# STATE THROUGH C.B.I v. J _. MAHENDER SINGH DAHIYA "\ - **Citation:** [2011] 1 S.C.R. 1104 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2011-01-28 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1360 of 2003 - **Bench:** B. Sudershan Reddy, Surinder Singh Nijjar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-through-c-b-i-v-j-mahender-singh-dahiya-27411 - **Pages:** 55 ## Headnote "r" ~ Penal Code, 1860: s.302 and s.201 - Diabolic murder-- ' c Strangulation to death and dismemberment and mutilation of body parts - Respondent an Indian orthopedic doctor got engaged with deceased and shifted to London to stay with ~- laws - Marriage took place subsequently - Honeymoon t 'p was arranged for 5 days - Respondent returned from trip after D 2 days without deceased and stated that the deceased abandoned him - Thereafter he absconded and remained ~ . Underground until arrest - Body parts found in the rubbish bin ~ and lake near the hotel where the couple stayed and identified to be that of deceased - Allegation against respondent that E he strangulated his wife to death on the first night of honeymoon and thereafter dismembered and mutilated parts of her body and disposed them of 1 Trial court held that circumstances pointed out towards the guilt of the respondent and convicted him u/s.302 and s.201 - Acquittal by High - F Court on the ground that the prosecution failed to connect the respondent with the alleged murder - On appeal, held: Prosecution had miserably failed to connect the respondent with the alleged murder of his wife - Resentment of the respondent to the friendly behaviour of the deceased towards G the other men would not be sufficient to hold that he had the necessary motive to kill the deceased - There was nothing )..- '- to suggest that the deceased or her family members had apprehended any harm or threat to life of deceased at any stage till the couple left for the honeymoon - Given the H 1104 }> STATE THROUGH C.8.1. v. MAHENDER SINGH 1105 DAHIYA previous attitude of the deceased, it was possible that she had A walked out on her husband - Explanation given by respondent consistently from beginning was that the deceased had left him voluntarily - As regards the circumstances relating to the state of affairs that existed in the hotel room, the evidence of the hotel staff was inconsistent - Finger print B expert was not able to connect the palm prints of body parts recovered with the palm prints of the deceased - The reports submitted by the doctors contained numerous discrepancies - That apart the identification marks given by the witnesses did not coincide with the reports and therefore, no reliance c could be placed upon them for establishing the identity of these body parts as that of the deceased - Articles and clothes taken on trip by deceased not produced for . identification by witnesses at the time of trial- There was no reliable evidence to indicate that the blood that was recovered 0 from the bathroom of hotel room definitely belonged to the deceased - An adverse inference against the respondent cannot be drawn merely because he remained in hiding till he was arrested - Prosecution a/so did not produce any evidence with regard to the recovery of any weapon of offence E - Order of acquittal was justified. Criminal law: Motive - Held: In cases based on circumstantial evidence, motive for committing the crime assumes great importance - Absence of motive would put the court on its guard to scrutinize the evidence very closely to F ensure that suspicion, emotion or conjecture do not take the place of proof - In a case where there is motive, it affords added support to the finding of the court that the accused was guilty for the offence charged with. Evidence: Suspicion no matter how strong cannot, and should not be permitted to take the place of proof- Therefore, courts are to ensure a cautious and balanced appraisal of the intrinsic value of the evidence produced in Court. G 1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R. A The prosecution case was that the respondent was guilty of murdering his wife. The respondent was an Orthopedic surgeon. He belonged to a village called Turkpur, District Sonepat. PW-48, a native of Punjab had migrated to England in 1962. He was settled there with B his wife (PWUK-1) and children. The victim-deceased was his daughter. In 1978, PW-48 visited India to find sui ## Text _Characters 0–39,939 of 104,358. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39939 for what follows._ ,, [2011) 1 S.C.R. 1104 A STATE THROUGH C.B.I. v. .J.._. MAHENDER SINGH DAHIYA "\ v (Criminal Appeal No. 1360 of 2003) ~ B JANUARY 28, 2011 [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.] "r" ~ Penal Code, 1860: s.302 and s.201 - Diabolic murder-- ' c Strangulation to death and dismemberment and mutilation of body parts - Respondent an Indian orthopedic doctor got engaged with deceased and shifted to London to stay with ~- laws - Marriage took place subsequently - Honeymoon t 'p was arranged for 5 days - Respondent returned from trip after D 2 days without deceased and stated that the deceased abandoned him - Thereafter he absconded and remained ~ . Underground until arrest - Body parts found in the rubbish bin ~ and lake near the hotel where the couple stayed and identified to be that of deceased - Allegation against respondent that E he strangulated his wife to death on the first night of honeymoon and thereafter dismembered and mutilated parts of her body and disposed them of 1 Trial court held that circumstances pointed out towards the guilt of the respondent and convicted him u/s.302 and s.201 - Acquittal by High - F Court on the ground that the prosecution failed to connect the respondent with the alleged murder - On appeal, held: Prosecution had miserably failed to connect the respondent with the alleged murder of his wife - Resentment of the respondent to the friendly behaviour of the deceased towards G the other men would not be sufficient to hold that he had the necessary motive to kill the deceased - There was nothing )..