maintained her conviction for the offence of murder of her
husband. Hence, this appeal.
The relevant facts and background aspects
2. Put in brief, the prosecution case had been that on 01.05.1997,
having received information that a man had committed suicide in House
No. 1297, Sector-15, Panchkula, ASI Amar Singh (PW-9), accompanied
by UGC Bidhi Chand and UGC Baldev Singh, reached the spot at about
11.30 p.m.2, only to find that in the room on the second floor of house,
the deceased TirlokiNath, husband of the appellant, washanging by neck
with his feet touching the floor. They also found that a pool of blood had
collected near the dead body; and that the dead body was emitting bad
odour. The appellant and her children were in the same house, but on the
first floor.
2.1. At about 4.30 a.m. of 02.05.1997, i.e., nearly five hours after
the police having arrived, the complainant BrijBhushanKaul (PW-7),
brother of the deceased, reached the spot with his wife, mother, sister's
husband and sister Smt. RadhaPuri (PW-8). The complainant made the
statement thatrelationship of the deceased and the appellant was too
strained due to which, they were residing in separate rooms in the same
house; that the appellant had been ill-treating her husband, which included
restricting his use of bathroom facilities in the same house; that the
deceased had once expressed his fear that the appellant would leave the
gas cylinder open with the intention to kill him; and that the deceased
had also stated that 'the character of his wife was bad'and she was
living 'with bad women'. The complainant also stated that on 28.04.1997,
the deceased came to his house (at AmbalaCantt.) and told him that he
would go to Panchkula and would come back with his luggage as he
was 'very much fed up and frightened'. The complainant further stated
that in the night of 01.05.1997 at about 11.30 p.m.,he received a message
that his brother had passed away and thereupon, he arrived at the house
of the deceased accompanied by his mother, wife, sister and brother-inlaw, only to find the deceased in the condition as described hereinabove.
2 At what time did the police and the complainant receive this information, by which
mode of communication, and through whom, are some of the questions having bearing
in this matter, as shall be noticed hereafter later.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
9
While concluding, the complainant stated his suspicion that the appellant
hadmurdered his brother becausethedeceased had not transferredhis
house as per her demands.
2.2. For the incident in question, FIR No. 174 dated 02.05.1997
was registered on the basis of the statement so made by the complainant.
In the preliminaries, the inquest report (Ex. PH/2) was prepared by ASI
Amar Singh (PW-9); rough site sketch (Ex. PM) was prepared;
photographs were taken by the photographer Shashi (PW 11); and the
dead body was sent for post-mortem. Thereafter, the investigation was
taken over by Inspector Jag Pravesh (PW-10), who recorded the
statements of witnesses, visited the spot,got prepared the scaled site
plan (Ex. PD) and also arrested the appellant. SI IshwarChander (PW12) also partly investigated this case. He arrested and released the brothers
of appellant, who were on anticipatory bail. Thereafter, the appellant
was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC
while her brothers were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under
Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC.
Prosecution evidence
3. After committal, the case was tried as Sessions Case No. 63 of
1997 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala. The prosecution,
inter alia, examined 12 witnesses. Having regard to the subject matter
of this appeal and the questions involved, it would be advantageous to
take note of the relevant aspects emerging from the statements of
material witnesses in requisite details, even at the cost of a little inflation.
3.1. PW-1 Dr.UshaBansal, who had been one of the members of
the medical board that had conducted post-mortem of the bodyof
deceased and had prepared the report Ex. PA,stated the observations
and opinion as follows:
"...A well defined depressed ligature mark measuring 3 cm.
wide seen encircling the neck around the thyroid cartilage
with a knot present on left side of neck. This ligature mark
was ante-mortem in nature. A ligature mark above the thyroid
cartilage going obliquely upward and posteriorly on left side
present with an irregular impression of knot on left side of
the neck measuring 1.5 cm wide present. This ligature mark
was of post-mortem nature....
xxx
xxx
xxx
SMT. GARGI v. STATE OF HARYANA
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
In our opinion, the cause of death was asphyxia due to
strangulation...The probable time that elapsed between injury
and death was few minutes and between death and postmortem was 24 hours to 72 hours....."
