BHAGWAN DASS v. STATE(NCT) OF DELHI

Judgment

6 S.C.R. 330 BHAGWAN DASS v. STATE(NCT) OF DELHI (Criminal Appeal No.1117 of 2011) MAY 09, 2011 A B [MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s.304 - Honour killing of daughter Girl having incestuous relatio~ship with her father's cousin - D C Appellant-father annoyed with:such conduct of his daughter - Daughter found dead in appellant's house where she had come to stay- Death caused by strangulation - Courts below convicted the appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence - On appeal, held: All circumstances pointed guilt towards the appellant - Prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by establishing all links in the chain of circumstances - Appellant had motive and opportunity to kill his daughter since he was unhappy with conduct of his daughter and felt that she had dishonoured the family reputation - Police was not informed about the unnatural death of appellant's daughter - Statement of appellant's mother that appellant confessed before her that he murdered his daughter, but said statement denied before court - The statement of the appellant's mother to the police can be taken into consideration in view of the proviso to s.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 - Moreso, Statement of appellant to SDM led to recovery of crime weapon - F E G Conviction upheld . . Evidence.· Circumstantial evidence - Held: 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 - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302. 330 H BHAGWAN DASS v. STATE(NCT) OF DELHI 331 Honour killings: Sentence/punishment for honour killing A - Held: Honour killings come within the category of rarest of rare cases deserving death punishment - Such barbaric, feudal practices are a slur on our nation and should be stamped out - This is necessary as a deterrent for such outrageous, uncivilized behaviour - Copy of the judgment B directed to be sent to the Registrar Generals/Registrars of all the High Courts and to all the Chief Secretaries/Home Secretaries/Director Generals of Police of all States/Union Territories in the country. The prosecution case was that the appellant was C very annoyed with his daughter, who had left her husband and started living in an incestuous relationship with the appellant's cousin. This infuriated the appellant as he thought this conduct of his daughter had dishonoured his family. He killed her by strangulating her D with an electric wire. The trial court convicted the appellant. The High Court affirmed the order of conviction. The instant appeal was filed challenging the order of the conviction. E Dismissing the appeal, the Court F HELD: 1.1. 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. In this case, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by establishing all the links in the chain of circumstances. In cases of circumstantial evidence motive is very important, unlike cases of direct evidence where it is not so important. In the present case, the G prosecution case was that the motive of the appellant in murdering his daughter was that she was living in adultery with his cousin. The appellant felt humiliated by this, and to avenge the family honour he murdered his own daughter. Thus one of the circumstances which H 332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 6 S.C.R. A connected the appellant to the crime was the motive of the crime. In our country unfortunately 'honour killing' has become common place. 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 B 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. If someone is not happy with the behaviour of his daughter c 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. [Paras 5, 6, 8) [338-D-G; 339-B-E) D Vijay Kumar Arora vs. Sta+e (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 2 SCC 353: 2010 (1) SCR 1069; Aftab Ahmad Ansari vs. State of Uttaranchal (2010) 2 SCC 583: 2010 (1) SCR 1027; Wakkar and Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011) 3 SCC 306; Arumugam Servai vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2011 AIR E 1859; Lata Singh vs. State of UP. & Anr. (2006) 5 SCC 475: 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 350 - relied on.

1.2. As per the post mortem report which was conducted at 11.45 am on 16.5.2006 the likely time of F death of the deceased was 32 hours prior to the post mortem. Giving a margin of two hours, plus or minus, it would be safe to conclude that the deceased died sometime between 2.00 am to 6.00 am on 15.5.2006. However, the appellant, in whose house the deceased G 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 H about the death of his daughter for about 10 hours was BHAGWAN DASS v. STATE(NCT) OF DELHI 333 a totally unnatural conduct on his part. The appellant had A admitted that the deceased 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 was not even a suggestion by the defence that his brother may have committed it. Hence the possibility that someone else, s other than the appellant, committed the crime was ruled out. The deceased 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. On c 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 The deceased 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 the deceased 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 E murder. It came 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 the deceased even without a post mortem so as to destroy the evidence of strangulation. [para 8] [339- F E-H; 340-A-E] 0

1.3. The mother of the appellant stated before the police that her son (the accused) had told her that he had killed the deceased. No doubt, a statement to the police G 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. The appellant's mother also appeared as a witness before the trial court, and in her cross H 334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 6 S.C.R. A 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 the deceased. On being so confronted with her statement to the police she denied that she had made such statement. The B statement of the appellant's mother 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. C The statement of the appellant to his mother was an extra judicial confession. No doubt this witness was declared hostile by the prosecution as she resiled from her earlier statement to the police. However, 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 ;ind the portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence may be accepted. 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 E application in India. In the instant case, the appellant's mother denied her earlier statement from the police because she wanted to save her son. Hence her statement to the police is accepted and her statement in court is rejected. The defence has not shown that the F police had any enmity with the appellant, or had some other reason to falsely implicate him. This was a clear case of murder and the entire circumstances point to the guilt of the accused. [Para 8) (340-F-H; 341-A-H; 342-A H; 343-A-C] 0 G