Circumstantial Evidence = Sections 302, 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.=The following circumstances were found established against the appellant-accused: 1. relation of the deceased becoming strained with her husband soon after the marriage and the deceased leaving for Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa; 2. accused Kalyan Singh contracting second marriage. 3. accused Kalyan Singh not paying any maintenance allowance to the deceased and her child despite counseling done by the NGO at Rajgarh; 4. deceased moving the court at Shimla against accused Kalyan Singh under Domestic Violence Act and amicable settlement reached at between the parties in the court. 5. apprehension of threat to her life expressed by the deceased soon befoe her disappearance; 6. deceased last seen alive with her husband accused Kalyan Singh; 7. false explanation given by accused Kalyan Singh regarding disappearance of the deceased; 8. demarcation of place in Punjah Khad by both of the accused from where human skeleton was recovered; 9. identification of the skeleton to be that of deceased Satya Devi by her brother and also by DNA report; 10. cause of death of Satya was homicidal; and 11. recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of accused Kalyan Singh. The trial Court as well as the High Court have discussed the evidence elaborately and found the aforesaidcircumstances to be proved. The chain of circumstances is complete and the guilt of the appellant has been proved beyond doubt coupled with no explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 given by the appellant. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.481/2019
[@ SLP [CRL.]NO.3746/2018]
KALYAN SINGH ALIAS BITTU Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal arises out of the judgment and order
dated 13.06.2016 in Criminal Appeal No.43 of 2013 passed
by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh whereby the High
Court has upheld the judgment of conviction and sentence
passed by the trial Court against the accused-appellant
and has dismissed his appeal.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Satya
Devi (deceased) was married to accused Kalyan Singh on
12.10.2007 in Renuka Temple. Theirs was a love marriage.
After her marriage, deceased stayed in her matrimonial
house at village Kuffri. After about two months of the
marriage, accused started maltreating and quarrelling with
deceased under the influence of liquor on the ground that
deceased belonged to a poor family. The Satya Devi
disclosed this fact to her brothers Guman Singh, Bhim
Singh and Inder Singh. Thereafter, she left for Dera
Sacha Sauda, Sirsa and during that period accused
contracted second marriage. When Satya Devi came back
from Sirsa she was pregnant for 6-7 months and delivered a

2
male child at Rajgarh. Her brother Inder Singh contacted
accused and asked him to take back his sister and child
but the accused told him that he was ready to take the
child but not Satya Devi. In November, 2008, Smt. Meera
Tomar, Community Organizer, Nagar Panchayat received a
letter from deceased in which deceased had made a
complaint against her husband. This letter was sent to
Mohinder Bhangalia who thereafter called the deceased and
accused to his NGO for counselling on 08.12.2008 and
10.12.2008. The matter was settled amicably and the
accused agreed to have his wife and child entered in the
Panchayat record but he did not do so. Then Satya Devi
filed proceedings against the accused under the Domestic
Violence Act in the Court of JMIC (6), Shimla. In these
proceedings accused entered into a compromise with Satya
Devi and the matter was disposed of vide order dated
02.07.2009. Thereafter the accused left for his house
along with Satya Devi and their child. Brother of Satya
Devi, Guman Singh also left for his house. When Guman
Singh came back to his house on third day Satya Devi told
him that she apprehended danger to her life from the
accused. After 3-4 days, Mohinder Bhangalia also received
a call from Satya Devi and she told him that accused had
kept her in Dogari and he was not talking to her and she
apprehended that he would kill her. After about three
months, when Mohinder Bhangalia contacted accused and
inquired about his wife, he told him that deceased had