3.2. PW-7 BrijBhushanKaul (brother of the deceased)has been
the prime witness of prosecution in this case. The relevant assertions
occurring in his examination-in-chief readas under: -
".....Upto Dec., 1997 I remained at AmbalaCantt.TirlokiNath
used to visit AmbalaCantt and was always found by us to be
disturbed, because of the family problem. TirlokiNath told us
that hewas shifted to a separate room at the top floor of the
house and that he was not provided any article of food and
was being mal-treated by his wife Smt. Gargi Devi. He also
told many a time that he was never allowed to enter the room
and toilet by his wife at night times. TirlokiNath deceased left
our house at AmbalaCantt lastly on 28.4.1997, around 7.45
AM and while leaving, told that it was his last time to go to
Panchkula to collect his belongings and then would be coming
to AmbalaCantt for ever. On this, I asked him as to why he
was taking this step. He told me that he was very much upset
due to the illicit relations of his wife Smt. Gargi Devi and was
afraid of that if he stayed in the same house at Panchkula, he
could be murdered, with the help of her three brothers...On
this I told him that it was not possible because a wife cannot
kill her husband. However, while leaving our house,he was
totally shattered. TirlokiNath used to take tea only in his room
at the top floor of the house, using his independent cylinder
in his room. He was not provided even tea by Smt. Gargi and
the children. He told me that once his wife had opened the
gas cylinder in order to kill him.....I was on tour on 1.5.97. I
came back to my house at Ambala late in the night at about
11.30 PM. Immediately thereafter, I got a message from my
neighbour, namely Mr. T.R. Malhotra giving me the message
that his(sic) brother TirlokiNath at Panchkula was no more,
as he received this information from some colleague of my
brother.(Objected to). My brother was murdered. At that time,
it was not clear by whom. Thereafter, I gave telephonic
messages to my relatives regarding the murder of my brother.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
11
So, I alongwith my brother-in-law Mr. A.C. Puri, my sister
Smt. RadhaPuri, my mother Smt. Raj Kumari, my wife
Meenakshi went to Panchkula.On our reaching at Panchkula,
we found two ASIs sitting outside the house of Smt. Gargi. On
my enquiry, as to what had happened to my brother, I was
told that I should go up-stairs and found out myself. We all
went up-stairs and found the dead body of TirlokiNath hanging
with a fan. The feet of my brother were touching the floor.
Blood was noticed on the floor.The body was giving bad odour.
I reported the matter to the police vide statement Ex. PH. It
was signed by me........"
3.2.1. This witness PW-7, in his cross-examination on behalf of
the appellant,stated, inter alia, as under:-
"It is correct that I was 11⁄2 years old when my father died.
TirlokiNath was the eldest son of the second marriage of my
mother......There are two brothers and two sisters from the
second marriage of my mother. My father died as told, due to
cancer at Delhi, in the year 1961. It is incorrect to suggest
that TirlokiNath deceased had brought up all the children of
my mother from both the marriages. ....He bore expenses for
some time regarding my education etc. The marriage of my
brother TirlokiNath was performed about 19-20 years
ago.....My mother is having no source of income except the
family pension due to my father's death and some rental income.
My mother had given on rent a house situated in Adarsh
Nagar, AmbalaCantt. I joined Navy in the year 1978. I was
married in the year 1984. It is incorrect to suggest that all the
expenses of my joining the service and on my marriage were
borne by my brother TirlokiNath. Since I was attached to my
mother very well, I left my Navy job. TirlokiNath after his
marriage with Smt. Gargi probably in the year 1978, left my
mother alone and started living separately and so this was
the main reason that I left my Navy job in the year 1980. It is
wrong to suggest that I was involved in some case in the Navy
and the police was after me and I absconded and left my job.
After leaving Navy, I joined ForbesForbes, Camp Bell &Co.
Ltd. at Jammu in the year 1981 or 1982 as Sales Executive......
