Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJIV KHANNA, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
Satye Singh and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2374 of 2014
Decided On : 15-02-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 and 201 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Murder of wife and disappearance of evidence – Common intention – Life sentence – Entire ase of prosecution hinged on circumstantial evidence as there was no eye witness to alleged incident – Injuries found on dead body of deceased were ante-mortem in nature – There was no recovery and discovery of any incriminating articles made from accused during course of investigation and no attempt was made to collect any evidence much less cogent evidence to connect accused with alleged crime – Deceased had left house on previous evening of alleged incident and that she was not found during whole night, nonetheless such circumstance itself could not be said to be sufficient proof to come to a conclusion that accused had murdered and burnt her – Circumstances howsoever strong cannot take place of proof and guilt of accused have to be proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt – Prosecution had miserably failed to prove entire chain of circumstances which would unerringly conclude that alleged act was committed by accused only and none else – Section 106 is not intended to relieve prosecution from discharging its duty to prove guilt of accused – Prosecution having failed to prove basic facts as alleged against accused, burden could not be shifted on accused by pressing into service provisions contained in Section 106 of Evidence Act – There being no cogent evidence adduced by prosecution to prove entire chain of circumstances which may compel court to arrive at conclusion that accused only had committed alleged crime, Trial Court and High Court had committed gross error of law in convicting accused for alleged crime, merely on the basis of suspicion, conjectures and surmises – Impugned judgments set aside and accused acquitted from charges levelled against them. (Paras 6, 10, 15, 16 and 17)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal filed by the appellants-accused emanates from the Judgment dated 29th August, 2013 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Jail Appeal No. 64/2010, whereby the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the District & Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 22/2009. Both appellants-accused were convicted by the Sessions Court for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 of the IPC and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 201 of the IPC.
Finding of Court:
Conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested on the touchstone of law relating to the circumstantial evidence that all circumstances must lead to the conclusion that the accused is the only one who has committed crime and none else.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. The present appeal filed by the appellants-accused emanates from the Judgment dated 29th August, 2013 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Jail Appeal No. 64/2010, whereby the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the District and Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 22/2009. Both the appellants-accused were convicted by the Sessions Court for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 of the IPC and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 201 of the IPC.
2. The case in nutshell of the prosecution before the Trial Court was that Smt. Shashi Devi had married the accused-Satye Singh four years prior to the date of incident which had taken place any time between the evening of 27.06.2009 to the morning of 28.06.2009. The accused-Indra Devi happened to be the mother of the accused-Satye Singh. On 28.06.2009 at about 8.40 a.m. Rai Singh (PW-8), Pradhan of the village-Ger of the accused informed Virendra Raj (PW-11), Naib Tehsildar, Revenue Police telephonically that one lady had died due to burns. The Naib Tehsildar-Virendra Raj (PW-11) therefore reached at the spot i.e. Chhan (hut) of the accused, after making an entry of the said information in the G.D. vide Rapat No. 28/42 and saw that the dead-body of the deceased was lying in the room of Chhan in the burnt condition. It was the further case of the prosecution that Sharad Singh, father of the deceased, on receiving the phone call from the accused-Satye Singh had also arrived on the spot. The said Sharad Singh gave a written complaint to the Naib Tehsildar against the accused-Satye Singh (husband), Indra Devi (mother-in-law) and Sangeeta Devi (sister-in-law) of the deceased, which was registered as the Case Crime No. 16/2009 on 28.06.2009 at about 4.50 p.m. at the Revenue Police Station Bayargaon, District Tehri Garhwal. After the inquest proceedings were conducted, the dead-body was sealed and taken to the Baushari Hospital for the postmortem. The said Naib Tehsildar after drawing the panchnama and other proceedings, arrested the accused-Satye Singh. He also recorded the statement of other witnesses. Thereafter, he having been transferred, the further investigation was handed over to the Naib Tehsildar, Gunanand Bahuguna (PW-10). The said Investigating Officer after completing the investigation filed charge-sheet against the accused-Satye Singh and Indra Devi showing the accused Sangeeta Devi as absconding, for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal.
3. The said case being triable by the Court of Sessions was committed to the Sessions Court, Tehri Garhwal for trial. Both the accused having denied the charges levelled against them, the prosecution to prove the charges, led oral evidence by examining 11 witnesses and also adduced documentary evidence. After the completion of the evidence of prosecution, the accused-Satye Singh in his further statement before the Trial Court recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. stated inter alia that there was no custom of dowry in their society and that he did not know how his wife Shashi died. He further stated that he along with other people of the village had kept on searching Shashi for the whole night but she was not found. According to him, Shashi had possibly committed suicide. The accused-Indra Devi had stated that since she was the mother of Satye Singh, she was falsely implicated in the case. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record convicted and sentenced both the accused as stated hereinabove, vide order dated 11.10.2010, which came to be upheld by the High Court vide the impugned order.
4. The lea
(1) Murder – Circumstances howsoever strong cannot take place of proof and guilt of accused have to be proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.(2) Burden of Proof – Section 106 of Evidence Act ....
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution in cases of dowry death, and circumstantial evidence must be conclusive to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
(1) Section 106 of Evidence Act will apply to those cases where prosecution has succeeded in establishing facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn.(2) When a case is resting on circumstan....
Point of law : Fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must b....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence and the application of the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to establish ....
The judgment establishes the application of circumstantial evidence in dowry death cases, emphasizing the burden of proof on the accused, the need for a complete chain of evidence, and the rejection ....
Point of law : It is clearly discernable that for a conviction to stand on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the....
The judgment establishes the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The application of Section 106 of t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