- '- to suggest that the deceased or her family members had apprehended any harm or threat to life of deceased at any stage till the couple left for the honeymoon - Given the H 1104 }> STATE THROUGH C.8.1. v. MAHENDER SINGH 1105 DAHIYA previous attitude of the deceased, it was possible that she had A walked out on her husband - Explanation given by respondent consistently from beginning was that the deceased had left him voluntarily - As regards the circumstances relating to the state of affairs that existed in the hotel room, the evidence of the hotel staff was inconsistent - Finger print B expert was not able to connect the palm prints of body parts recovered with the palm prints of the deceased - The reports submitted by the doctors contained numerous discrepancies - That apart the identification marks given by the witnesses did not coincide with the reports and therefore, no reliance c could be placed upon them for establishing the identity of these body parts as that of the deceased - Articles and clothes taken on trip by deceased not produced for . identification by witnesses at the time of trial- There was no reliable evidence to indicate that the blood that was recovered 0 from the bathroom of hotel room definitely belonged to the deceased - An adverse inference against the respondent cannot be drawn merely because he remained in hiding till he was arrested - Prosecution a/so did not produce any evidence with regard to the recovery of any weapon of offence E - Order of acquittal was justified. Criminal law: Motive - Held: In cases based on circumstantial evidence, motive for committing the crime assumes great importance - Absence of motive would put the court on its guard to scrutinize the evidence very closely to F ensure that suspicion, emotion or conjecture do not take the place of proof - In a case where there is motive, it affords added support to the finding of the court that the accused was guilty for the offence charged with. Evidence: Suspicion no matter how strong cannot, and should not be permitted to take the place of proof- Therefore, courts are to ensure a cautious and balanced appraisal of the intrinsic value of the evidence produced in Court. G 1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R. A The prosecution case was that the respondent was guilty of murdering his wife. The respondent was an Orthopedic surgeon. He belonged to a village called Turkpur, District Sonepat. PW-48, a native of Punjab had migrated to England in 1962. He was settled there with B his wife (PWUK-1) and children. The victim-deceased was his daughter. In 1978, PW-48 visited India to find suitable Indian boy for marriage with the deceased. They found the respondent to be a suitable match for her. The engagement ceremony was held between the respondent c and the deceased on 31st August 1978 at village Turkpur followed by a marriage ceremony. However, as per the understanding of the parents of the deceased, the said marriage was to be treated as engagement. A registered marriage was to take place in London subsequently. 0 Therefore, the marriage was not consummated and the deceased along with her parents returned to London on the same night. As arranged, the respondent reached London on 27th February, 1979 and started living with his in-laws. At the same time, he pursued his medical studies and got himself registered as a post graduate student. E PW-48 purchased a house in the joint name of the deceased and the respondent for 20,000 UK Pounds. A joint bank account was also opened in the name of the deceased and the respondent. . F On 5th April, 1979, on the occasion of the birthday party of younger daughter of PW-48, all friends (boys and girls) of the three daughters of PW-48 were invited in the party. After the party, the respondent started abusing the whole family. He was aggressive and alleged the G deceased to be characterless as she had been dancing and mixing up with boys. The deceased was upset with the behaviour of the respondent. She told her mother that it did not seem possible for her to spend the rest of her life with the respondent. The next morning the family H discussed about the previous day incident. When the STATE THROUGH C.B.I. v. MAHENDER SINGH 1107 DAHIYA respondent was told that the deceased wanted to cancel A the engagement, he apologized for his conduct. During the night of 10th April, 1979, the deceased wrote a letter to the respondent suggesting that wedding should be cancelled in the month of May, until both of them were ready for the same. In reply, the respondent also wrote