Case Summary
| Citation | Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana (1975) 3 SCC 742 : AIR 1975 SC 856 |
| Keywords | sec 133 r/w 114 (b) IEA, accomplice, murder, sec 302 IPC |
| Facts | Ravinder Singh husband of Bimla was employed in the Air Force Department at Sirsa. He was asking for divorce from her wife, but she was not ready to give divorce. Ravinder had threatened her for life. Ravinder had a girlfriend, Balbir Kaur, and wanted to marry with her. Ravinder, Bimla, Satinder Kumar, Jasbir Inder Singh and Bhanu Prakash Singh left for Sirsa by train from Sasni Railway Station. Ravinder and Bhanu Prakash Singh threw acid in the mouth of Bimla, when there was no other passenger in the compartment except the above five persons. The accused threw Bimla from the running train. Some acid drops fell on the hands of the accused and Bhanu Prakash Singh and on their pants and shirts. Jasbir Inder Singh, friend of Ravinder Singh turned into Approver. Trial Court acquitted Ravinder Singh. High Court convicted him under Section 302, I.P.C. and awarded life sentence. |
| Issues | Whether the husband caused the murder of his wife? |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | We also find from the approver’s evidence that the accused went to the Doctor of the Air Force to show the burns on his hands. This fact is not denied by the accused. An approver is a most unworthy friend if at all and he having bargained for his immunity, must prove his worthiness for credibility in court. The story given by an approver so far as the accused on trial is concerned, must implicate him in such a manner as to give rise to a conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In a rare case taking into consideration all the factors, circumstances and situations governing a particular case, conviction based on the uncorroborated evidence of in approver confidently held to be true and reliable by the court may be permissible. Every approver comes to give evidence in some such manner seeking to purchase his immunity and that is why to start with he is an unreliable person and the rule of caution calling for material corroboration is constantly kept in mind by the court by time-worn judicial practice. |
| Judgement | The SC found the approver in the present case to be highly reliable and the testimony of the approver corroborated with independent witnesses. Ravinder Singh’s conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court. |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority | Section 133 of IEA – AccompliceAn accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Print This Article |
Full Case Details
GOSWAMI, J. – In July 30, 1968, Bimla, a hale and hearty young girl (19), indeed, by her
right, legitimate wife of the accused, Ravinder Singh (23), accompanied on a rail journey her
husband, who, after enjoying two months’ furlough at home, returned to his Air Force Station
at Sirsa without her and without the least concern. She was found next morning nearby a
wayside distant railway station with acid bums on her face and on other parts of the body with
multiple injuries, incapacitated by the shock and affliction, to tell her gruesome story to the
few persons who came by her. The only unchallenged thing was that she was pronounced
dead in a hospital on July 31, 1968, at 8.45 p.m.
2. Did the husband cause the murder of his wife, is for a final judicial solution before us.
The accused husband being charged under Section 302/34, I. P. C., along with some others
obtained an acquittal from the trial Judge. Government’s conscience was roused and the High
Court on the State’s appeal entered his conviction under Section 302, I. P. C., shrinking,
however, from administering the extreme penalty under the law. That is how the lifer is
before us in this appeal as a matter of right under Section 2 of the Supreme Court
(Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970.
3. The entire story as given below is revealed by a friend of the accused, approver Jasbir
Inder Singh (21) (PW 5), who was arrested along with the accused on August 13, 1968.
