LexRAMA NAND AND ORS. versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
H4
RAMA NAND AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
January 6, 1981
[R. S. SARKARIA AND R. S. PATHAK. JJ.]
Clrcumstantial evidence, "·alue of-Corpus delicti not found in tlu· case-
Wllether inference of guilt of murder could be drawn l1·/ie11 rhe oth~r cil'cum.f'-
tances established 011 record were sufficient to !Cad to the coriclusion lfiot ltn"lhin
all liun1a11 p1obability the rictini was murdered by the accust'd.
Dismissing the appeal and maintaining the conviction and sentences of the
appellants, the Court
HELD : (I) It is well settled that where the inference of guilt of an
accused PeriiOn .is to be drawn ftoin circumstantinP evidence only, thoSe circutrt-
stances must, in the first place, be cogently established. Further, those cin:um-
stances should be of a definite rendency pointin,g towards the guilt of the accused,
and in their totality, must unerringly lead to the conclusion that within an
huma11 probability, the offence was committed by the accused and none else.
In the instant case-, the following circumstances had been correctly found to
have been established by the prosecution: (i) Rama Naud accused bad a stroiit
motive to murder bis wife, Sumitra. (ii) Sumitra \Vas last seen alive "ith Rama:
Nand, appellant in- the family house at Jherwin on the night between 13th and
14th May, 1972.
(iii) (a) Rama Nand and the other co-accused falsely gave
out that she had committed suicide by jumping into the river. They 'planred' o
Sa/war and a pair of shoes on the bank of the Sutlaj and gave out that they
belcnged to the deceased, and Shish Ram lodged a folsc report with the police
to the effect that she had committed suicide by jumping into the river. The
Salwar and the shoes, which had been 'planted' there to manufacture false clues
by the accused, did not beiong to Sumitra, and the accused falsely ;:tiserte.d that
these articles belong to the deceased.
(b) The story given out by the accused
persons that upto 11 a.n1. on May 14, 1972, Sumitra was planting chillies along
with Sheela and other members of the family of the accused, was false. (iv) Tue.
gold chain (Ex. P-1) and the watch (Ex. P-2) \Vhich Sumitra u~ed to \Vear on
her person all the 24 hours, and the clothes (Ex, P-5 to P-10) which she had
on her person and lhc basket (fu. P-11) and umbrella (Ex. P-12) which sho
was carrying \Vhcn on the evening of May 13, 1972 she came to the house of
the accused at Jhen.vin, \Vere recovered: from the house: of tho- accu~ed. (v) Somo
days after the occurrence, one Paranda was found from the jungle near this
village. There was a bunch of hair in the plated tail of this Paranda. The tail
:ippeared to have been cut. These hair sticking in the paranda and those found:
entangled in the Dupatta of the deceased were according to the Forensic Expert
of one and the sa·n1c person.
(vi} A legless decomposed corpse \\'as. recovered
from the Sutlej near village Randol in a mutilated condition.
But its identity
[4510-H, 452A-E, 453A-BJ
(2) Even o nthe assumption that the dead body of the victim was not found,
circumstances (i) to (v) mentioned above in their cumulative effect includably
and ra.tionally compeJ the conclusion that Sumitra had died and it 'n'as, Rama
•
-
..
'
"·
•
•
•
•
..
RAMA NANO v. H.P. (Sarkaria, J.)
445
Nand accused who had intentionally caused her death. Ordinarily, the recovery
of· the dead-body of the victim or a vital part of it, bearing marks of violence
is sufficient proof of homicidal death of the victim. Even so, discovery of the
dead-body of the victim bearing physical CiVidence of vio1encci, has never been
considered as the only mode of proving the corpus delicti in murder.
Indeed
ve.ry many cases arc of such a nature where the discovery of the dead-body is
in1possible.
A blind adherence to this old doctrine of Sir Mathew Hale that
"for a conviction of murder atlcast the bcxly was found dead" would open the
doer \\'idc open for many a henious. murderer to escape \Vith impunity simply
because they were: a cunning and cleYer enough to destroy the body of their
victim.
Jn the context of our law, Haolc's enunciation has to be interpreted
no more than emphasising that where the dead-body of the victim in a: murder
case is not found, other cogent and satisfactory prOOf of hon1icidal
dl~ath of
the victim must be adduced by the prosecuti.on.
Such proof
may
be
the
dir("Ct ocular account of an eye-witness, or Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.