a s letter to the deceased. On 26th May, 1979, the marriage between the respondent and the deceased was registered in London. A honeymoon trip was arranged for five days. On 27th May, 1979, they left for the honeymoon trip. They carried C · two suit cases, one of red colour belonging to the ·deceased and the other of brown colour belonging to the respondent containing their cloths and other articles. All the tourists in the group stayed in a Hotel. The deceased and the respondent checked into room no.415. After D sometime they went for a short sight seeing tour "Brussels by Night". They returned to the hotel at' about 11 A.M. and retired to their room. Thereafter, the prosecution version · was that .the respondent strangulated the deceased to death in the hotel room and E theri dismembered and mutilated parts of her body and disposed them of in the different part of city of Brussels. Thereafter, the respondent entered UK on the same day and withdrew· 200 UK Pou"ds from the joint account he had with the deceased and then went to the house of his F in-laws. He· was carrying two suitcases. He did not give satisfactory explanation to his in-laws about the whereabouts of the deceased. He stated that she had abandoned him at Brussels on the morning of 28th May, carrying away her clothes and money. The respondent G wanted to get away from the house, but he was restrained · by the family members with the assistance· of neighbour. Thereafter, PW-48 too.k the respondent to lodge a missing person's report about the disappearance of the deceased. 011' the way back from the police station H 1108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 1 S.C.R. A alongwith his father-in-law, the respondent escaped by jumping onto a running bus. Thereafter, he stayed in ·YMCA, London without disclosing his identity. He left for India via Germany and reached Delhi on 6th June, 1979. He afterwards remained underground and absconding s and could not be traced until 9th May, 1983. He was hiding in a village in District Lalitpur, UP where he had taken up the practice of general medicine. The trial court held that all the circumstances were C proved in favour of the prosecution and convicted the respondent under Section 302 IPC and 201 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The High Court acquitted the respondent of both the charges. The High Court held that the finding of trial court D that the resentment of the respondent to the friendly behaviour of the deceased towards the other men provided strong motive to the respondent for committing murder of his wife was not plausible; that the respondent had not disputed that the deceased was with him in the E room throughout the night, however, she left him in the morning of 28th May, 1979; that the evidence of witnesses to project a certain state of affairs in the hotel room to prove that the respondent had a guilty mind was inconsistent; that although the custody of all the clothes F which the deceased had taken on the honeymoon trip was taken, but they were not produced for identification by the witnesses; that no reliance could be placed on the reports presented by the prosecution for the purpose of establishing the identity of the body parts as that of the deceased; that the reports of Stomatologist (PWBG-20) G were inconsistent and, therefore, not reliable; that the prosecution failed to place on record any cogent evidence with regard to the blood group of the deceased; that there was no reliable evidence to indicate that blood that was recovered from the bathroom of room no.415 H { / STATE THROUGH C.B.I. v. MAHENDER SINGH 1109 DAHIYA belonged to the deceased; that there was no recovery of A 1 > weapon and, therefore, the prosecution failed to connect the respondent with the alleged murder. The instant appeal was filed challenging the order of the High Court. ·Dismissing the appeal, the court Held: 1.1. Undoubtedly, the instant case demonstrated the actions of a depraved soul. The B .. >---r manner in which the crime was committed in the instant case, demonstrated the depths to which the human spirit/ soul can sink. But no matter how diabolical the crime, the C burden remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Given the tendency of human beings to become emotional and subjective when faced. with· crimes of depravity, the courts have to be:e~tra cautious not to be swayed by sttong sentiments of repulsion and disgust. D 1 ~ It is in such cases that the court has to be on its guard and to e.nsure that the conclusion reached by it are not influenced by emotion, but are based on the evidence produced in the court. Suspicion l"JO matter how strong cannot, and should not be permitted to take the place of E proof. Therefore, in such cases, the courts are to ensure a cautious and balanced appraisal of the intrinsic value 1 of the evidence produced 1n Court. [Para 19] [1135-A-D] 1.2. The High Court has examined the entire evidence dispassionately and with circumspection. The High Court systemati~aUy and chronologically examined the series F of incidents/circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the respondent. In cases based on circu'mstantial evidence, motive for Committing the crime assumes great importance. In such G circumstances, absence of motive would put the court on its guard