<p>REPORTABLE</p> <p>IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA</p> <p>CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION</p> <p>CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1117  OF 2011</p> <p>@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.1208 OF 2011</p> <p> </p> <p>Bhagwan Dass              ..                   Appellant</p> <p><br />             -versus-</p> <p><br /> State (NCT) of Delhi   ..                    Respondent(s)</p> <p> </p> <p>                           J U D G M E N T</p> <p> </p> <p>Markandey Katju, J.</p> <p> </p> <p>1. This is yet another case of gruesome honour killing, this time  by the accused-appellant of his own daughter.</p> <p><br /> 2.    Leave granted.</p> <p>3.    Heard   learned   counsels   for   the   parties   and   perused   the record.</p> <p>4.    The prosecution case is that the appellant was very annoyed  with his daughter, who had left her husband Raju and was living in   an   incestuous   relationship   with   her   uncle,   Sriniwas.     This infuriated   the   appellant   as   he   thought   this   conduct   of   his  daughter   Seema   had   dishonoured   his   family,   and   hence   he strangulated her with an electric wire.   The trial court convicted the   appellant   and   this   judgment was   upheld   by   the   High   Court.</p> <p>Hence this appeal.</p> <p>5.    This is a case of circumstantial evidence, but it is settled law  that   a   person   can   be   convicted   on   circumstantial   evidence provided   the   links   in   the   chain   of   circumstances   connects   the accused   with   the   crime   beyond   reasonable   doubt   vide  Vijay Kumar   Arora    vs.    State   (NCT   of   Delhi),   (2010)   2   SCC   353 (para 16.5),  Aftab Ahmad Ansari   vs.   State of Uttaranchal, (2010) 2 SCC 583 (vide paragraphs 13 and 14), etc.  In this case, we are satisfied that  the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by establishing all the links in the chain of circumstances.</p> <p> </p> <p>6.    In cases of circumstantial evidence motive is very important, unlike cases of direct evidence where it is not so important vide Wakkar and Anr.   vs.   State of Uttar Pradesh  (2011) 3 SCC 306   (para   14).     In   the   present   case,   the   prosecution   case   was that   the   motive   of  the   appellant   in   murdering   his   daughter   was that   she   was   living   in   adultery   with   one   Sriniwas,   who   was   the son   of   the   maternal   aunt   of   the   appellant.     The   appellant   felt humiliated by this, and to avenge the family honour he murdered his own daughter.</p> <p>7.      We   have   carefully   gone   through   the   judgment   of   the   trial court as well as the High Court and we are of the opinion that the said judgments are correct.</p> <p>8.      The  circumstances   which   connect   the  accused   to  the   crime are:</p> <p><br /> i)      The motive of the crime which has already been mentioned above.   In our country unfortunately `honour killing' has become common   place,   as   has   been   referred   to   in   our   judgment   in Arumugam Servai   vs.   State of Tamil Nadu  Criminal Appeal No.958   of   2011   (@SLP(Crl)   No.8084   of   2009)   pronounced   on 19.4.2011.Many people feel that they are dishonoured by the behaviour of the young man/woman, who is related to them or belonging to their   caste   because   he/she   is   marrying   against   their   wish   or having an affair with someone, and hence they take the law into their   own   hands   and   kill   or   physically   assault   such   person   or commit   some   other   atrocities   on   them.     We   have   held   in  Lata Singh   vs.   State of U.P. & Anr. (2006) 5 SCC 475, that this is wholly illegal.  If someone is not happy with the behaviour of his daughter or other person, who is his relation or of his caste, the maximum he can do is to cut off social relations with her/him, but he cannot take the law into his own hands by committing violence or giving threats of violence.  </p> <p>ii)    As   per   the   post   mortem   report   which   was   conducted   at 11.45 am on 16.5.2006 the likely time of death of Seema was 32 hours prior  to the post mortem.   Giving a margin of two hours, plus   or   minus,   it   would   be   safe   to   conclude   that   Seema   died sometime between 2.00 am to 6.00 am on 15.5.2006.  However, the appellant, in whose house Seema was staying, did not inform the   police   or   anybody   else   for   a   long   time.     It   was   only   some unknown   person   who   telephonically   informed   the   police   at   2.00 pm   on   15.5.2006   that   the   appellant   had   murdered   his   own daughter.     This   omission   by   the   appellant   in   not   informing   the police about the death of his daughter for about 10 hours was a totally unnatural conduct on his part.           </p> <p>iii)    The   appellant   had   admitted   that   the   deceased   Seema   had stayed   in   his   house   on   the   night   of   14.5.2006/15.5.2006.     