Accused Ravinder Singh and the approver were employed in the Air Force Department at
Sirsa and were good friends. Bhanu Parkash Singh, since acquitted, is the cousin of the
accused. Satinder Kumar (11) is the accused’s brother. During his stay at Sirsa, when his wife
Bimla was not there, the accused developed intimacy with a girl, Balbir Kaur, who was
insisting on marriage which, however, the accused posing to be a bachelor was putting off
holding out hopes to her. Both the accused and the approver took two months’ leave, the
former to construct his house at village Komri. The accused and the approver with Satinder
Kumar reached Komri on June 3, 1968, when Bimla was in her parents’ house. On June 12 or
13, the accused and the approver went to bring her back from her father’s house, but on
account of a son being born to her brother’s wife, a few days earlier, the father-in-law said
that he would send her after some days. This led to some exchange of hot words. However,
after seven or eight days, Bimla returned to her husband’s home with her father and brother,
Lekh Raj Singh (PW 18). The accused went in early July to see Bhanu Parkash Singh, his
cousin, who was employed as Health Visitor at Amod Dispensary and returned after eight or
ten days. The approver was in the accused’s house during the period. The accused asked his
wife that she should agree to a divorce, but she would not. The accused used to say that he
would finish his wife one day. On July 29, 1968, Bhanu Parkash Singh came to the accused’s
house. On the same day the approver also returned from Lucknow where he had gone seven
or eight days back. On July 30, the accused told the approver in the presence of Bhanu
Parkash Singh that he would kill his wife that day. Bhanu Parkash Singh replied that he had
brought acid with him and it would help in expediting her death. On July 30, 1968, the
accused, his wife Bimla, the approver, Bhanu Prakash Singh and Satinder Kumar left for Sirsa
by train from Sasni railway station which is at a distance of four or five miles from Komri.
170
The father of the accused came to see them off at the railway station. The accused booked a
cycle at Sasni railway station and purchased two tickets for his wife and Bhanu Parkash
Singh, but did not purchase any ticket for Satinder Kumar. Both the accused and the approver
had Military Railway Warrants for travel.
4. After leaving Sasni at 12 noon, they arrived at Delhi railway station at 6.30 p.m. and
changed for Bhatinda railway station. They reached Rewari railway station at about 10-30
p.m. At Rewari their bogie was attached to the train bound for Sirsa-Bhatinda. When the train
left Rewari at 2.15 a.m. on July 31, 1968, there was no other passenger in the compartment
except the above five persons. The train stopped for some time at the next railway station.
When it again started, the accused threw his wife Bimla on the floor of the compartment by
catching hold of her by the neck. When she fell down in the compartment the approver caught
hold of her by the feet and Bhanu Parkash Singh “threw acid in her mouth”. Satinder Kumar
did not take any part. The accused removed the pazebs from her feet and gold jhumkas from
her ears. The accused threw Bimla from the running train in between the first and the second
railway stations beyond Rewari. Some acid drops fell on the hands of the accused and Bhanu
Parkash Singh and on their pants and on the accused’s shirt. When the train reached Bhiwani
the accused got down for purchasing two tickets for Bhanu Parkash Singh and Satinder
Kumar, but the Ticket Collector, Raghbir Singh (PW 29) detained him and he missed the
train. Three of the aforesaid company reached Sirsa at 9.00 a.m. on July 31, 1968. When
asked about the accused, the approver told Bansi Lal (PW 25) and Yudhishter Kumar (PW
26) that the accused had missed the train at Bhiwani and would be coming by the next train.
The accused arrived at Sirsa at 1.30 p.m. on July 31. Bhanu Parkash Singh left for Aligarh in
the evening of August 1. The accused and the approver resumed their duties at the Air Force
Station on August 2, 1968.
5. On August 3, 1968, the mother of the accused and her nephew, Malkhan Singh, came
to Sirsa and she told that Bimla had been admitted in the Civil Hospital, Rewari, and
suggested that they should register their presence in the Air Force Station at Sirsa in order to
save themselves. On August 4, the accused and the approver went to the Medical Assistant at
the Air Force Station and the accused showed the bums on his hands and the Medical
Assistant (PW 50) made a note in his register. They decided to leave their house at New
Mandi and again started living in the barracks of the Air Force from August 8. Both of them
were arrested from the Air Force barracks on August 13, 1968. This is as disclosed by the
approver (PW 5).
6. Let us now turn to the fate of Bimla thrown from the running train. She was picked up,
semi-conscious, by Udmi (PW 10) and another person from a railway track between Jatusana
and Kosli railway stations, and taken to Railway Hospital, Rewari, where Doctor (Miss) K.
Dass (PW 3) and Miss V.K. Sharma, Nurse (PW 2) attended upon her. She could speak out a
little before Miss Sharma, gave her name as Bimla, wife of the accused and daughter of
Narain Singh, and indicated that she was travelling with her husband by train. She was later
sent to the Civil Hospital, Rewari, where she was received by Dr Manocha (PW 1). She was
not in a position to make a statement at the Civil Hospital and she expired at 8.45 p.m. on July
31, 1968.