to scrutinize the evidence very closely to ensure that suspicion, emotion or conjecture do not take the place of proof. A motive is something which prompts a person to form an opinion or intention to do certain H 1110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R. A illegal act or even a legal act with illegal means with a view to achieve that intention. In a case where there is motive, it affords added support to the finding of the court that the accused was guilty for the offence charged with. But the evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused B nonetheless becomes untrustworthy or unreliable because most often it is only the perpetrator of the crime alone who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to adopt a certain course of action leading to the commission of the crime. In the instant case, the c conclusion· recorded by the High Court was in accordance With the said principles. Merely because the respondent o~je~~ed Jo the behaviour of the deceased towards her male friei:tds at the birthday party of her sister would not be sufficient to hold that the appellant had the 0 necessary motive to kill her~)f ,is inconceivable that the respondent would have rtiarried'the deceased only for the -Purpose of committing her murder ·and that too on the very first night of their honeymcion: It was in fact il'l the interest .of .the respond.ent '?'that the deceased had remained'.·aiive. The succ·e~s of l\!s very obj~ctive to E remain permanently in ·England was dependent op the continila'nce of his marriage for at least another year. [Paras 20. 21, 23] [1135-E-F; 1137-A~B; 1137-F; :1,.138-D-G; 113~-A-B] ' . . F Hanumant Gbvlnci Natg[mdkar v.- State of M. P. 1952 SCR 1091 ; Naseem A,l:imed v.·Delhi Admn·(1974) 3 $C.~ '..668; Surinder Pa/Jai11 lh,'Df/lhi Administration 1993 SUPP .. (3) SCC 681; Tarseem Kumarv: Delhi Administration 1994 ~upp:(3) sec 361; Subedar .. 'fewari v. Staff/ of u.P. 1989 .$upp·(1.) G SCC 91; Sures/f Ctfaridra Bahari v .. State of Bihal'.1995' Supp (1) sec 80 - relied on. , · · ., · · · . . ·' .. { . ., . . . 1.3. The High Court correctly concluded' that the two letters ltxt.CW~13 and Ex.CW-14 exchanged between the deceased and the respondent on 10th April, 1979 would H tend to show that respondent was in fact trying to make STATE THROUGH C.B.I. v. MAHENDER SINGH 1111 DAHIYA amends after the birthday party on 5th /6th April, 1979. A -> There was no untoward incident thereafter. The marriage was duly registered on 26th May, 1979 and that the couple voluntarily left for the honeymoon. The High Court correctly concluded that it was highly improbable to comprehend that respondent had a pre-determined mind B or motive to cause the death of the deceased on the honeymoon night itself at the first available opportunity ~-r of being in the company of the deceased in a closed room as suggested by the prosecution. Had the attitude of the parties been as suggested by the prosecution, c they would not have agreed to a marriage followed by a honeymoon trip outside London. There was nothing to suggest that the deceased or her family members had apprehended any harm or threat to life of the deceased at any stage till the couple left for the honeymoon on D ,. ~~ morning of 27th May, 1979. [Paras 24, 25] [1139-C-D; 1140-F-H; 1140-A] 2. The explanation given by the respondent consistently from the beginning was that the deceased had left him voluntarily early in the morning of 28th May, E 1979. It was also his case that she married him only under pressure from her parents. She had purchased a new suitcase in which she packed most of her clothes immediately upon returned from the "Brussels by Night" tour. The red suitcase with which she had traveled from F London to· Belgium was left with the respondent containing some of her clothes. This suitcase even though had a blood stain was carried back to the house of the deceased's parents by the respondent himself. It is inconceivable that a person who has committed the G ~ murder of his wife and has used the said suit case for storing and carrying the body parts would bring it back to England risking his own safety. The respondent also narrated before the police that his wife had left him voluntarily on the morning of 28th May, 1979. This fact H 1112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R. A was further reiterated by him in the letter to the Prime Minister became apparent that the respondent did not even put a latch on the door nor did he take any extra precaution to keep the room closed. This witness was able to enter the room without knocking. The High Court, however, noticed that this witness did not find any incriminating B article like the body or body parts either in the room or in the bathroom, nor she found even a trace of blood on . >---;r the carpet or on the wall. This witness had herself stated that the respondent had left the room unatt~nded knowing perfectly well that this witness could enter the c room in his absence. The High Court correctly assessed the evidentiary value of the statement of this witness. [Paras 32, 33] [1143-A-H; 1144-A] 3.3. It was only after very careful consideration of the D evidence of all the witnesses that the High Court > .,. concluded that the behaviour of the respondent could not be said to be consistent with the