I never took my mother to Jammu because I started my
business at Karnal and opened a kiryana shop. It is wrong to
SMT. GARGI v. STATE OF HARYANA
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
12
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
suggest that I committed a fraud at Jammu and my services
were terminated and thereafter I started a kiryana shop at
Karnal. It is correct that the house in Adarsh Nagar,
AmbalaCanttwas sold and the proceeds of that house were
utilised by me in opening a kiryana shop at Karnal. My mother
started living with me at Karnal. It may be that the house was
sold in the year 1980 and the sale proceeds were utilised by
opening a kiryana shop, which was closed by me,because I
did not like that business. After winding up my kiryana shop,
I came to AmbalaCantt and settled with my mother. It is wrong
to suggest that I misutilised the amount and so was having no
option except to close the business and come back to
AmbalaCantt.......I have been serving as Manager in hotels,
namely Hide Out Tourist Complex, Palwal and Standard Hotel,
AmbalaCantt.... I was working with Camlin Ltd. Bombay but
was posted at Ludhiana as Sales Promotion Organizer (North)
for a period of about 31⁄2 years. It is wrong to suggest that I
committed a fraud at Ludhiana and my services were
terminated accordingly. It is incorrect to suggest that I have
been getting different Jobs with the efforts of TirlokiNath
deceased alone. I joined Veeto Hobbies Ambala for some time
as Manager Marketing. It is wrong to suggest that I also
committed a fraud and so my services were terminated.....I
started my factory at AmbalaCantt. That factory was closed
after two years......It is correct that I obtained bank loan for
running my factory but not due to the efforts of TirlokiNath.
There was no surety. It is incorrect to suggest that I pressurized
Smt. Gargi to stand as a guarantee against bank loan, and
on the refusal of Smt. Gargi, my brother TirlokiNath stood as
a guarantee. I have made payment of loan more than half the
amount taken by me.....
.....It is incorrect to suggest that one Mr.Narang had filed
civil suit against me and the company and which case was
won by me. It is incorrect to suggest that Mr.TirlokiNath had
made payment to Mr.Narang and got the matter settled.
TirlokiNath might have come ten days, fifteen days prior to
28.4.1997, as he was constructing a house at AmbalaCantt.
He used to complain against the behaviour of his wife. It is
incorrect to suggest that the house was not being got
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
13
constructed at AmbalaCantt by TirlokiNath for himself but
was being constructed for the residence of the mother ...."
3.2.2. In his further cross-examination on behalf of the appellant,
this witness stated as under: -
".......There was only one ancestralhouse at Model Town,
Ambala City (Adarsh Nagar). There is no other immoveable
(ancestral) property........I do not know for how many days
TirlokiNath used to remain on tour in a month.It is correct
that he was going on tour oftenly.....On 28.4.97, I went on
tour after meeting my brother...I did not give any telephonic
call to him in the night time of 28.4.97 or even in the day time
as to why he had not reached AmbalaCantt with his luggage,
as told by him....I never enquired either on 29.4.97 or
thereafter from TirlokiNath for his not coming to AmbalaCantt
with luggage......We talked to the Police officials for about
15 minutes in order to know the facts of the case. Thereafter
we went up-stairs, and started weeping and crying. 2/3 ladies
two brothers of Smt. Gargi, one uncle of Smt. Gargi,and aged
person were present at the time, when we reached. The
children of Gargi were also present there at the first floor. No
person was sitting with the dead body of TirlokiNath at the
time we had gone there-(volunteered). In the morning time
about 25 persons fromthe neighbourhood had also come
there, after my statement was recorded by the ASI......I do not
know whether the tenants on the ground floor came in the
year 1990 and litigation with them started in the year 1991....I
do not know whether the house atPanchkula was constructed
with the joint income of TirlokiNath and Smt.Gargi....It is
incorrect to suggest that I was after TirlokiNath to get money
even after pledging the house. It is incorrect that there was
any pledging of the house in question and there was any
opposition from Smt. Gargi in this regard....It is incorrect to
suggest that in order to grab the house, I have falsely named
the accused in this case...".3
SMT. GARGI v. STATE OF HARYANA
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
3There had been further cross-examination of this witness PW-7 on behalf of the other
accused persons where he was, inter alia, confronted with his police statements which
did not carry some of the assertions made in the Court. However, all the major aspects
of his testimony having occurred in the extraction hereinabove, the other parts of his
testimony in further cross-examination are not being extracted.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
3.3. PW-8RadhaPuri (sisterof the deceased) purportedly
corroborated the testimony of PW-7. The relevant parts of her
assertionsin the examination-in-chief could also be usefully extracted as
under:-
".....TirlokiNath had come to Yamuna Nagar on 25.1.1997
and met us. He was very much disturbed and upset at the
time. He told me that there used to remain tense situation at
every time in the house because Smt. Gargi wanted that the
house at Panchkula should be got mutated in the name of
Smt. Gargi. He further was told that he was afraid of Smt.
