2010 Supreme(SC) 955

2010 (7) Supreme 281
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Harjit Singh Bedi and Chandramauli KR. Prasad, JJ.
Santosh Kumar Singh — Appellant
versus
State thr. CBI — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2007
Decided on : 6-10-2010

IMPORTANT POINTS
Evidence of an expert witness cannot be brushed aside by referring to certain texts and books without putting those texts to the expert and taking his opinion thereon.
A false plea taken by an accused in a case of circumstantial evidence is another link in the chain.
DNA report has been recognized as being scientifically accurate and an exact science.
Motive alone cannot form the basis of conviction.
In case of some difficulty in awarding one or the other sentence, it is only appropriate that the lesser sentence should be awarded.

Headnote:(a) Criminal Trial – Expert opinion – It would be a dangerous doctrine for the court to discard the evidence of an expert witness by referring to certain texts and books without putting those texts to the expert and taking his opinion thereon. (Paras 9 and 24)

        (2005) 5 SCC 194; AIR 1957 SC 589; AIR 1982 SC 1157 – Relied upon

        (b) Criminal Trial – Appreciation of evidence – Prosecution securing documents which could prove appellant’s case and these were brought on record – It was for the defence and not the prosecution to use these to the advantage of the defence. (Para 15)

        (c) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 64 – No document could be exhibited unless proved. (Para 15)

        (d) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 3 – Circumstantial evidence – A false plea taken by an accused in a case of circumstantial evidence is another link in the chain. (Para 15)

        (2006) 10 SCC 681 – Relied upon

        (e) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 102 – Onus of Proof – The onus to prove his defence and the circumstances relating to his injury and treatment were within the special knowledge of the appellant – He could not keep silent and say that the obligation rested on the prosecution to prove its case. (Para 16)

        (f) Criminal Trial – Suggestion that that not only the investigating agency, that is the senior officers of the CBI, the doctors and other staff, and the scientists in Hyderabad had all been in a conspiracy to harm the appellant cannot be accepted. (Para 21)

        (g) Judicial Propriety – Trial court making a very broad and defamatory statement without any basis against the doctor that he was a convenient witness for the prosecution – Improper. (Para 23)

        (h) Criminal Trial – DNA test – DNA report has been recognized as being scientifically accurate and an exact science. (Para 25)

        AIR 2001 SC 2226 – Relied upon

        (i) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Motive – Motive alone cannot form the basis of conviction – However, in the light of the other circumstances, the motive goes a very long way in forging the links in the chain. (Para 28)

        (j) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 377 – Trial court virtually recording all findings in favour of the prosecution, yet it rendered decision in favour of the accused – Trial court judgment perverse and against the evidence – High Court rightly interfered. (Para 30)

        (2009) 10 SCC 206 – Relied upon

        (k) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313 – All incriminating material circumstances must be put to an accused while recording his statement – If any material circumstance has been left out, that would not ipso-facto result in the exclusion of that evidence from consideration unless it could further be shown by the accused that prejudice and miscarriage of justice had been sustained by him. (Para 34)

        (2008) 16 SCC 328; (1984) 4 SCC 116; 1995 Supp (1) SCC 80 – Referred

        (1976) 4 SCC 355 – Distinguished

        (l) Judicial Propriety – Court which must resist the tendency to look beyond the file and not be swayed by the horror of the crime or the character of the accused. (Para 35)

        AIR 1952 SC 159; (2002) 7 SCC 317 – Relied upon

        (m) Indian Penal Code, 160 – Section 302 – Sentence – Where the option is between a life sentence and a death sentence, the options are indeed extremely limited – If the court feels some difficulty in awarding one or the other, it is only appropriate that the lesser sentence should be awarded – This is the underlying philosophy behind ‘the rarest of the rare’ principle – Furthermore, mitigating circumstances need to be taken into account, (Para 38)

       Facts of the case:

        1. The appellant harassed and intimidated the deceased and despite her requests and then her remonstrations, did not desist from doing so.

        2. The deceased thereupon made several complaints against the appellant in different Police Stations during the year 1995 on which he was summoned to the Police Station and was advised to behave properly and a Personal Security Officer, was also deputed for the security of the deceased.

        3. On 23rd January 1996 the deceased returned to her residence along with the PSO at about 1.45 p.m. and directed him to report again at 5.30 p.m.

        4. The appellant came to the residence of the deceased at about 4.50 p.m.

        5. The PSO reached the residence of the deceased at about 5.30 p.m., as directed, along with Constable Dev Kumar and found her dead body lying under the double bed.

        6. The trial court acquitted the appellant.

        7. High Court reversed the judgment and convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

       Finding of the Court:

        There is no infirmity in conviction.

       Result : Sentence modified to life imprisonment.