guilt of the'respondent. The High Court correctly noticed that no explanation was forth coming as to where the body or dismembered body parts could have been concealed by the respondent E throughout the night of 27th/28th May, 1979 as well as the morning and the afternoon of 28th May, 1979. The .. suggestion of the prosecution that the body might have been kept either in the cupboard or under the bed was correctly held to be conjectural. [Para 34] [1144-B-D] F 4.1; The High Court noticed that police had already collected and seized various articles and things from the house of PW-48. The High Court reached the appropriate . conclusion that the possibility of the garments and G ~ articles having been planted by the police by obtaining the same from the house of the deceased with the object of fixing the identity of the body parts belonging to the deceased by means of the clothes cannot be ruled out. No contemporaneous recovery memo was prepared by H 1114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R. A the police on 29th May, 1979 itself. There was omission of the details of the allegedly recovered clothes in the statement of the witnesses. The prosecution had allegedly recovered the clothes the deceased had taken on the trip. The deceased's wedding dress was stated to B have been recovered as part of the clothings. The High Court correctly observed that ordinarily a woman would not carry her wedding dress on her honeymoon trip. The High Court also noticed that though the prosecution had taken custody of all the clothes which the deceased had c taken with her on the honeymoon trip, they were not produced at the trial for identification by the witnesses. Only photographs of the clothings, which had been allegedly taken on 12th June, 1979 i.e. after 16 days, were produced. [Paras 36, 37) [1146-B-F] D 4.2. The High Court correctly took view that the prosecution was duty bound to produce the clothings at -,. the trial. It was through these clothings and articles that the prosecution had sought to establish the identity of the deceased. The High Court correctly recorded the E conclusion that on consideration of the relevant evidence of the witnesses and various documents on record, the. prosecution had miserably failed to establish the recovery of clothes or shoes by means of any cogent and ... reliable evidence. The identification of the clothings and F shoes as belonging to the deceased through the testimony of the parents of the deceased (PW-48 and PWUK-2) was also not sufficient to discharge the burden of proof which lay on the prosecution. The identificati.on of the shoes by PW-48 was not made in the prese'nce of G any police officer. He was unable to remember if any police officer was present or not at the time of the ~ identification.· The High Court drew the only logical conclusion from the said that this witness was not consistent so far as the identification of the clothes were H concerned. [Para 38) [1146-G-H; 1147-A-F] STATE THROUGH C.8.1. v. MAHENDER SINGH 1115 DAHIYA 5. A perusal of provisional and the final report of A Stomatologist showed that initially the report stated that . the individual was at-least 30 years old and of NorthAfrican type. At the end of the report, it was stated that the individual should be between 29-30 years only. This opinion underwent a change by the time the final report B was prepared. It was then stated that the "Individual belonging to the female sex whose age is presumed between 20 and 30 years, and belonging to North-African Indian type." The difference between the two reports was _.,,,,,,. :'· so glaring, understandably, the High Court was c compelled to hold that the second report was clearly an afterthought and deliberate improvement over the earlier report. The High Court appropriately concluded that this must have been made to cover up the first report which did not connect the body parts with that of the deceased 0 in as much as age of the deceased was stated to be around 25 years. In fact, it is a matter of record that the deceased was born in 1956, that would make her only 24 years at the relevant time. [Para 45] [1152-A-E] 6.1. The mother. of the deceased, PWUK-1, had stated that the deceased had a scar mark on her left knee. She also stated that the deceased had three inoculation marks on her shoulder. The High Court noticed that this witness was, however, not able to give details of any identification marks on her other children. This would be sufficient to justify the conclusion reached by the High Court that E F PWUK-1 and PW-48 were not aware/sure of any identification marks of the deceased. The High Court, therefore, observed that a possibility cannot be ruled out that these witnesses may have given these marks after G -41 the disclosure of such marks in the postmortem examination's report. [Para 46] [1153·A~E] 6.2. The finger print expert was' not able to conclude that the evidence produced connected the palm prints H 1116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R. A with the palm prints of the deceased. The reports submitted by the doctors contained numerous discrepancies. That apart the identification marks given by the witnesses did not coincide with the reports. Therefore, the High Court rightly concluded that no B implicit reliance could be placed upon them for the