Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 122 (PNJ)

Manohar Lal v. State Of Haryana

2005-01-21

S.N.AGGARWAL, VIRENDER SINGH

body2005
Judgment S.N.Aggarwal, J. 1. The appellants were convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 14.5.2004 for having committed offences punishable under Sections 302/201/34 IPC. 2. According to the prosecution case, Hari Singh, complainant, Shish Ram and Hoshiar Singh (now deceased) were real brothers. Sheela Devi appellant is the wife of Hoshiar Singh and out of this wedlock, two daughters were born. The elder daughter was marred and the younger was only about 6 or 7 years at the time of occurrence. Hoshiar Singh was a simpleton. Sheela Devi appellant wife of Hoshiar Singh developed illicit relations with Manohar Lal, appellant about two years prior to the occurrence. About one year before the occurrence, Sheela Devi got transferred 2-3/4 killas of land of the share of her husband Hoshiar Singh in her name and thereafter the said land was sold by her under the influence of her paramour Manohar Lal and her brother Lakhmi Chand. Hoshiar Singh was perturbed because of illicit relations of his wife Sheela Devi appellant with Manohar Lal appellant and also because of sale of land by Sheela Devi. There used to be quarrel between Hoshiar Singh on the one hand and his wife Sheela Devi, Manohar Lal and Lakhmi Chand on the other. 3. On 21.3.2002, Sheela Devi, her brother Lakhmi Chand and her paramour Manohar Lal set Hoshiar Singh on fire as he was an obstacle for them. Hari Singh learnt about this occurrence on 21.3.2002 in the evening. Then, Hari Singh complainant called his brother Shish Ram who resided in village Harchandpur. He also made enquiries about the incident at his own level. Thereafter on 22.3.2002 Hari Singh left his brother Shish Ram near the dead body of Hoshiar Singh which was lying in his house and he himself proceeded towards the Police Station but the police met him on the way and statement of Hoshiar Singh was recorded and the present case was registered. 4. Lakhmi Chand died during the investigation while Manohar Lal and Sheela Devi appellants were challaned. 5. Charge under Sections 302/201/34 IPC was framed by the learned trial Court against the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses. Out of them, Dr. 4. Lakhmi Chand died during the investigation while Manohar Lal and Sheela Devi appellants were challaned. 5. Charge under Sections 302/201/34 IPC was framed by the learned trial Court against the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses. Out of them, Dr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, PW-8, Shish Ram, PW-6, Hari Singh, PW-7, SI Raj Pal, PW-10, Attar Singh, PW-11 and Birma, PW-12 are very material. 7. In this statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Manohar Lal appellant claimed to be innocent and pleaded false implication while Sheela Devi appellant took a plea that she and her husband Hoshiar Singh had filed a civil suit against Shish Ram and his two brothers which was still pending in the Court. It was also pending at the time of occurrence and on account of civil litigation, she has been falsely implicated in this case. 8. However, the accused led no defence evidence. 9. On the basis of this evidence, the learned trial Court convicted both the appellants for having committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC vide judgment dated 11.5.2004. Each of them was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine amount of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed on each of them under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, they were to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each. Both the appellants were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and a fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed on each of them under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, they were to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each. 10. Hence the present appeal. 11. We have gone through the evidence with the help of Mr. N.K. Sanghi, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Bijender Dhankar, learned A.A.G Haryana for the State. We have also given our anxious thought to the evidence led by the prosecution and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned A.A.G. for the State of Haryana. 12. The perusal of evidence reveals that it is a case based on circumstances. The prosecution has examined Hari Singh PW-7 and Shish Ram PW-6. We have also given our anxious thought to the evidence led by the prosecution and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned A.A.G. for the State of Haryana. 