Gargi and her brothers and he apprehended danger to his
life....He stated that he was residing in a room at the top floor
of the house and was getting meals from the Hotel. TirlokiNath
had stated that 2/3 times, he was attacked by Smt. Gargi and
the children and that he had saved himself some-how or other.
TirlokiNath stated that Smt. Gargi was having illicit relations
and she never told where she used to go. He stated that on an
enquiry from Smt. Gargi, she always replied that he was having
no concern to ask such questions. According to TirlokiNath,
he was not allowed even to use bath-room facility. He was
using bath-room of the tenants on the ground-floor. However,
we pacified him. We were never allowed to visit our brother
TirlokiNath at Panchkula by Smt. Gargi.
On 1.5.97, I came to know through my brother BrijBhushan
that TirlokiNath had committed suicide. He told that as per
the information, the neighbourers at Panchkula told that
TirlokiNath had committed suicide. So, I alongwith others
reached Panchkula, and saw Smt. Gargi, her brothers and
sisters enjoying tea at the second floor of the house. I thought
that my brother had gone to Hospital and was saved and that
was the reason that they were enjoying the tea. Thereafter,
the police came and we went up-stairs, where the dead body
of TirlokiNath was found hanging with a ceiling fan..... I
suspect that Smt. Gargialongwith her brothers had murdered
my brother TirlokiNath."
3.3.1. In her cross-examination on behalf of the appellant, this
witness PW-8RadhaPuri stated, inter alia, as under: -
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
15
"On 1.5.97, at night time about 11 PM, I was sleeping and
my husband awoke me and told after hearing the telephone
that TirlokiNath was no more in the world and started
weeping..... I myself, my husband, my brother BrijBhushan,
and his wife and my mother then went to Panchkula during
night time.....Some police officials were sitting at the entrance
of the gate of the house. ....Firstly we went to first floor, where
we saw Gargi, her brothers, children and relatives to whom I
do not know. There was no person from the mohalla, where
the policemen were sitting. .....I do not know whether house
No. 1297, Sector 15, Panchkula was built out of the joint
income of Smt. Gargi and her husband TirlokiNath. I do not
know whether Gargi had taken any amount by way of
advance from the Govt. or not.
..........I do not know whether Smt. Gargi and her husband
were having cordial relations or not in the year 1994, when I
visited her because I stayed there for a night and did not talk
much, as the friend of Smt. Gargi and her children alongwith
her husband had come there. I do not remember the names or
antecedents of those persons. On 25.1.1997 when my brother
TirlokiNath had come to Yamuna Nagar, I found him very much
disturbed and he talked to me regarding the behaviour of
Smt. Gargi. I was alone. I narrated the facts to my husband in
between the period from 25.1.97 to 1.5.97. I did not tell the
aforesaid facts to anyone else. It is incorrect to suggest that
BrijBhushan my brother was helped in his education, service
and in his up-bringing by TirlokiNath deceased. It is correct
that the ancestral house was sold by my brother BrijBhushan.
However, it is wrong to suggest that he misappropriated the
sale proceeds of the house. I do not know when the house
was sold. I do not know whether TirlokiNath was having any
plot in AmbalaCantt or not. Again said, the plot at
AmbalaCantt is in the name of my mother. Again said, I cannot
say exactly in whose name it is...It is correct that I did not
make any verification from any quarter regarding illicit
relations of Smt. Gargi, as told by my brother TirlokiNath. I
believed my brother what TirlokiNath stated to me regarding
the ill-treatment meted to him from Smt. Gargi. This was also
SMT. GARGI v. STATE OF HARYANA
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
16
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
told by my mother. My brother had told all about this to all
the family members(sic).....I enquired from Vaishali daughter
of TirlokiNath as to how TirlokiNath had died. She did not
tell even a word, though I was crying throughout. Vaishali
told me as to why we had come there because we were not
called there........"4
3.4. ASI Amar Singh led in evidence as PW-9. He hadarrived at
the spot after having received the information about the death of
TirlokiNath. As regards the mode and time of receiving information, this
witness stated that "a telephonic message was received that one
person in House No. 1297, Sector 15, Panchkula had committed
suicide. This information was received at 11.15 PM." In his crossexamination, PW-9 stated, inter alia, as follows:-
"...Smt. Gargi and her children were on the first floor of the
house, whereas the dead body was on the top floor of the
house. I did not record the statement of Smt. Gargi and her
children. I have been making formal investigation before the
arrival of complainant etc. I have not kept any record qua
the formal investigation. The neighbourers did not come to
the spot, though they were found by me standing in the street.