purpose of establishing the identity of these body parts as that of the deceased. [Para 47] [1153-F-H] 7 .1. PW-48 only stated that the blood group of the deceased was 'O', but even he was not able to say C whether it was 'O+' or '0-'. The High Court quite appropriately observed, on the basis of the opinion of the examining experts, that more than fifty per cent population of Belgium has '0' blood group. In such state of affairs, the High Court was constrained to conclude that the D prosecutio11 was not able to establish even this limb by means of cogent and reliable evidence. [Para 48] [11540-F] 7.2. There was no reliable evidence to indicate that E the blood that was recovered from the bathroom of room no. 415 definitely belonged to the deceased. The only drop of blood that was found was at the base of the bidet, in the bathroom. The bathroom was used successively by different tourists occupying the room. This apart, the F very recovery of the blood stains from the bidet seemed highly doubtful. The evidence of the Manager of the hotel in whose presence the blood stains were allegedly lifted was that many tourists had occupied room no. 415 between 29th May, 1979 and 12th June, 1979. According G to him, no tourists/guests ever complained of any blood spot on the bidet. The first ever discovery of blood was stated to be on 12th/13th June, 1979, i.e., about 14 days of the alleged incident. If the blood stains lifted from the bidet were of a person who was killed on 28th May, 1979, the same could not be of i;ed or red brown colour. The H STATE THROUGH C.B.I. v. MAHENDER SINGH 1117 DAHIYA colour of the stain would have been blackish brown. The A ,'~ High Court was wholly justified in rejecting the evidence with regard to the recovery of blood from the bidet. [Para 50] [1155-F-H; 1156-A-B] 8. An adverse inference against the respondent cannot be drawn merely because he remained in hiding B till he was arrested by the CBI. The subsequent conduct -~,.... of the respondent was not consistent with the expected conduct of a guilty person. If the respondent had any intention of absconding, he could have done so initially c after the alleged murder of his wife. There was no need for him to come back to England. Having come back, he need not have gone directly to the house of his in-laws. Not only did he come back to England, he carried with him the red suitcase containing some of the deceased's D clothes. According to the prosecution, this suitcase had i ~ contained blood stains which had belonged to the deceased. It is inconceivable that a person having a guilty mind would have been carrying such an incriminating article back to the house of his in-laws. He went back to India apprehending danger from his father-in-law and E family. This apprehension of danger to his life at the instance of his father-in-law continued even in India. The fact that an attempt was made on his life had been duly recorded by the trial court. The respondent had been petitioning the police authorities as well as the Home F Minister and the Prime Minister of India seeking protection. Evading arrest would certainly be an illegal act but it does not lead to the only conclusion that the respondent was hiding due to a guilty conscience. The respondent did not come out of hiding due to fear as also G -..;( to avoid arrest by the police but it certainly cannot be concluded that he was hiding because of a guilty conscience. [Paras 51, 52] [1156-C-H; 1157-E] Matru Alias Girish Chandra v. The State of Uttar Pradesh H (1971) 2 sec 75 - relied on. 1118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R. A 9. At the trial, the prosecution did not produce any evidence with regard to the recovery of any weapon of offence. Nor any weapon was produced in court, at the· trial. Even according to the sequence given by the prosecution, it would have been impossible for the B respondent to procure the surgical instruments in the city of Brussels during the night intervening 27th/28th May, 1979. It is a matter of record that the entire group of tourists did not return back to the hotel till after 11 O' clock during the tour "Brussels by Night". The deceased was c with him throughout the tour. The respondent could not have carried the surgical instruments with him without the same being noticed at the customs barriers. This apart, prosecution miserably failed to establish that the respondent had any intention of committing the murder 0 of his wife at the commencement of the honeymoon trip. Even the deceased's parents did not entertain any such apprehensions. It was also the prosecution case that something went amiss in room no. 415 during the night of 27th/28th May, 1979. Therefore, it made the possession of surgical instruments by the respondent on E the fateful night in Brussels virtually impossible. Such severance of the body parts could also not possibly be achieved by use of a simple butter knife. It is simply too farfetched a notion to be taken seriously. The conclusions reached by the High Court would clearly F show that the prosecution had miserably failed to connect the respondent with the alleged murder of his wife. The conclusions recorded by the High Court were fully justified by the evidence on record. [Paras 53, 54) [1157-F-H; 1158-A-H] G H Case Law Reference: 1952 SCR 1091 (1974) 3 sec 668 · relied on relied on Para 20 Para 20 -' . STATE THROUGH C.B.L v. MAHENDER SINGH 1119 DAHIYA 1993 Supp (3) sec 681 relied on 1994 Supp (3) sec 367 relied on Para 23 A 1989 Supp (1) sec 91 relied on 1995 Supp (1) sec 80 relied on (1971) 2 sec 75 relied on Para 23 Para 23 Para 23 Para 51 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1360 of 2003. B From the Judgment & Order dated 19.12.2002 of the High C Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 169 of 1999. P.P. Malhotra, ASG, P.K. Dey, Chetan Chawla, Madhurima Mridul, Shweta Verma, Arvind Kumar Sharma for the Appellant. D Siddharth Aggarwal {for Nikhil Nayyar) forthe Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. 