12. The perusal of evidence reveals that it is a case based on circumstances. The prosecution has examined Hari Singh PW-7 and Shish Ram PW-6. These witnesses are brothers of Hoshiar Singh deceased. Birma, PW-12 is the wife of Hari Singh PW-7 while Attar Singh, PW-11 son of Shish Ram, PW-6 is the witness of disclosure statement and of consequential recoveries. Both Shish Ram PW-6 and Hari Singh, PW-7 have deposed that certain land owned by their brother Hoshiar Singh was got transferred by his wife Sheela Devi appellant in her name about a year prior to the occurrence. This land was subsequently sold by her under the influence of her co-appellant Manohar Lal and her brother Lakhmi Chand (now deceased). They have also deposed that Sheela Devi appellant had illicit relations with Manohar Lal, co-appellant and they have committed the murder of Hoshiar Singh by setting him on fire in order to remove the obstacle in their way. 13. However, the learned counsel for the appellants have attacked the prosecution evidence, firstly, on the plea that charge was not properly framed. As per the charge, the murder of Hoshiar Singh had taken place on 21.3.2002 while according to the evidence led by the prosecution, it had taken place on 20.3.2002. Hence, it was prayed that since the charge was not properly framed regarding the date of alleged occurrence the whole trial is vitiated. 14. This submission has been considered by us. No doubt, as per the charge- sheet, the offence was committed by the accused on 21.3.2002. Birma, PW-12 is the first witness having seen the occurrence. She has deposed in the Court that Hoshiar Singh was set on fire in the Chaubara by pouring kerosene on him at about 9 P.M. She was alone in the house. In the early morning she went to Nohra and found burnt clothes lying there. When she returned from the Nohra, she found Manohar Lal, Sheela Devi and Lakhmi Chand taking out the burnt dead body of Hoshiar Singh from a car. They threw the dead body at the threshold of the house and covered it with a quilt and shut the door. When she returned from the Nohra, she found Manohar Lal, Sheela Devi and Lakhmi Chand taking out the burnt dead body of Hoshiar Singh from a car. They threw the dead body at the threshold of the house and covered it with a quilt and shut the door. That was at about 10 A.M. Thereafter, she went to the fields to inform her husband who accompanied her to the house. Thereafter her husband went to Rewari to call his brother Shish Ram. Both of them saw the dead body of Hoshiar Singh. Some other persons had also seen the dead body of Hoshiar Singh. Sheela Devi and Manohar Lal were not available in the house at that point of time. The other witness namely Hari Singh, PW-7 has deposed that he was informed by his wife that Hoshiar Singh was murdered. He accompanied her to the village where his wife informed him that Manohar Lal, Sheela Devi and Lakhmi Chand had brought the dead body by a vehicle. His brother Shish Ram was at village Harchandpur. His statement was recorded by the police. In the statement before the police, Exhibit PF, Hari Singh had stated that on 21.3.2002, Sheela Devi and Manohar Lal had killed Hoshiar Singh by burning him in the house. He came to know of this incident in the evening of 21.3.2002. Then he went to call his brother from Harchandpur who also saw the dead body of Hoshiar Singh. After leaving his brother Shish Ram, he went towards the Police Station to report the matter and the matter was reported to the police on 22.3.2002 at about 9.30 A.M. Shish Ram PW-6 has also deposed that information regarding the murder of his brother Hoshiar Singh was given by his brother Hari Singh on 21.3.2002. Then he reached his house in village Lokri at about 5 P.M. on 21.3.2002. His brother left him by the side of the dead body and himself proceeded towards the Police Station. 15. The perusal of this evidence, therefore, reveals that Birma, PW-12 was the first person to see the occurrence and in the morning, she went to call her husband from the fields. When her husband Hari Singh saw the dead body of his brother Hoshiar Singh, he then went to his brother and called him from village Lokri. 15. The perusal of this evidence, therefore, reveals that Birma, PW-12 was the first person to see the occurrence and in the morning, she went to call her husband from the fields. When her husband Hari Singh saw the dead body of his brother Hoshiar Singh, he then went to his brother and called him from village Lokri. When Shish Ram, PW-6 also reached there, he was left there and the matter was reported to the police by Hari Singh PW-7 on 22.3.2002 at about 9.30 A.M. 16. Although Birma PW-12 says that the occurrence took place at 9 P.M., but from the perusal of total evidence, it appears that the occurrence had taken place early in the morning of 21.3.2002 and if it is so, then there is no error in the charge-sheet as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants. 17. Even if the occurrence had taken place on 20.3.2002 even then it is insignificant error. This error in the charge-sheet framed against the appellants is only about the date of occurrence which does not appear to us to be material nor it has been shown to us by any stretch of imagination if this error in the charge has caused any prejudice to the appellants. Therefore, this error about the date of occurrence is only an irregularity neither affecting the trial of the appellants nor it has caused any mis-carriage of justice. In this context, reference