The appellant's mother was too old to commit the crime, and there is not even a suggestion by the defence that his brother may have committed   it.     Hence   we   can   safely   rule   out   the   possibility   that someone else, other than the appellant, committed the crime. Seema had left her husband sometime back and was said to be   living   in   an   adulterous   and   incestuous   relationship   with   her uncle (her father's cousin), and this obviously made the appellant very hostile to her.</p> <p>On   receiving   the   telephonic   information   at   about   2.00   pm from some unknown person, the police reached the house of the accused   and   found   the   dead  body   of  Seema  on  the   floor  in   the back   side   room   of   the   house.     The   accused   and   his   family members   and   some   neighbours   were   there   at   that   time.     The accused  admitted  that  although  Seema had  been  married  about three years ago, she had left her husband and was living in her father's house for about one month.  Thus there was both motive and opportunity for the appellant to commit the murder.</p> <p><br /> iv) It has come in evidence that the accused appellant with his family members were making preparation for her last rites when the   police   arrived.     Had   the   police   not   arrived   they   would probably have gone ahead and cremated Seema even without a post mortem so as to destroy the evidence of strangulation.  </p> <p>v)     The   mother   of   the   accused,   Smt.   Dhillo   Devi   stated   before the   police   that   her   son   (the   accused)   had   told   her   that   he   had killed Seema.  No doubt a statement to the police is ordinarily not admissible   in   evidence   in   view   of   Section   162(1)   Cr.PC,   but   as mentioned in the proviso to Section 162(1) Cr.PC it can be used  to   contradict   the   testimony   of  a  witness.     Smt.   Dhillo   Devi   also appeared   as   a   witness   before   the   trial   court,   and   in   her   cross examination, she was confronted with her statement to the police to whom she had stated that her son (the accused) had told her that   he   had   killed   Seema.     On   being   so   confronted   with   her statement   to   the   police   she   denied   that   she   had   made   such statement. We are of the opinion that the statement of Smt. Dhillo Devi to   the   police   can   be   taken   into   consideration   in   view   of   the proviso   to   Section   162(1)   Cr.PC,   and   her   subsequent   denial   in court   is   not   believable   because   she   obviously   had   afterthoughts and wanted to save her son (the accused) from punishment.   In fact in her statement to the police she had stated that the dead body   of   Seema   was   removed   from   the   bed   and   placed   on   the floor.   When she was confronted with this statement in the court she denied that she had made such statement before the police. </p> <p>We   are   of   the   opinion   that   her   statement   to   the   police   can   be taken into consideration in view of the proviso of Section 162(1) Cr.PC.</p> <p>In   our   opinion   the   statement   of  the   accused   to   his   mother Smt. Dhillo Devi is an extra judicial confession.  In a very recent case   this   Court   in  Kulvinder   Singh   &   Anr.    vs.  State   of Haryana  Criminal Appeal No.916 of 2005 decided on 11.4.2011 referred   to   the   earlier   decision   of   this   Court   in  State   of Rajasthan  vs.  Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180, where it was held (vide para 10) :</p> <p><br />      "An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and  made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court.   The   confession   will   have   to   be   proved   like   any </p> <p>     other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession,   like any other  evidence,  depends  upon  the veracity  of  the   witness   to   whom   it   has   been   made.   The   value   of  the evidence as to the confession depends on the reliability   of   the   witness   who   gives   the   evidence.   It   is   not open to any court to start with a presumption that extra-judicial   confession   is   a   weak   type   of   evidence.   It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak to such a confession. Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be  founded   thereon   if   the   evidence   about   the   confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased,   not   even   remotely   inimical   to   the   accused, and   in   respect   of   whom   nothing   is   brought   out   which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing   an   untruthful   statement   to   the   accused,   the words spoken to by the witness are clear, unambiguous  and unmistakably convey that the accused is the perpetrator  of the crime  and  nothing  is omitted  by the witness which may militate against it. After subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touch-stone of credibility, the extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of credibility."