VIRBHAN SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 600 · Decided: 12-08-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
VIRBHAN SINGH AND ANR. 
. ' 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
August 12, 1983 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.] 
Evidence-Circun1stantial evidence-Several circumstances supported by 
medi"cal evidenc.J lead to the only conclusion that the deceased was murdered in a 
most brutal and heinpus fashion and then hung by rope by the accused so as to 
C 
give an appearance of a case of suicide-Conviction and sentence for the offence 
of murder shauld be confirmed. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
For the offence of inurde; of Smt. Gyani, her husband Virbhan Singh his 
mother Smt. Gyani Devi (both appellants before the Supreme Court) alongwith 
his father Sileti Singh were arraigned before the Sessions Judge, Etawah, u/s. 
· 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution the 
motive was the selfish ani1nal nature in the husband and his parents which has· 
come out in the form of their determination that the husband. should remarry 
after doing away with the obstacle in the shape of his existing wife on the sole 
ground that she was inauspicious due to the fact that she did not bear children 
for four or five years after the marriage and that even though thereafter she 
cone eived.twice and successfully'.gave birth to two n1ale babies, both those 
babies did not survive beyond a few weeks or days. The further ev~dence .of 
the prosecution were that the accused assaulted the deceased and then hung 
her with a rope to give the imp~ession of suicide, did not inform anyone and 
kept the body in the room, that an attempt made by Sileti Singh to remove the 
body in a Jorry failed, that when P.W.l, the sister of the deceased went along-
with P.W.4 her brothef-in-law to see the deceased on the 14th of August, 1968, 
the husband and the mother told a lie that the deceased ·had gone out to get 
medicine, that again on the 15th August, 1968 after P.W,l's repeated insistence. 
the dead body was shown to her in a decomposed condition, t~at Sileti Singh 
only thereafter lodged a report at the police station Jawaharnagar to t_he effect 
that thedeceased committed Suicide which version was accepted by the Police 
and the Panchas; that on the insistance of P.W.1, the dead body was sent for 
postmortem, that the postmortem revealed (a) five ante-mortem injuries includ-
ing the brCakage of the right side hyoid bOne under the ligature niark, (b) death 
should have taken place between 5.30 P.M. on August 13th. 1963 and 5,30 A.M. 
on August 14th, 1968, (c) death was· due to shock and haemorrhage a5 a 
resnlt of injury to liver aud ston1ach as well as asphyxia due to hanging and (d) 
in view of the antemortem injuries found, there was 
littl~ possibility of the 
deceased hanging herself. 
The Sess"ions Judge'found, on a careful and analytical consideration of 
the evidence, all the accused guilty, convicted them under Section 302 I.P.C. and 
sentenced the tl~ree of thCm to: Jife impri&onment. In the appeal filed the 
./ 
•.""" J 
Vli>.iiitAN SINGH I>. tl.P. 
601 
High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the present appellants 
and acquitted· Sileti Singh; the father. There was no appeal by the State against 
the acquittal. 
Dismissing the appel, the Court 
HELD : 1 : 1. The conviction and senctence of the appellant$ are 
A 
perfectly correct and sound, as they are guilt of the murder of the deceased in 
n 
a brutal and heinous fashion. 
l : 2. The-case no doubt turns purely on circllmstantial evidence. But 
the circumstances are so telling that the on!y conclusion reasonably possible is 
the one arrived at by the courts below that the deceased. did not commit 
suicide by hanging hereself hilt was done to death by being brutally assaulted 
and thereafter hung by the neck with a rope. The medical evidence clearly goes 
tO prove that it would hot have heen possible for the deceased·, 'who. had sus-
tained severe injuries of the _type and nature decribed in the post-mortem report 
in the stomach and liver, to hang herself. The husband, Virbhan Singh and 
his mother, Smt.Gya~i Devi, were throughout present in the house and nq 
outsider had come to the house at ihe relevant time. According to the opinion 
of the doctor, the latest point of time at which the death of the deceased could 
have taken place was 5,30 a.m. on-14.3.1968 but even on the evening of that 
day when P.W.l, Shrimati Ram Kumari, sister of the deceased Went to their 
house and enquired for the deceased, she was Jold by _Virbhan_ Singh and his 
mother that th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.