RAJVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Tags Murder Conviction

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 1098 of 2012, Judgment Date: Oct 16, 2015

Non-reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1098 OF 2012

RAJVINDER SINGH …. Appellant

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA …. Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. This appeal by special leave challenges the judgment and order
dated 12.12.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
dismissing Criminal Appeal No.800-DB of 2007 and thereby confirming
the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offences under
Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the I.P.C.

2. One Ms. Pushpa Verma, an unmarried lady, after retiring from
her job as Head Mistress in the year 1993, was residing at Karnal.
She had set up a marriage bureau and also used to work as a property
dealer. Her two married sisters were also residing at Karnal. Two
sons of one of the sisters were practicing advocates. Brother of
Pushpa Verma named Chander Prakash had retired as Executive Engineer
and was residing at Hissar. Pushpa Verma owned properties at Panipat
and Gurgaon allotted through Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA
for short).

3. The appellant stands convicted for the offences of kidnapping
Pushpa Verma and thereafter murdering her and for destroying the
evidence by throwing her body in a canal. He is sentenced to life
imprisonment and payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under
Section 302 I.P.C. and to rigorous imprisonment for five years and
payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- in default whereof to undergo further
rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 364 I.P.C. and to
rigorous imprisonment for five years and payment of fine of Rs.5,000/-
, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six
months under Section 201 I.P.C. All the sentences are to run
concurrently. The conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial
court has been affirmed by the High Court in the judgment under
appeal.

4. The instant matter has genesis in Daily Diary Report (Ext. PA)
lodged with Police Post, Sector 13, Karnal, by Chander Prakash on
16.03.2003 giving “missing report” about his sister Pushpa Verma.
According to the report, she was missing since 20/22 January, 2003 and
had not been receiving any calls since then. The follow-up action on
this report indicates that information was sent to all the districts
and all the police stations were intimated through wireless. On
18.05.2003 Chander Prakash moved an application (Ext. PC) for
registration of an offence against the appellant stating that he
suspected that the appellant wanted to grab her plots at Panipat and
Gurgaon by preparing forged documents and that he had kidnapped her or
murdered her. This reporting led to registration of FIR No.144 dated
18.05.2003 with Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal under Section 364
I.P.C. against the appellant.

5. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the
appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 201
I.P.C. in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal and the
appellant was tried for aforesaid offences in Sessions Case No.53 of
2005. During investigation the body of Pushpa Verma could not be
recovered nor was there any eye-witness to the actual act of
kidnapping or murder. The prosecution mainly relied upon following
circumstances to bring home the charges against the accused:

A. The documents pertaining to properties of Pushpa Verma at
Panipat and Gurgaon showed that general powers of attorney were
allegedly executed in favour of the appellant, on the basis of
which he had entered into transactions in respect of properties
at Panipat and Gurgaon and had pocketed the consideration. The
transactions as placed on record were as under:-
a. On 26.09.2002 a general power of attorney Ext. PF-1 was
allegedly executed by Pushpa Verma in favour of the appellant in
respect of her property at Panipat. Though she was resident of
Karnal and the property was at Panipat, this general power of
attorney was executed and registered with the office of the Sub-
Registrar at Delhi. This document empowered the appellant with
all rights including power to dispose of the property at
Panipat.

b. On 08.11.2002 the appellant sold away the property at Panipat
for Rs.12.5 Lakhs. The property was an industrial plot of 1050
square meters at Panipat and the entire consideration was
received by the appellant in cash. It appears that there were
dues in respect of penalty for not having constructed upon
within the prescribed period, which were got cleared by the
appellant.

c. On 12.11.2002 a Will (Ext. PG-1) was allegedly executed by said
Pushpa Verma in favour of the appellant in respect of her
Gurgaon property. On the next day i.e. 13.11.2002 a general
power of attorney was allegedly executed with respect to Gurgaon
property in favour of the appellant. The Will and the general
power of attorney were also executed and registered with the
office of the Sub-Registrar at Delhi.

d. On 24.01.2003 an agreement (Mark PH) was entered into under
which the appellant agreed to transfer Gurgaon property in
favour of prospective purchasers and received part consideration
of Rupees 2.5 Lakhs (Rupees 1.5 Lakhs in cash while Rupees One
Lakhs by way of a cheque in the name of the appellant himself).
On 24.03.2003, further sum of Rupees Three Lakhs was received by
the appellant and endorsement to that effect was made on the
agreement itself.