may be made to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Laisal Haque and another etc., AIR 1989 Supreme Court 129 in which their Lordships of the Apex Court were pleased to observe that Section 215 of the Code provides that no error in sating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge and no omission to state the offence or those particulars, shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material, unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure of justice. Even Section 464 of the Code provides that no finding, sentence or order by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any mis-joinder of charges, unless, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has, in fact, been occasioned thereby. Therefore, the error relating to the date of occurrence itself alone in the charge-sheet is not sufficient to set aside the judgment of conviction. 18. So far as prejudice is concerned, the Honble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that mere allegation is not enough unless something more is shown to substantiate this allegation. In State of West Bengals case (supra), their Lordship of the Honble Supreme were pleased to observe as under :- "In the celebrated case of Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1955(2) SCR 1140 : AIR 1956 SC 116, Vivian Bose, J. speaking for the Court after an elaborate discussion observed that in judging a question of prejudice, as of guilt, the Courts must act with a broad vision and look to the substance and not to the technicalities, and their main concern should be to see whether the accused had a fair trial, whether he knew what he was being tried for, whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him fairly and clearly, and whether he was given a full and fair chance to defend himself." 19. In the present case, it was specifically put to the appellants in the charge framed against them that they had committed the murder of Hoshiar Singh by setting him on fire and they have also taken steps to screen themselves from the legal punishment by trying to make disappear the dead body of Hoshiar Singh. The prosecution had produced witnesses who were subjected to cross- examination by the appellants and, therefore, the opportunity of fair trial was afforded to them. In these circumstances, the error in the date of offence in the charge-sheet has neither misled the appellants nor it has caused any prejudice to them. Rather, this error is immaterial on the face of it and it has not affected the purposes of justice. 20. In these circumstances, the error in the date of offence in the charge-sheet has neither misled the appellants nor it has caused any prejudice to them. Rather, this error is immaterial on the face of it and it has not affected the purposes of justice. 20. The next submission of learned counsel for the appellants was that the theory of last seen in this case is not applicable to the facts of present case because the wife is supposed to live with her husband and therefore, this circumstance in itself was not sufficient. In support of this submission, reference was made to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported as Chandu alias Chandrahas v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1993 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 223 and judgment reported as Dhananjaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka, 2001(2) Recent Criminal Reports 196. 21. This submission has been considered by us. The settled law is that theory of last seen is one of the factors in a case of circumstantial evidence but its evidentiary value depends on the facts of each case. In this context, we are reminded of the observations made by their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as Parasa Raja Manikyala Rao and another v. State of A.P., 2004 Criminal Law Journal 390. Their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court were pleased to observe as under :- "There can be no empirical formula as to how one reacts in a given situation and its effect and impact. It would be almost like trying to put a square peg on a round hole. To imprint fact situation of one decided case upon another or observations made in the peculiar facts of a given case to any or every other case notwithstanding dissimilarity in effect and the distinctive features is legally impermissible..... Each case, more particularly a criminal case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough to warrant like treatment because a significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive." 22. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive." 22. It may be noticed that the occurrence had taken place in the morning hours of 21.3.2002, when Hoshiar Singh was set ablaze in his own house and when he succumbed to the burn injuries. Sheela Devi, appellant wife of Hoshiar Singh was in the house. She remained silent. The matter came to be noticed only when Hari Singh, PW-7 brother of Hoshiar Singh reported the matter to the police on 22.3.2002 at about 9.30 A.M. Since Sheela Devi was the wife of Hoshiar Singh and was a co-occupant of the house in which the occurrence took place, the entire facts and circumstances were in her knowledge as to how Hoshiar Singh caught fire and died but she did not break silence. These facts were in her exclusive knowledge. It is not her case if she was not in the house nor it is her case if Hoshiar Singh had committed suicide by setting himself on fire. It is also not her case that the brothers of Hoshiar Singh namely Shish Ram PW-6 and Hari Singh PW-7 had set Hoshiar Singh on fire nor she has alleged that any thief or robber or any other stranger had set Hoshiar Singh ablaze. In these circumstances, not only the theory of last seen together will be fully applicable but the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act shall also go against her which provides that when any fact is within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. The silence of Sheela Devi appellant regarding the burning of Hoshiar Singh and his consequential death speaks only against her. 23. So far as the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the appellants are concerned, these were rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in different set of facts. In Chandus case (supra), the only evidence was that the accused was grazing his cattle while the deceased had passed that side when he was alive. This circumstance was not found sufficient in itself to support the prosecution case. 24. In Chandus case (supra), the only evidence was that the accused was grazing his cattle while the deceased had passed that side when he was alive. This circumstance was not found sufficient in itself to support the prosecution case. 24. The present case is, however, based not only in the evidence of last seen but there are many other factors of great importance which constitute a chain of circumstances complete in itself and which point to the guilt of the deceased and rule out their innocence. There is also the evidence regarding the illicit relations of Sheela, appellant wife of the deceased with the co- appellant Manohar Lal. There is also evidence that about a year prior to the occurrence, Sheela Devi appellant had got the land of her husband Hoshiar Singh transferred in her name and thereafter the same was disposed of by her under the influence of co-appellant Manohar Lal and her brother Lakhmi Chand (who died during the investigation). Above mentioned conduct of Sheela in not reporting the death of her husband by burns either to the relatives or to the police or to the neighbourers and her silence about it, as also her conduct in trying to dispose of the dead body of her husband Hoshiar Singh with the help of her co-appellant Manohar Lal is a circumstance which provides additional circumstances to prove their guilt. Therefore, it is not the theory of last seen alone rather, the prosecution story is supported by a number of other circumstances and as discussed above, which constitute complete chain of circumstances. 25. In Dhananjaya Reddys case (supra), the wife had manipulated her own gagging in order to make it look that some robbers have committed robbery and murder of her husband while she was also subjected to physical harm. In the said case, judicial confession was recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but it was not signed by the accused. Even, the statement of accused in that case recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was not signed by the accused and, therefore, neither of these statements had taken the shape of legal evidence. Therefore, the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Dhananjaya Reddys case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants has different facts in which there was no legal evidence and still there was conviction. Therefore, the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Dhananjaya Reddys case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants has different facts in which there was no legal evidence and still there was conviction. Hence, this judgment had different facts and has no similarity to the facts of the present case. 26. In the present case, the prosecution has successfully proved that there were illicit relations between Sheela Devi, appellant with her co-appellant Manohar Lal. Not only, it has been proved by Shish Ram PW-6, Hari Singh PW-7 and Birma PW-12, but circumstances have also been proved which indicate the existence of illicit relations between the appellants interse. 27. It has also come in evidence that Manohar Lal was a bachelor. Shish Ram, PW-6 has also deposed in his cross-examination that he had protested against the illicit relations of Sheela Devi with Manohar Lal to Chuni Lal. Similar statement has been made by Hari Singh, PW-7 that he complained about the illicit relations of Sheela Devi with Manohar Lal to the brother of Manohar Lal namely Chuni Lal. It may also be mentioned that it was suggested to both the witnesses namely Shish Ram, PW-6 and Hari Singh, PW-7 that Manohar Lal used to accuse Shish Ram PW-6 and Hari Singh PW-7 for usurping the land of Hoshiar Singh. This very suggestion of the appellants itself reveals that it could be possible only if Manohar Lal had illicit relations with Sheela Devi. This conduct of the accused also reveals that Sheela Devi, co-appellant had illicit relations with Manohar Lal, co-appellant. 