</p> <p>In the above decision it was also held that a conviction can be based on circumstantial evidenc Similarly,   in  B.A.   Umesh    vs.    Registrar   General,   High Court   of   Karnataka,   (2011)   3   SCC   85   the  Court   relied   on   the extra judicial confession of the accused. No   doubt   Smt.   Dhillo   Devi   was   declared   hostile   by   the prosecution   as   she   resiled   from   her   earlier   statement   to   the police.  However, as observed in State  vs.  Ram Prasad Mishra & Anr. :</p> <p>"The   evidence   of   a   hostile   witness   would   not   be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused, but can be subjected to close scrutiny and the portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence may be accepted."</p> <p>Similarly in Sheikh Zakir  vs.  State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 911 this Court held :</p> <p>  "It   is   not   quite   strange   that   some   witnesses   do turn hostile but that by itself would not prevent a court  from   finding   an   accused   guilty   if   there   is   otherwise acceptable evidence in support of the conviction." In  Himanshu   alias   Chintu    vs.    State   (NCT   of   Delhi), (2011) 2 SCC 36 this Court held that the dependable part of the evidence of a hostile witness can be relied on. Thus it is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff, and the maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application   in   India   vide  Nisar   Alli    vs.    The   State   of   Uttar  Pradesh  AIR  1957  SC  366.     In  the  present case  we  are  of the opinion   that   Smt.   Dhillo   Devi   denied   her   earlier   statement   from the police because she wanted to save her son.  Hence we accept her   statement   to   the   police   and   reject   her   statement   in   court. The defence has not shown that the police had any enmity with the accused, or had some other reason to falsely implicate him. We are of the opinion that this was a clear case of murder and the entire circumstances point to the guilt of the accused. </p> <p>vi)    The cause of death was opined by Dr. Pravindra Singh-PW1 in his post mortem report as death "due to asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation by ligature."   It is evident that this is a   case   of   murder,   and   not   suicide.     The   body   was   not   found hanging but lying on the ground. </p> <p>vii)    The   accused   made   a   statement   to   the   SDM,   Shri   S.S. Parihar-PW8,   immediately   after   the   incident   and   has   signed   the same.   No doubt he claimed in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC that nothing was asked by the SDM but he did not clarify how his signature appeared on the statement, nor did he say that he   was   forced   to   sign   his   statement   nor   was   the   statement challenged   in   the   cross   examination   of   the   SDM.     The   SDM appeared   as  a  witness   before   the   trial   court  and   he   has   proved the statement in his evidence.   There was no cross examination by the accused although opportunity was given. In his statement under Section  313 Cr.PC the accused was asked :</p> <p>        "Q.8 It   is   in   evidence   against   you   that   you   were  interrogated   and   arrested   vide   memo   Ex   PW11/C   and your   personal   search   was   conducted   vide   memo   Ex  PW11/D and  you  made disclosure  statement EXPW7/  and in pursuance thereto you pointed out the site plan of   incident   and   got   recovered   an   electric   wire   Ex   P1 which   was   seized   by   IO   after   sealing   the   same   vide  memo ExPW7/B.  What do you have to say?  The reply he gave was as follows :</p> <p> "Ans.   I was wrongly arrested and falsely implicated in this   case.    I   never   made   any   disclosure   statement.     I  did   not   get   any   wire   recovered   nor   I   was   ever   taken  again to my house."</p> <p> We see no reason to disbelieve the SDM as there is nothing to show that he had any enmity against the accused or had any other reason for making a false statement in Court.  </p> <p>viii) The accused had given a statement (Ex. PW7/A) to the SDM in   the   presence   of   PW11   Inspector   Nand   Kumar   which   led   to discovery of the electric wire by which the crime was committed. </p> <p><br /> We   are   of   the   opinion   that   this   disclosure   was   admissible   as evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Aftab Ahmad Ansari  vs.  State, (2010) 2 SCC 583 (para 40), Manu Sharma vs.    State,   (2010)   6   SCC   1   (paragraphs   234   to   238).     In   his evidence   the   police   Inspector   Nand   Kumar   stated   that   at   the pointing   out   of   the   accused   the   electric   wire   with   which   the accused   is   alleged   to   have   strangulated   his   daughter   ws recovered from under a bed in a room.It   has   been   contended   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the appellant   that   there   was   no   independent   witness   in   the   case. </p> <p>However, as held by this Court in State of Rajasthan  vs.  