LexRAM PAL @ BUNDA versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 2 S.C.R. 797 RAM PAL @ BUNDA v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2012) APRIL 11, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302 and 376 - Rape and murder A B - Case based on circumstantial evidence - Conviction of C accused-appellant with 10 years RI - Justification - Held: Justified - Medical evidence revealed that the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse before her death - PW-10, mother of the victim found the accused present at the scene of crime immediately after the occurrence - Accused ran away D from the scene of occurrence without responding to the queries of PW-10 and remained absconding for two days -All the circumstances only supported the prosecution version - No missing link· in any of the circumstances found proved against the accused - Further, accused had inimical E relationship with the family of the victim and thus, motive aspect demonstrated by the prosecution also acceptable - Moreover, accused-appellant did not let in any evidence for his defence. F CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2012. From the Judgment and Order dated 07.09.2011 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 686-DB of 2006. G R.K. Talwar, David Rao, K. Kaushik, Chander Shekhar Ashri for the Appellant. 797 H 798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R. A Kamal Mohan Gupta for the Respondent. The following order of the Court was delivered ORDER B 1. The sole appellant is the accused who was convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 376, Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and 10 years rigorous imprisonment for committing rape and murder of one Devi (real name disguised). c According to the prosecution, a telephonic intimation was received in the police station regarding the dead body of Devi resident of Mangalore within- the jurisdiction of Shahzadpur police station, Ambala, lying in the fields of one Prithi Pal. On reaching the spot PW-14, SHO recorded the statement of PW- D 10 Sumitra Devi the mother of the deceased. It was learnt through her that she had two daughters, that the elder one was married while the younger one who went to the fields on 18.2.2005 at 6.30 p.m. to ease herself did not return and their intensive search was in vain. In her statement she mentioned the name of the appellant who was stated to have been found E at the place of search and on being asked, he pleaded ignorance about the victim. It was her further statement that only on the next day morning in day light they were able to trace the body of the victim whose neck was wrapped with a blue shawl owned by her. The complainant PW-10 raised suspicion F about the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the offence in view of his past misbehavior towards her elder daughter on which occasion he was reprimanded before the local Panchayat and was forced to tender an apology. As it was a case of circumstantial evidence, the trial Court after G scrutinizing the evidence of prosecution witnesses and after taking into account the stand of the appellant in his 313 Cr.P.C. statement noted the circumstances in paragraph 17 of the judgment. 2. The circumstances noted were as under: H RAM PAL @ BUNDA v. STATE OF HARYANA 799 1) Medical evidence 2) presence of accused at the scene of crime immediately after the occurrence A 3) conduct of the accused in running away from the village and remaining absconding for two days after the 8 occurrence and 4) motive for the offence. 3. While examining the above circumstances, on the motive . aspect the trial Court found that PW-11 Natho Devi, the elder daughter of PW-10 in her evidence deposed that in the year C 2002 when she along with her cousin was returning from the fields, the appellant met them on the way along with his cousin Sham Lal and that both of them teased deceased PW-11 and her cousin and the bundle of the grass carried by them fell down. It was also her statement that by providence they could save D themselves from the onslaught of the appellant and his cousin on that occasion. She reported the same to her parents. Pursuant to her complaint, a Panchayat was convened in her village and in the Panchayat, the appellant and his cousin begged pardon and that the appellant thereafter used to tell her E that one day or other he wou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.