1. This appeal is directed E against the final order of the High Court of Delhi dated 19th December, 2002 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 169 of 1999, whereby the accused Dr. Mahender Singh Dahiya has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code {for short 'IPC') by setting aside the judgment of F ) the trial court whereby he had been convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-.for the offence under Section 302 IPC and also imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence under Section 201 IPC . 2. Before the trial court, the prosecution had succeeded in proving that Dr. Mahender Singh Dahiya·(hereinafter referred . . to as 'the respondent') had committed the murder of his wife Namita, a British national of Indian origin, on the intervening G H 1120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 1 S.C.R. A night of 27th/28th May, 1979. The murder was allegedly committed on the very first night of the honeymoon in room No. 415, Hotel Arenberg, Brussels, Belgium. It is further the case of the prosecution that after committing the murder, the respondent had dismembered and extensively mutilated the B body of the victim. He subsequently disposed of the body parts at different places in the city of Brussels. This was done with the intention of destroying the evidence of the murder. 3. The aforesaid conviction and sentence were challenged before the Delhi High Court by way of an appeal. The High C Court upon re-appraisal of the entire evidence accepted the appeal and acquitted the respondent of both the charges. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the High Court, the State through CBI, New Delhi is in appeal before this Court. D 4. The High Court notices at the very outset of the impugned judgment that this is an unusual case and perhaps the first of its kind. We are of the opinion that the High Court had good reasons for making such a statement. The peculiarity which makes this murder case rather rare is not only the ghastly E and the brutal manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed but also the complexities created by a number of unique factors. The accused respondent herein is an Indian. He is an Orthopedic Surgeon. The alleged victim of the crime Namita, though of Indian origin was a British citizen. She had F grown up in England since she was 5 or 6 years old. The offence was allegedly committed in a third country, i.e., Belgium. Consequently, the investigation of the case was conducted in three different countries. Initially, the Belgium authorities investigated the crime. Thereafter, the Scotland Yard in London G also participated in the investigation. It was concluded in India. The investigation in Belgium and U.K. had been conducted according to the law and procedure of those countries. This led to its own difficulties. Initially, the Belgium authorities had requested for extradition of the respondent for his trial in Belgium. Later, the request was abandoned by the Belgium H r STATE THROUGH C.B.I. v. MAHENDER SINGH 1121 DAHIYA [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.] authorities. The case was ultimately investigated by the CBI aryd A -> the charge sheet was presented on 30th July, 1985. At the trial, ...,.. a large number of witnesses being foreign nationals were examined on commission eith!3r in Belgium or in England. This further complicated the issues. Ultimately, the trial court convicted the respondent on 1st March, 1999, i.e,, twenty yearsB after the alleged commission of the crime. ... 5. We may now notice some of the undisputed facts, which - ~ are necessary for appreciation of a peculiar situation in which l the alleged offence is said to. have been committed. The c respondent belongs to a village called Turkpur, 'District Sonepat, Haryana. He obtained, his MBBS degree from Punjab University, Rohtak in 1973 and M.S. Degree in (Orthopedic) from A.1.1.M.S., New Delhi in December, 1978. He got himself registered with the Punjab Medical Council. D .. ··~ 6. Jagdish Singh Lochab (PW-48) a native of Punjab had migrated to England in 1962. He was settled there with his family viz. wife Smt. Chandermukhi (PWUK-1), three daughters riamely Namita, Arnita Lochab (PWUK-2) and sfuela (PWUK3) and two sons. Namita born in India in May, 1956 had E acquired British citizenship. During 1978, Namita was working as accounts trainee with the British Broadcasting Corporation ..... (BBC), London. In July-August, 1978, Jagdish Singh Lochab • ·· (PW-48) visited India to find suitable boy for marriage with his daughter Namita. They found the respondent to be a