Teja  Ram and Ors. AIR 1999 SC 1776 :</p> <p><br />       "The   over-insistence   on   witnesses   having   no   relation  with   the   victims   often   results   in   criminal   justice   going awry. When any incident happens in a dwelling house, the   most   natural   witnesses   would   be   the   inmates   o fthat   house.   It   is   unpragmatic   to   ignore   such   natural  witnesses  and   insist  on   outsiders   who   would   not   have even seen anything. If the court has discerned from the  evidence   or   even   from   the   investigation   records   that  some   other   independent   person   has   witnessed   any event connecting the incident in question, then there is   a   justification   for   making   adverse   comments   against non-examination of such a person as a prosecution witness.   Otherwise,   merely   on   surmises   the  court   should  not   castigate   the   prosecution   for   not   examining   other persons   of   the   locality   as   prosecution   witnesses.   The prosecution can be expected to examine only those who have witnessed the events and not those who have not seen it though the neighbourhood may be replete with other residents also."</p> <p>Similarly,   in  Trimukh   Maroti   Kirkan    vs.    State   of Maharashtra (2006)1 SCC 681 this Court observed:</p> <p><br />       "These crimes are generally committed in complete secrecy inside the house and it becomes very difficult for  the   prosecution   to   lead   evidence.  No   member   of   the  family, even if he is a witness of the crime, would come forward to depose against another family member. The neighbours,   whose   evidence   may   be   of   some   assitance,   are   generally   reluctant   to   depose   in   court   as they want to keep aloof and do not want to antagonize a   neighbourhood   family.   The   parents   or   other   family  members   of   the   bride   being   away   from   the   scene   of commission of crime are not in a position to give direct  evidence  which may inculpate the  real accused  except regarding the demand of money or dowry and harassment caused to the bride. But, it does not mean that a crime committed in secrecy or inside the house should go unpunished."</p> <p>(emphasis supplied)</p> <p>In our opinion both the trial court and High Court have given very cogent reasons for convicting the appellant, and we see no reason   to   disagree   with   their   verdicts.     There   is   overwhelming circumstantial evidence to show that the accused committed the crime as he felt that he was dishonoured by his daughter. For  the reason given above we find  no force in this  appeal and it is dismissed. Before   parting   with   this   case   we   would   like   to   state   that `honour' killings have become commonplace in many parts of the country,   particularly   in   Haryana,   western   U.P.,   and   Rajasthan.  Often young couples who fall in love have to seek shelter in the police lines or protection homes, to avoid the wrath of kangaroo courts.  </p> <p>We have held in Lata Singh's case (supra) that there is nothing `honourable' in `honour' killings, and they are nothing but barbaric   and   brutal   murders   by   bigoted,   persons   with   feudal minds.In   our   opinion   honour   killings,   for   whatever   reason,   come within   the   category   of   rarest   of   rare   cases   deserving   death punishment.     It   is   time   to   stamp   out   these   barbaric,   feudal practices which are a slur on our nation.    This is necessary as a deterrent for such outrageous, uncivilized behaviour.  All persons who are planning to perpetrate `honour' killings should know that the gallows await them. </p> <p> Let   a   copy   of   this   judgment   be   sent   to   the   Registrar Generals/Registrars of all the High Courts who shall circulate the same   to   all   Judges   of   the   Courts. The   Registrar General/Registrars of the High Courts will also circulate copies of the same to all the Sessions Judges/Additional Sessions Judges in the State/Union Territories.  Copies of the judgment shall also be sent   to   all   the   Chief   Secretaries/Home   Secretaries/Director Generals   of   Police   of   all   States/Union   Territories   in   the   country. </p> <p>The   Home   Secretaries   and   Director   Generals   of   Police   will circulate   the   same   to   all   S.S.Ps/S.Ps   in   the   States/Union Territories for information.</p> <p><br />                                                   ...................................J.</p> <p>                                                  (Markandey Katju)`</p> <p><br />                                                   ..................................J.</p> <p>                                                  (Gyan Sudha Misra)</p> <p>New Delhi;</p> <p>May  09 , 2011</p> <p> </p>