28. In this context, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the story of alleged illicit relations between the appellants was not put to the accused-appellants in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Hence, it was prayed that there is a material illegality which has vitiated the trial. In support of this submission, reference was made to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported as Lallu Manjhi and another v. State of Jharkhand, 2003(1) RCR(Crl.) 566 (SC) : 2003 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 544. Hence, it was prayed that the accused be acquitted. 29. This submission has been considered by us. In support of this submission, reference was made to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported as Lallu Manjhi and another v. State of Jharkhand, 2003(1) RCR(Crl.) 566 (SC) : 2003 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 544. Hence, it was prayed that the accused be acquitted. 29. This submission has been considered by us. We have perused the statements of the accused-appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. There is no denying the fact that it was not specifically put to the accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that Sheela Devi accused wife of Hoshiar Singh was having illitict relations with Manohar Lal, co-accused/co- appellant but the statement of Hari Singh Exhibit PF which was made by him to the police and which had put the criminal machinery into motion was specifically put to both the appellants in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In the statement, Exhibit PF, there is a specific allegation regarding illicit relations between Sheela wife of Hoshiar Singh deceased with Manohar Lal, co-accused. It means, therefore, that once ruqqa Exhibit PF was put to the accused, the contents of Exhibit PF were also put to them which specifically contain this allegation of illicit relations between the co-appellants. 30. No doubt, the statement of Birma, PW-12 was not specifically put to the accused while recording their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but it was specifically put to them as to why the witnesses were deposing against them. The statement of Birma, PW-12 was recorded in the presence of the appellants and she was subjected to cross-examination by them. Therefore, indirectly, the statement of Birma, PW-12 was also put to the accused. Even if the statement of Birma is taken out of consideration, it does not affect the chain of circumstances against the appellants. 31. Lallu Manjhis case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants has different facts. The Honble Supra Court was pleased to note down a number of irregularities, illegalities and defects in the investigation found in the reported case. But the defect in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was dealt with in a different paragraph incidentally. Their Lordships were pleased to observe as under :- "Incidentally, it may also be stated that the manner in which the trial Court has recorded the statements of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is far from satisfactory. But the defect in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was dealt with in a different paragraph incidentally. Their Lordships were pleased to observe as under :- "Incidentally, it may also be stated that the manner in which the trial Court has recorded the statements of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is far from satisfactory. The entire prosecution case running into very many details has been summed up into just 5 questions asked to each of the accused persons. It is obligatory on the part of the trial Court to examine the accused for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in evidence against him. If such opportunity is not afforded, the incriminating pieces of evidence available in the prosecution evidence cannot be relied on for the purpose of recording the conviction of the accused persons." 32. Therefore, in the reported judgment of the Honble Apex Court, there were numerous legal defects apart from the fact that the whole prosecution evidence was summed up in just five questions while recording their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In the present case, not only the prosecution evidence was separately put to the appellants-accused but the ruqqa Exhibit PF was also specifically put to the accused which contained allegations of illicit relations between the co-appellants. Therefore, the facts of this case are entirely different and at the most, it can be stated that the illicit relations between the co-appellants were not specifically put but it cannot be denied that it was put to them when ruqqa Exhibit PF was specifically put containing these allegations. 