I did not call any one. I have been giving information to the
officers on telephone......I did not join any independent witness
from the locality..."
(underlining supplied)
3.5. Inspector Jag Parvesh, who carried out major part of
investigation, was examined as PW-10 and stated in his examination-inchief that he reached the hospital on 02.05.1997 where he was handed
over the statement EX.PH as made by PW-7; the inquest report Ex.PH/
2prepared by PW-9; and the post-mortem report EX.PA. He drew up
the necessary proceedings; recorded statements under Section 161 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure Code ('CrPC'); collected blood from
the spot; and arrested the appellant. In his cross-examination, this
Investigating Officer stated, inter alia, as under: -
4There had been further cross-examination of this witness also on behalf of the other
accused persons where she was, inter alia, confronted with her police statements
which did not carry several of the assertions made in the Court. However, all the major
aspects of her testimony having occurred in the extraction hereinabove, the other parts
of her testimony in further cross-examination are not being extracted.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
17
".......I made verification from the locality regarding the
character of Smt. Gargi but did not record any statement. I
do not remember the names of those persons.
I verified from 5/10 persons of mohalla. I did not mention this
factum in the report u/s 173 Cr.PC. Report was prepared by
the then SHO. ...I interrogated Gargi accused while in custody.
She had told that she was innocent and had not committed
any offence...Gargi accused had told me that she was not
having any dispute with her husband and was having cordial
relations. I joined the children of Gargi accused in my
investigation. I have not recorded their statements and as
such,no record is there. The interrogation of Gargi was
recorded in the zimini. I did not take finger prints from the
rope. I had not at all taken finger prints from any other place
where the dead body of TirlokiNath was found. However,
Finger Print Expert visited the place. None has told me that
BrijBhushan complainant used to harass Gargi and
TirlokiNathto extract money from them. It is correct that the
stairs in the house are outside the door. If the door is closed,
none can notice who is coming down and who is coming up.
I investigated regarding the visitors in the house during the
3/4 days prior to the 2.5.97 and I had come across one Pandit
who visited that house during this period. Smt. Gargi told
that one Pandit was brought for performing Havan. I made
verbal enquiries from the neighbourhood. ......
......I had recorded statements of other witnesses i.e. mother,
sister and brother-in-law of deceased in the hospital. ...There
is a direct stair case from the ground floor to the top floor of
the house of Gargi and one can go upstairs and come down
stairs without entering any room on the first floor....."
(underlining supplied)
3.6. PW-2 H.S. Narula, the Deputy Manager, Oriental Insurance
Company, Sector 22, Chandigarh was examined by the prosecution to
testifythat the deceased was working in his Company as Assistant
Administrative Officer, who lastly attended the Office on 28.04.1997. In
his cross-examination, this witness admitted the fact that deceased
TirlokiNath used to remain on tour for about two weeks in a month.
SMT. GARGI v. STATE OF HARYANA
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
18
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
3.7. PW-3 ManoharLal, who was working as a constable in S.P.
Office, Ambala drew up thesite plan Ex. PD of the place where the
body of deceased was found. In his evidence, PW-3 pointed that there
was a bathroom-cum-toilet, attached with the room on the second floor.
The site plan of second floor (Ex. PD) shows about 10 feet x 3 feet
space marked as bath/toilet.
3.8. PW-4 SantLal Gupta, the then Assistant Audit Officer, AG
Audit, Punjab, Chandigarh testified to fact that the appellant was working
as Senior Auditor in his office; that she was on casual leave on 28.04.1997
and 29.04.1997; and that she attended the office on 30.04.1997 and
01.05.1997. In his cross-examination, this witness expressed want of
knowledge if the appellant often used to come to the office with her
husband and used to leave after office hours with her husband. This
witness also stated that 'no complaint was received from the side of
husband of Smt. Gargi or any other relation of husband of Smt.
Gargi against Smt. Gargi'.
3.9. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution had been
PW-5 Head Constable Ramesh Kumar; PW-6 UGC Baldev Singh; PW11 Shashi, who took the photographs at the site; and PW-12 SI
IshwarChander, who also partly investigated the case.
4.