171
8. The Additional Sessions Judge disbelieved the approver and also held that his
statement was not corroborated in material particulars. He held that motive was not
established nor was the dying declaration proved. The High Court, however, found that the
approver, who was admittedly a friend of the accused, was a reliable witness and his
statement did not suffer from any defect whatsoever. The High Court further held that the
approver’s statement was corroborated in material particulars by other evidence connecting
the accused with the crime.
9. Since the accused has come in appeal against the judgment of the High Court as a
matter of right, we have heard his learned Counsel at length and also examined the evidence
with care. We are unable to hold that the High Court committed any error or injustice in
interfering with the acquittal in this case.
10. The most important material aspect in the case is with regard to the accused
accompanying the deceased in the train on July 30, 1968. This is not only disclosed by the
statement of the approver but is corroborated by evidence aliunde. The very fact that she was
found away from her home at a distant place by a wayside railway track is consistent with her
travelling in the train on the fateful day. The defence of the accused that he left “for Delhi on
July 29, 1968 and “my wife followed me with large gold and silver ornaments on her person
and she was robbed and killed on the way” is most unnatural and improbable and can safely
be characterised as false. The accused was anxious to bring his wife home from her father’s
house. He was returning to a distant place by train after enjoying his leave and there was no
earthly reason to leave the young wife behind to travel alone in the train with “gold and silver
ornaments” with attendant risks. Then again there is the evidence of Miss V. K. Sharma (PW
2) to the effect that she “also understood from her (deceased’s) talks that she was proceeding
to Sirsa with her husband”. She is an absolutely independent witness and there is no reason to
disbelieve her statement. She has no animus against the accused nor can it be accepted that
she had been tutored by the police to give evidence in this case against the accused. The fact
that this information was not recorded in the note Ext. PA/2 would not affect the veracity of
the witness since her comprehension of the deceased’s talk was not otherwise challenged.
Nothing has been pointed out to show that this witness either had not mentioned about this
fact to the Investigating Officer earlier or had stated something inconsistent with the same.
Then we have the evidence of Raghbir Singh (PW 29), Ticket Collector, Bhiwani. It appears
from his evidence that the accused was detained on July 31,1968, by him at the station when
he returned from the booking office after purchasing 3 tickets which according to the accused
were necessary for some passengers travelling in the train. From his evidence it also appears
that the accused had retum-journey Railway Warrant. Besides, when money was demanded
from the accused for travelling without tickets of those 3 persons from Sasni to Bhiwani, he
gave a writing, Ext. PL dated July 31, 1968 to him. This witness is also an independent
witness and has no enmity against the accused. We have no reason to think that he will falsely
implicate the accused after being tutored by the police, as suggested. Further we have the
evidence of Yudhishter Kumar (PW 26) who states about the approver, Satinder Kumar and
Bhanu Parkash Singh coming to him at Sirsa on July 31 at about 10.30 a.m. without the
accused. He also stated that the accused came there at about 1.30 p.m. the same day. His
evidence, which is not even challenged, establishes the story about the three persons arriving
172
at Sirsa without the accused who had already missed the train at Bhiwani. The evidence of
Shakti Parshad Ghosh (PW 17) A.S.M., Sasni railway station, proves that the accused booked
his cycle No. RK-162872 make Road King from Sasni to Sirsa on July 30, 1968, as per the
forwarding note, Ext. PW 16/A (original Ext. 17/A) which fact is also proved by PW 16,
Surinder Kumar, A.S.M. PW 17 categorically states that the accused came to him for booking
the cycle and filled in the forwarding note. It is pointed out that PW 17 did not see the
accused at the railway station at the arrival of the train as he went to the brake-van direct. It
was not at all natural for the witness to follow the movements of the accused after he had
booked the cycle. There is, therefore, nothing unusual in his not noticing the accused later on
the arrival of the train.