e. On 31.03.2003 a demand draft of Rupees Five Thousand towards the
fees for seeking permission to transfer Gurgaon property was
taken out and enclosed along with the application (Ext. PJ)
seeking permission to transfer that property. This application
was preferred by the appellant in his capacity as general power
of attorney and was received in the office of HUDA on
03.04.2003.

f. It appears that the signatures of Pushpa Verma on the general
power of attorney submitted by the appellant did not tally with
her original signatures available on record with HUDA and a
letter to that effect was dispatched on 07.04.2003. This was
followed by another letter dated 24.04.2003 (Ext. PH) by HUDA
addressed to Pushpa Verma with a copy to the appellant asking
her to remain present personally in the office in connection
with her application seeking permission to transfer.

B. PW 22 Harsh Vardhan, Handwriting expert was examined who opined
that the signatures of Pushpa Verma on aforementioned documents
do not tally with the specimen signatures taken from the
available record with her bank.

C. The consideration received in respect of the aforesaid
transactions was never credited to the account of Pushpa Verma.

D. S.P. Meena, Sub-Registrar, Delhi was examined as PW 10. The
relevant portion of his testimony is as under:
“After the document is written the receipt for the fee is
issued by the clerk concerned the document is presented before
another clerk who verifies the document and the attestation of
the witnesses and parties and initials the photographs and
affixes seals and fills in the blanks in the seal, the document
after his signature is presented before me. Thereafter I sign
the documents on the faith of the clerk concerned. Documents
Ext. PG and Ext. PG/1 is power of attorney and will respectively
were presented before me by Naresh Kumar, Clerk after initialing
at point ‘A’ in Ext. PG and at point ‘B’ in Ext PG/1 signed
these documents.

Thereafter the documents were entered in the register of the
registration maintained in our office. I have seen my
signatures at points ‘B’ and Ext. PG and at points ‘C’ in Ext.
PG/1. These signatures are mine. The person who executes the
document and in whose favour it is executed do not appear before
me. I have been working in this manner from 26.07.2000 to
13.11.2002 as Sub-Registrar and attested the documents.”

E. On 21.05.2003 the appellant made an extra judicial confession to
PW16 Sunil Rana advocate who later took the appellant to the
police and caused his arrest. The appellant confessed that
Pushpa Verma was known to him for more than a year, that he
started meeting her often, that she started treating him as her
son, that having come to know that she owned properties at
different places he had become greedy, that he had given her
some sedative in her tea, taken her to Delhi and got her
signatures on the General power of attorney, that he sold away
property at Panipat but kept all the money with himself and that
he again took her to Delhi and got another general power of
attorney executed in respect of Gurgaon plot. It was further
confessed that in the month of January the appellant felt that
Pushpa Verma suspected some foul play and therefore the
appellant plotted a scheme to finish her. On 23.01.2003 she
expressed desire to visit Haridwar, on which pretext he took her
in a car and after having administered a sedative, throttled her
and while she was unconscious near Roorkee, threw her body in a
canal known as Gang Canal in between villages Liverheri and
Mangalore.

F. After the arrest of the appellant, voter identity card Ext. P-12
of Pushpa Verma was recovered from the bushes near Gang Canal
where her dead body was thrown. Such recovery was in pursuance
of the disclosure statement of the appellant under Section 27 of
the Evidence Act. In order to prove this part, the prosecution
relied upon the testimony of PW 12 Mahir Hussain, Photographer
and the testimony of PW 19 Investigating Officer Vijay Anand.

G. Pursuant to the disclosure statement of the appellant, a gold
ring bearing inscription “PV” was also recovered from the house
of the appellant. The evidence in that behalf was available
through PW5 Muktiyar Singh and PW6 Ashok Sharma.

6. In defence, the appellant examined four witnesses. It was
projected that an unidentified dead body of a woman was found in the
agricultural fields in District Muzaffar Nagar, U.P. on 22.01.2003.
The photograph of the dead body taken by the police was produced in
this trial and marked as DB. One Brahmpal Singh, Sub-Inspector,
Saharanpur was also examined as Defence witness who stated that he had
prepared Inquest proceedings regarding the dead body and thereafter
the investigation was conducted by SSI Rajinder Beer Singh. By
examining these witnesses it was submitted that the dead body so found
in Muzaffar Nagar on 22.01.2003 was in fact that of Pushpa Verma. The
trial court rejected this defence. Relying upon the circumstances as
culled out hereinabove, the trial court found that the case against
the appellant was completely proved by the prosecution. The trial
court, thus, awarded the sentence as stated hereinabove.