suitable F match for their daughter. After making the selection of the proposed groom, Namita was called from London. The engagement ceremony was held between the respondent and Namita on 31st August, 1978 at village Turkpur followed by a marriage ceremony according to Hindu rites and customs at G ~ Delhi on 5th September, 1978. However, as per the understanding of the parents of Namita, the said marriage was to be treated as engagement only as there would have to be a registered marriage in London subsequently. Therefore, the marriage was not consummated and Namita along with her H 1122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R. A parents returned to London on the night of 5th September, 1978. .... "" 7. As arranged, the respondent reached London on 27th .... February, 1979. He started living with his in-laws at 22, Friars B Way, Action, W3, London. At the same time, he pursued his medical studies. He got himself registered as a post graduate student at Royal National Institute of Orthopedics, London on 12th March, 1979. Jagdish Singh Lochab (PW-48) purchased a house (No. 312, Horn Lane Act, London) in the joint name of c Naniita and respondent valued 20,000 UK Pounds. He paid 10,000 UK Pounds, the remaining price was to be paid in installments. A joint bank account No.91053728 was also opened in the name of Namita and the respondent at Midland Bank, Acton High Street, London and two cheque books, one D each in the name of Namita and the respondent were issued by the bank. -r- . 8. On 5th or 6th April, 1979, 18th birthday party of Sheila, younger sister of Namita was celebrated where all the friends (boys & girls) of the three daughters of PW-48 including UKE 23 Philips David Abbey, a colleague of Namita were invited in the party. Mr. and Mrs. Lochab left the house at about 7.30 pm and returned at about 1.30 a.m. in the morning. On their return the accused started abusing the whole family, he was aggressive and alleged Namita to be characterless, as she had F been dancing and mixing with boys. Namita was upset with the,- behaviour of the accused and was crying. She told her mother that it did not seem possible for her to spend the rest of her life with the accused. The next morning the whole family sat together along with the accused and discussed about the G incident of the previous night. When the accused was told that Namita wants to cancel the engagement,;he apologized for'his ~ conduct in the previous night. During the night of 10th April,1979 at 1.30 a.m. Namita wrote a letter (exhibit CW-13, Volume-9, page 286) to the accused addressing him as H MahenCfra, suggesting that wedding should be cancelled in the "1 ' STATE THROUGH C.B.I. v. MAHENDER SINGH 1123 DAHIYA [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.] month of May, until both of them were ready for the same. She A advised him to get some self confidence to prove himself responsible enough to look after a wife and a home. In reply, the accused wrote a letter, to Namita addressing her as Nita, which is exhibit CW-14 (Vol.9, page 290). 9. On 26th May. 1979, the marriage between Mahender and Namita was registered at. the Office of the Registrar of Marriages, London. It was followed by a reception the same evening at the Phoenix Restaurant, London. A honeymoon trip B for the newly wedded couple was arranged for five days C commencing from 27th May, 1979 to certain European countries through Cosmos Tours, London. In the morning of 27th May, 1979, Mahender and Namita left for the honeymoon trip. They were seen off by her family at Victoria Railway Station, London. They carried two suit cases, one of red colour belonging to Namita and the·other of brown colour belonging D to Mahender containing their clothes and other articles. The group of tourists including Namita and the respondent reached Brussels at about 6.30 p.m. the same evening. All the tourists in the group stayed at the fourth floor of Hotel Arenberg, Brussels. Mahender and Namita checked into room no. 415. E After some time they went for a short sight seeing tour 'Brussels by Night'. They returned to the hotel at about 11.00 p.m. and retired to their room. I 10. Hereafter, there are two versions, one according to the F appellant and another according to the respondent. The prosecution version is that the respondent had strangled his wife Namita to death in their hotel room. He had then proceeded to dismember and mutilate parts of her body which were subsequently disposed of in the rubbish container and the lake. G The respondent entered UK on the same day, i.e., 29th May, 1979 and withdrew an amount of 200 UK Pounds from the joint account he had with his.wife bearing Account No. 91053728 from the Midland. Bank, London. In the afternoon of 30th May, 1979, afterwithdrawing the money from the bank, he went to H 1124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R. A the house of his in-laws. He was carrying two suitcases. He, however, could not give any satisfactory explanation to his inlaws about the whereabouts of his wife Namita. He rather falsely stated to them that she had abandoned him at Brussels on the morning of 28th May, 1979, carrying away her clothes and B money. The respondent wanted to get away from the house as soon as possible without giving any explanation as to what happened in Brussels.