11. We also find from the approver’s evidence that the accused went to the doctor of the
Air Force on August 4 to show the bums on his hands. This fact is deposed to by PW 50,
Sergeant R. N. Singh, who worked as a Medical Assistant in the unit of the First Aid Post at
the Air Force Unit. According to him the accused came to him on August 4, 1968, at about
7.00 a.m. and reported that both his hands had acid burns. He also proved the endorsement to
that effect in the register (Ext. PT) maintained in the First Aid Post. This fact is not denied by
the accused and according to him, he had these bums as he, being a storeman, had to deal with
batteries and some acid fell on his hands, and that is why he went to PW 50 for treatment. In
his statement in the court recorded on April 25, 1969, after admitting the above facts the
accused also asserted that “there are no marks of acid bums on my hands now”. In crossexamination of Dr Manocha (PW 1) it was elicited that “the sulphuric acid bums if superficial
and not infected and treated immediately in due course may not leave a mark, otherwise it
should leave a mark”. In view of this medical evidence there is no significance attached to the
accused not having marks of the injuries on his hands after about nine months. The injuries
due to a few accidental drops may even be superficial. It is significant that PW 50 was not
even cross-examined with regard to the bums being caused by acid from batteries. The
accused’s explanation that the acid from the battery caused these bums on his hands is
absolutely an after-thought.
12. An approver is a most unworthy friend, if at all, and he, having bargained for his
immunity, must prove his worthiness for credibility in court. This test is fulfilled, firstly, if the
story he relates involves him in the crime and appears intrinsically to be a natural and
probable catalogue of events that had taken place. The story if given of minute details
according with reality is likely to save it from being rejected brevi manu. Secondly, once that
hurdle is crossed, the story given by an approver so far as the accused on trial is concerned,
must implicate him in such a manner as to give rise to a conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. In a rare case taking into consideration all the factors, circumstances and situations
governing a particular case, conviction based on the uncorroborated evidence of an approver
confidently held to be true and reliable by the Court may be permissible. Ordinarily, however,
an approver’s statement has to be corroborated in material particulars bridging closely the
distance between the crime and the criminal. Certain clinching features of involvement
disclosed by an approver appertaining directly to an accused, if reliable, by the touchstone of
other independent credible evidence, would give the needed assurance for acceptance of his
testimony on which a conviction may be based.
173
13. The approver here was a constant companion of the accused. He was arrested along
with the accused on August 13. He was in police custody till August 27 when he was sent to
the jail thereafter. He wrote through the Jail Superintendent to the Magistrate on August 29
expressing willingness to give evidence as “sultani gawa” (originally King’s witness). He
was then granted conditional pardon on September 6 and was examined thereafter as a
prosecution witness. Every approver comes to give evidence in some such manner seeking to
purchase his immunity and that is why to start with he is an unreliable person and the rule of
caution calling for material corroboration is constantly kept in mind by the court by timeworn judicial practice.
14. Ignoring for a moment that PW 5 is an approver, there is nothing in his evidence to
show that his statement otherwise is unreliable, unnatural or improbable. There is nothing to
show that he had on any earlier occasion made any contradictory statement on any material
point. It is true that an approver is a person of low morals for the reason that he being a coparticipator in the crime has let down his companion. As pointed out above it is for this
reason that a rule of caution has grown whereby the Court has to see if his evidence is
corroborated in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime.
16. To mention a few, the fact that the accused was accompanied by the deceased wife is
proved by the statement of PW 2, Miss Sharma. That the accused got down at Bhiwani
railway station, missed the train and, therefore, had to arrive at Sirsa later in the afternoon is
corroborated by PW 26. That the accused came by train on July 30, 1968 and not on July 29,
1968, is also established by the evidence of PWs 16 and 17. The accused booked his cycle at
Sasni railway station on July 30, 1968 (vide PWs 16 and 17) and took delivery of the same at
Sirsa railway station on August 1 (vide PW 20). Then again the accused reported to PW 50
about his acid bums on both the hands on August 4, 1968. These are some material aspects in
the case having great relevance to the crime committed by the accused and are disclosed by
independent and reliable witnesses. It was not possible for the approver if he had not actually
accompanied the accused to make such a detailed statement as he has done, some material
parts of which find support from the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses. We are, therefore,
clearly of opinion that the approver’s evidence is not only reliable but the same stands
corroborated in several material parts by other reliable evidence from an independent source.
We are also prepared to believe that the motive for the crime was the illegitimate intimacy
with Balbir Kaur.
17. It was then submitted by the appellant that in a separate trial Bhanu Parkash Singh
was acquitted by the High Court. He also produced the judgment of that case which was
pronounced on the same day as in the present case. The learned Counsel for the appellant,
however, frankly stated that the High Court acquitted the accused, Bhanu Prakash Singh,
since the approver’s evidence was not found to be corroborated in material particulars. That
acquittal, therefore, cannot at all influence the decision against the present accused when the
approver’s evidence is amply corroborated in material particulars against him.