7. The appellant carried the matter further by filing Criminal
Appeal No.800-DB/2007 in the High Court. During the pendency of this
appeal, the appellant filed CRM No.52692 of 2008 along with documents
pertaining to a case registered against one Suresh under Section 25 of
the Arms Act. Copy of the General Diary pertaining to investigation
of said crime was also filed which contained statement of said accused
Suresh according to which Suresh and one Baljeet had taken Pushpa
Verma from Karnal in a car, that Baljeet had strangulated her and that
thereafter they both had thrown her dead body in sugar-cane fields.
The record as filed did not indicate whether any case under Section
302 IPC was registered against said Baljeet and Suresh. The appellant
also filed a report of a privately engaged Forensic Expert stating
that the photograph of the dead body of the lady found in Muzaffar
Nagar was that of Pushpa Verma. Relying on these materials, the
appellant submitted an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. praying
that additional evidence be recorded at the appellate stage. The High
Court directed that these applications be considered along with the
appeal itself.

8. The High Court considered the matter and the circumstantial
evidence placed on record. It found that the signatures of Pushpa
Verma on the documents in question were a crude attempt at imitation
and in one of the documents, namely, Will Ext. PG-1, the signature was
“Puspha Verma” instead of normal signature being “Pushpa Verma”. The
High Court found that the case against the appellant stood completely
established. As regards application under Section 391 Cr.P.C., it was
observed that the appellant had taken the defence that the dead body
recovered in Muzaffar Nagar was actually that of Pushpa Verma and in
such circumstances it was imperative for him to have examined the
expert in his defence at the trial court stage itself and that the
report of the privately engaged Forensic Expert at such belated stage
could not be allowed to be taken on record. The High Court thus
dismissed the appeal affirming the conviction and sentence of the
appellant.

9. This judgment of the High Court is presently under appeal. Crl.
Miscellaneous Petition No.10525 of 2012 was filed in the present
matter seeking leave to bring on record additional documents which
include the order of conviction in so far as aforementioned Suresh is
concerned under Section 25 of the Arms Act as well as deposition of
the very same Sub Registrar S.P. Meena in Civil Suit No.142 of 2009.
Said Civil Suit was filed by Chander Prakash against the present
appellant seeking to invalidate the transactions allegedly entered
into by Pushpa Verma. In that suit S.P. Meena, Sub- Registrar was
examined as his witness by the appellant. His deposition now states
that he had read over the contents of the general power of attorney
and the Will to Pushpa Verma and after understanding the same she had
signed in the presence of said S.P. Meena.

10. Mr. Brijender Chahar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
appellant submitted that none of the aforesaid circumstances were
proved and in any event these circumstances do not form a complete
chain excluding every other hypothesis except the guilt of the
appellant. It was submitted that the dead body of Pushpa Verma was
never recovered from Gang Canal or thereabouts. On the other hand a
dead body of an unidentified female was found in agricultural fields
in District Muzaffar Nagar and FIR No.427-12 of 2003 was registered
against unknown persons at Police Station Nai Mandi, Muzaffar Nagar.
It was submitted that the High Court ought to have allowed the prayer
for leading additional evidence at the appellate stage. It was
accepted that the documents referred to above had given the appellant
full authority to dispose of the properties of Pushpa Verma and that
the appellant had entered into transactions in question. It was
however submitted that all the payments that he had received were made
over to Pushpa Verma and that an attaché kept with one Ram Kishore was
taken by son of the complainant. The attaché used to contain valuable
securities of Pushpa Verma and was kept with Ram Kishore with
instructions to hand over to her relations in case anything were to
happen to her. It was suggested that the money received in cash must
have been kept in that attaché. Mr. Devender Kumar Saini, learned
Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that the
concurrent view taken by the trial court and the High Court did not
call for any interference and the appeal be dismissed.