3
gone to attend some Bhagwat and from there, she had fled
away with some Sadhu . On being asked, the accused told him
that he had not reported the matter to the police.
After some time, the accused called Bhim Singh,
elder brother of Satya Devi and told him that she had left
for Sirsa but when they inquired at Sirsa, they found that
she was not present there. When she was not traceable for
a year her brother Inder Singh went to the house of
accused who told him that she had gone to Renuka for some
religious affair and as and when she comes back, he will
visit their house along with her. However, when he did not
visit their house, they got suspicious and reported the
matter to the police and FIR Ex.PW4/A was registered at
Police Station, Sangrah.
The matter was investigated and accused was arrested
on 08.01.2012. In the police custody, accused made a
disclosure statement that he could demarcate the place
where the dead body of deceased was buried. When the
digging was conducted, one human skeleton was found which
was identified by Guman Singh to be that of deceased Satya
Devi. The post mortem examination Ex.PW30/B of the
sekeleton was conducted by Dr. Sangeet Dhillon. On
13.01.2012, the accused made a disclosure statement that
he could get one iron rod recovered from his residential
house. On the basis of the disclosure statement, recovery
of iron rod from the upper story was made. On 22.02.2012
blood samples of the son of the deceased and brother Guman

4
Singh were obtained on FTA cards for DNA profiling.
The investigation further revealed that the accused
was having a second wife and he did not want to give share
in his property and maintenance allowance to the deceased
and, therefore, accused along with his brother accused
Surinder Singh killed the deceased on the night of
15.07.2009 by giving her beatings with iron and in order
to destroy the evidence, they buried deceased body in
Panjah Khad. After the completion of investigation,
accused persons were tried under Sections 302, 201 IPC
read with Section 34 IPC.
The Sessions Judge vide order dated 22.01.2013 in
Sessions Trial No.18-ST/7 of 2012 convicted the accused-
appellant under Sections 302 and 201, IPC and sentenced
him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay
Rs.5,000- fine and in default of payment to undergo simple
imprisonment for six months under Section 302, IPC. He
was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment
for three months under Section 201, IPC. The sentences
were directed to run concurrently. Accused Surinder Singh
was acquitted by holding that the prosecution failed to
prove his guilt.
Aggrieved by the judgment, the accused filed
Criminal appeal No.43/2013 before the High Court which was
dismissed upholding the conviction and sentence imposed

5
upon the appellant-accused by the trial Court.
Hence the appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at
length.
The following circumstances were found established
against the appellant-accused:
�1. relation of the deceased becoming strained
with her husband soon after the marriage and the
deceased leaving for Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa;

  1. accused Kalyan Singh contracting second
    marriage.
  2. accused Kalyan Singh not paying any
    maintenance allowance to the deceased and her
    child despite counseling done by the NGO at
    Rajgarh;
  3. deceased moving the court at Shimla against
    accused Kalyan Singh under Domestic Violence Act
    and amicable settlement reached at between the
    parties in the court.
  4. apprehension of threat to her life expressed
    by the deceased soon befoe her disappearance;
  5. deceased last seen alive with her husband
    accused Kalyan Singh;
  6. false explanation given by accused Kalyan
    Singh regarding disappearance of the deceased;
  7. demarcation of place in Punjah Khad by both of
    the accused from where human skeleton was
    recovered;
  8. identification of the skeleton to be that of
    deceased Satya Devi by her brother and also by
    DNA report;
  9. cause of death of Satya was homicidal; and
  10. recovery of weapon of offence at the instance
    of accused Kalyan Singh.�
    The trial Court as well as the High Court have
    discussed the evidence elaborately and found the aforesaid

6
circumstances to be proved. The chain of circumstances is
complete and the guilt of the appellant has been proved
beyond doubt coupled with no explanation under Section 106
of the Evidence Act, 1872 given by the appellant.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no
ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
�������..J.
[ ARUN MISHRA ]
�������..J.
[ NAVIN SINHA ]
�������..J.
[ M.R. SHAH ]
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 28, 2019.

7
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.5 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3746/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-06-2016
in CRLA No. 43/2013 passed by the High Court Of Himachal Pradesh At
Shimla)
KALYAN SINGH ALIAS BITTU Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondent(s)
IA NO.160230/2018- APPLN. FOR BAIL
([CUSTODY MATTER ] )

Date : 28-02-2019 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Manika Tripathy Pandey, AOR
Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv.
Mr. Brahm Kumar Pandey, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Vikas Mahajan, AAG
Mr. Vinod Sharma, AOR
Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv.

      UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                         O R D E R

Leave granted.
The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application stands disposed of.
(ASHA SUNDRIYAL) (JAGDISH CHANDER)
COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER

[signed order is placed on the file]