18. The learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of this Court in Lalta
v. State of U.P. [AIR 1970 SC 1381], to support his submission that on the principle of issueestoppel conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained because of the acquittal of Bhanu
Parkash Singh, a co-accused, although in a separate trial. The crux of the principle of issue-
174
estoppel may be stated in the words of Dixon, J. in King v. Wilkes [77 CLR 511, 518] as
follows:
Whilst there is not a great deal of authority upon the subject, it appears to me that
there is nothing wrong in the view that there is an issue-estoppel, if it appears by
record of itself or as explained by proper evidence, that the same point was
determined in favour of a prisoner in a previous criminal trial which is to be brought
in issue on a second criminal trial of the same prisoner….. There must be a prior
proceeding determined against the Crown necessarily involving an issue which again
arises in a subsequent proceeding by the Crown against the same prisoner.
19. In order to invoke the rule of issue-estoppel not only the parties in the two trials must
be the same but also the fact-in-issue proved or not in the earlier trial must be identical with
what is sought to be reagitated in the subsequent trial.
20. In the present case the parties are the State and the accused, Ravinder Singh. In the
other case relied upon, the parties were the State and the accused Bhanu Parkash Singh.
Besides, as even admitted by Counsel, the approver was not held to be unreliable in that case
while deciding the case of Bhanu Parkash Singh. There is no inconsistency between the
finding that the approver’s statement there was not materially corroborated by other evidence
against Bhanu Parkash Singh and the contrary finding in the affirmative in the present case
against Ravinder Singh. As has been observed by this Court in Manipur Administration v.
Thokchom, Bira Singh [AIR 1965 SC 87]:
(I)ssue-estoppel does not prevent the trial of an offence as does autre fois acquit but
only precludes evidence being led to prove a fact-in-issue as regards which evidence
has already been led and a specific finding recorded at an earlier criminal trial before
a court of competent jurisdiction.
There is, therefore, no substance in the submission of the learned Counsel on the basis of
issue-estoppel in this case.
21. The trial Court’s reasons for disbelieving the approver did not find favour with the
High Court and rightly so. If the incident described by the approver had taken place, as stated,
there is nothing improbable or impossible about it, if, judged by the standard of a cool person,
the crime could not have been perpetrated in the manner disclosed. It is evident there was
some hatching for the crime and that the opportunity to perpetrate it was availed of in the
manner done, cannot be dismissed as a fib. The trial Court disbelieved the evidence of Sampat
(PW 8) with regard to the dying declaration of Bimla implicating her husband. The trial Court
also observed that “there is no doubt in my mind that the story of dying declaration is not
genuine”. Even so the trial Court relying upon the statement of Sampat (PW 8) with regard to
the dying declaration observed that “the statement of the approver, in my opinion, does not
seem to be true”. Once the evidence of Sampat has been rejected by the Court it should not be
made a basis for judging the veracity of other evidence by the yardstick of that unreliable
evidence. The trial Court fell into that error. Again the reason given by the trial Court for the
rejection of the evidence of the Ticket Collector is also tenuous. There is no reason why the
Ticket Collector would spin a story of his own if not given by the accused, particularly so
when, even according to the trial Court, it does not fit in with the number of tickets actually
175
needed for the journey. This absence of any attempt at padding of the evidence goes rather to
establish the truth of the testimony of the Ticket Collector. The Ticket Collector only
established the presence of the accused at Bhiwani railway station coming by the connecting
train for Sirsa-Bhatinda. Because of these patent infirmities in the approach of the case and
appreciation of the evidence, the High Court was right in interfering with the order of
acquittal passed by the trial Court.
23. We have considered the case from both the standpoints — whether the High Court
was right in interfering with the acquittal and also whether we would be justified to take the
same view as the High Court after examination of the evidence afresh. In addition to what we
have found above if the accused came in the train with his wife on the date in question, about
which we have not the slightest doubt, his subsequent conduct is a true tell-tale of his guilty
mind. We are absolutely satisfied that the accused has been rightly convicted by the High
Court. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed.