11. At the outset, we must deal with submissions as regards
application for leading additional evidence at the appellate stage.
It has been the consistent defence of the appellant that the dead body
found in agricultural fields in District Muzaffar Nagar was that of
Pushpa Verma and he went to the extent of producing photograph of the
dead body in the present trial. He also examined Brahm Pal Singh, Sub-
Inspector and other witnesses. It was certainly possible to examine
Forensic Expert at the trial court stage itself and the High Court was
right and justified in rejecting the prayer to lead additional
evidence at the appellate stage. Nonetheless, we have gone through
the report of said Forensic Expert engaged by the appellant. The
exercise undertaken by that expert is to start with the admitted
photograph of Pushpa Verma on a computer, then remove the “bindi” by
some process on the computer, then by same process remove her
spectacles and by computer imaging change the image as it would have
looked if the lady was lying down in an injured condition. The
computer image so changed was then compared with the photograph of the
dead body. We have seen both the images and we are not convinced at
all about any element of similarity. We do not therefore see any
reason to differ from the view taken by the High Court.

12. In the submissions of Mr. Brijender Chahar, learned Senior
Advocate the circumstances E, F and G as culled out in paragraph 5
hereinabove were not proved at all and the transactions were
completely genuine. It was submitted that it is impossible to believe
that the Voter Identity Card of Pushpa Verma could be recovered from
the bushes four months after the incident. Similarly the recovery of
gold ring was also questioned. Further, it was submitted that there
was no evidence that the ring in question was that of Pushpa Verma.
Mr. Chahar may be right so far as recovery of Voter Identity Card is
concerned but the recovery of gold ring with inscription ‘PV;
recovered from the house of the appellant is definitely a relevant
circumstance. The ring after recovery was given under a panchnama to
Abhishek Dewan, son of Chander Prakash. No explanation has been given
as to how the appellant came into possession of said gold ring. As
regards the extra judicial confession made to PW 16 Sunil Rana, the
documents allegedly executed by Pushpa Verma and the progression of
events including the transactions completely substantiate the case and
we have no hesitation in accepting the evidence in that behalf.

13. The transactions as referred to above have been admitted by the
appellant. We have seen the signatures alleged to have been put by
Pushpa Verma on said documents. We have compared the signatures and
find the view taken by the High Court in that behalf to be correct.
It is impossible and inconceivable that a lady who had retired as head
mistress would mis-spell her own name while putting signatures. The
flow of signature as evident from the admitted source is completely of
a different nature. The signatures on the documents in question, to a
naked eye, cannot be that of Pushpa Verma. Further, there is no
reason why a lady who has two sisters and two Advocate nephews staying
in same town, would give power of attorney and execute a Will in
favour of a total stranger. These circumstances are clinchingly
against the appellant. His assertion that he had made over the
payments received in cash to Pushpa Verma is not supported by any
material on record. In fact, the appellant kept receiving payments
even in the month of March, 2003. None of the payments are reflected
in the account of Pushpa Verma. Receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of
cheque in the name of appellant himself is also a circumstance against
the appellant. The evidence thus shows that the appellant had
fabricated the documents in question and was attempting to defraud
Pushpa Verma, as stated in the extra judicial confession. Further, by
Ext. PH addressed to Pushpa Verma, a copy of which was sent to the
appellant, she was asked to remain personally present in the office of
HUDA. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant had
undertaken any attempt, if he was genuinely acting as power of
attorney on her behalf. We are satisfied that the circumstances on
record, even if we were to disregard that relating to the recovery of
Voter Identity Card Ext.P-12, do suggest only one hypothesis and that
is the guilt of the appellant. The defence set up by the appellant
does not inspire any confidence and merits rejection. The appeal,
therefore fails and is dismissed.

14. Before we part, we must deal with the conduct of PW10 S.P. Meena.
As Sub-Registrar, it was expected of him and was fundamental part of
his duty to see that the persons who are entering into transactions
must appear before him in person and the documents would be registered
only after the essential formalities were undertaken. His evidence in
the present case shows rank dereliction of duty. Add to it, his
attempt to strike a different chord in the private proceedings is also
questionable. He appeared as witness for the appellant and took a
contradictory stand on oath. Such conduct must be dealt with strictly
so that the matters of registration continue to have confidence in the
eyes of people. We therefore recommend suitable action against said
PW10 S.P. Meena and direct the authorities to initiate proceedings in
that behalf. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Supervisors in
the office where he was working as Sub-Registrar, Pitampura, Delhi.

15. The appeal is disposed of in the afore-mentioned terms.

………………………………..……J.
(Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla)

………………………………..……J.
(Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi,
October 16, 2015

Back to Judgments