33. Even otherwise, it was specifically put to the accused that they have set Hoshiar Singh ablaze on account of some dispute regarding agricultural land. This was another motive for eliminating Hoshiar Singh. The prosecution has led evidence to prove that Sheela Devi had got transferred 2-3/4 killas of land of Hoshiar Singh in her name and then she had disposed of that property under the influence of co-appellant Manohar Lal. For this reason, there used to be a quarrel in the family and that Hoshiar Singh was set on fire in the process of removing this obstacle from their way. This fact has not been denied by the appellants that the land was got transferred by Sheela Devi from her husband Hoshiar Singh and the said land was sold. For this reason, there used to be a quarrel in the family and that Hoshiar Singh was set on fire in the process of removing this obstacle from their way. This fact has not been denied by the appellants that the land was got transferred by Sheela Devi from her husband Hoshiar Singh and the said land was sold. It was put to Shish Ram, PW-6 in his cross-examination also if he was present at the time when the land was got transferred by Hoshiar Singh in the name of his wife Sheela Devi and whether he was present when the land was disposed of by Sheela Devi. Shish Ram PW-6 has answered into both these questions that he was not present. He specifically deposed that the land was sold by Sheela Devi for a sum of Rs. 5,94,000/-. It was also put to him if the sale proceeds were deposited in GGB Pataudi but Shish Ram stated that it may or may not be. No suggestion was put to Shish Ram PW-6, Hari Singh PW-7 or to Birma, PW-12 that neither the land was got transferred by Sheela Devi in her name from her husband Hoshiar Singh nor she had sold the land or if there was quarrel in the house of Hoshiar Singh which clearly amounted to admission on the part of the allegations. 34. The prosecution has also succeeded to prove that Sheela Devi, accused- appellant was interrogated by the police and after making disclosure statement Exhibit PH dated 26.3.2002, she and her co-appellant Manohar Lal got recovered the pieces of burnt clothes and Diya (Lamp of Kerosene Oil) from the place of occurrence i.e. from the room of the house of Hoshiar Singh which were taken into possession by the police through recovery memo Exhibit PH/1 24. This circumstance is also one of the links in the chain of circumstances. 35. The submission of the counsel for the appellants was that it could not be possible that the burnt clothes and the alleged Diya (Lamp) were kept concealed by the appellants within the house and they could not have taken such a step which (would) implicate them in the commission of the offence. 35. The submission of the counsel for the appellants was that it could not be possible that the burnt clothes and the alleged Diya (Lamp) were kept concealed by the appellants within the house and they could not have taken such a step which (would) implicate them in the commission of the offence. It was then submitted that if the appellants had set Hoshiar Singh ablaze, then they would have taken steps to dispose of the incriminating material and, therefore, it was highly impossible if the appellants kept the incriminating material handy to the police. Hence, it was prayed that it be disbelieved. 36. This submission has been considered by us. It does not appeal to our reason. Since Birma, PW-12 had seen the appellants dealing with the dead body of Hoshiar Singh, therefore, it appears to us that the accused-appellants did not get the opportunity to dispose of the incriminating material and it was locked in the room where the occurrence had taken place. Therefore, there is no improbability in it. 37. The next submission of learned counsel for the appellants was that no independent witness to the occurrence has been associated in the investigation of this case and the prosecution case is based only on the statements of relative witnesses. In support of this submission, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Arjun Marik and others v. State of Bihar, 1994(2) RCR(Crl.) 609 (SC) : 1994 Supreme Court Cased (Crl.) 1551 in which it was held that non-joining of independent person of the locality to become witness of seizure is a fact favourable to the accused. It was submitted that in the present case, Attar Singh PW-11 son of Shish Ram PW-6 was made a witness of recovery and no independent witness was joined. 38. This submission has been considered by us. Again, the disclosure statement and consequential recovery are one of many circumstances. Independent persons may not associate themselves for fear of earning the wrath of the accused while they will not gain anything after becoming witnesses. The worldly people have become more self-centered and they watch their own interest in doing any public act. There are very few people who look for the social cause and are prepared to sacrifice themselves for the larger interest of the Society. The worldly people have become more self-centered and they watch their own interest in doing any public act. There are very few people who look for the social cause and are prepared to sacrifice themselves for the larger interest of the Society. We are reminded of the observations of the Honble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as Leela Ram (D) through Duli Chand v. State of Haryana and another, 1999(4) RCR(Crl.) 588 (SC) : AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3717 in which their Lordships quoted with approval from an earlier judgment as under :- "Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether in the village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties. The Court, therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness must consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability, if any, suggested by the accused." 39. Therefore, non-joining of independent witnesses at the time of seizure in itself does not create a dent in the prosecution evidence unless something more is made visible. 40. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that Shish Ram PW-6 and Hari Singh PW-7 had usurped the land of Hoshiar Singh for which Sheela Devi, appellant and her husband Hoshiar Singh had filed a case against Shish Ram PW-6 and Hari Singh PW-7 and for this reason, these witnesses have implicated Sheela Devi in the murder case of Hoshiar Singh. Reference was made to the statement of Shish Ram, PW-6 who has admitted in his cross-examination that Sheela Devi and her husband Hoshiar Singh had filed a case against him and his brothers, although he alleged that the said suit was got filed by Sheela Devi and Manohar Lal. He also admitted that the said suit was pending in the Court. He also admitted that the said suit was pending in the Court. It was also put to Hari Singh PW-7 who has admitted that a suit was pending against him and his brother in respect of the land which was subject matter of lease-deed. He also admitted that the said land was got transferred by him in his name but qualified that it was so because he had spent money on the marriage of daughter of Hoshiar Singh. 41. Even if it is admitted that a part of land of Hoshiar Singh was got transferred by Hari Singh and that Sheela Devi and Hoshiar Singh had filed a civil suit against Shish Ram PW-6 and Hari Singh PW-7 and that the said suit was pending at that time but it is not the allegation of Sheela Devi appellant if they had not murdered Hoshiar Singh or if they themselves had put Hoshiar Singh on fire for that reason. It is, however, a fact that Hoshiar Singh had died by burns. The needle of proof points towards the appellants. The pendency of civil litigation by Sheela Devi and her husband Hoshiar Singh is not the escape root (route ?) for Sheela Devi. All her mis-deeds are proved by cogent evidence. Therefore, this submission has no legs to stand. 42. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that as per statement of Birma, PW-12, the accused had poured kerosene oil on the person of Hoshiar Singh and had set him on fire but this ocular evidence is contradicted by the medical evidence. Reference was made to the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Exhibit PX in which it is reported that kerosene and its residues could not be detected in the pieces of partially burnt clothes and in the lamp. 43. It may also be mentioned that manner of burning of Hoshiar Singh in his house was in the specific knowledge of his wife Sheela Devi appellant. Burn injuries were suffered by Hoshiar Singh on the night intervening 20/21.3.2002 and this fact came to light only after Hoshiar Singh succumbed to the fatal injuries and after it was reported to the police by Hari Singh. PW-7. Burn injuries were suffered by Hoshiar Singh on the night intervening 20/21.3.2002 and this fact came to light only after Hoshiar Singh succumbed to the fatal injuries and after it was reported to the police by Hari Singh. PW-7. Since these facts were in the specific knowledge of Sheela Devi appellant, presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act shall arise against her as to how Hoshiar Singh suffered the burn injuries. The contradiction between the ocular and medical does not disprove that Hoshiar Singh died by burn injuries. Therefore, this submission has no force. 44. Another submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants was that minor daughter of Sheela Devi and Hoshiar Singh was in the house but she has not been produced as a witness. However, she was a minor of 5 or 6 years and, therefore, was not a competent witness. 45. As discussed above, it is a case of circumstantial evidence. Even if the statement of Birma, PW-12 is taken out of consideration, it is proved that Hoshiar Singh has died by burn injuries and, therefore, the chain of circumstances is complete. It points towards the guilt of the accused- appellants and rules out their innocence. 46. In the light of above discussion, there is no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed. 47. If the appellants are on bail, necessary steps for their re-arrest be taken immediately for undergoing remaining part of their sentence.