2023 Supreme(SC) 3

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DINESH MAHESHWARI, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.
Prem Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2023 (Arising Out of SLP(Criminal) No. 2958 of 2019)
Decided on : 02-01-2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Murder – If motive is proved, that would supply another link in chain of circumstantial evidence but, absence of motive cannot be a ground to reject prosecution case, though absence of motive is a factor that weighs in favour of accused.
(2) Mental insanity of accused – Burden of proving existence of circumstances so as to bring the case within purview of Section 84, IPC lies on accused – Mandate of law is that Court shall presume absence of circumstances so as to take the case within any of General Exceptions in Indian Penal Code, 1860.
(3) Appeal – Supreme Court would not interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on pure appreciation of evidence.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 84 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 329 – Murder of two sons and screening of evidence – Life sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Fact that dead bodies of both children carried various injuries including those on neck and medical opinion that they died due to asphyxia as a result of manual strangulation came to be duly established in testimony of Doctor and post-mortem reports – If motive is proved, that would supply another link in chain of circumstantial evidence but, absence of motive cannot be a ground to reject prosecution case, though absence of motive is a factor that weighs in favour of accused – Evidence available on record, taken as a whole, leaves nothing to doubt that victim children had been subjected to manual strangulation which resulted in their death – Their dead bodies were thereafter thrown in canal to project as if it were a case of drowning – Deceased children were lastly in company of appellant alone – Principles of Section 106 of Evidence Act operate heavily against appellant – There had not been any specific response from appellant in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. either – Present case cannot be said to be of want of motive altogether – When all facts and circumstances are taken together, present one is not a case where there had been any missing link in chain of circumstances, leading only to conclusion of guilt of appellant – Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused has committed offences of murdering children and causing disappearance of evidence – Appellant was addicted to alcohol – Plea of unsoundness of mind and benefit of Section 84 IPC, was never taken in trial nor any evidence was led in this regard – Appellant was neither suffering from any medically determined mental illness nor could be said to be a person under a legal disability of unsound mind – Neither Section 84 IPC applies to present case nor Section 329, Cr.P.C. would come to rescue of appellant – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 6.4, 15, 16.1, 16.2, 16.4, 16.4.1, 17.1, 17.3, 22, 23, 24, 25.3, 27, 31 and 32)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 84 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 105 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 329 – Mental insanity of accused – Burden of proving existence of circumstances so as to bring the case within purview of Section 84, IPC lies on accused – Mandate of law is that Court shall presume absence of circumstances so as to take the case within any of General Exceptions in Indian Penal Code, 1860 – In present case, there is absolutely nothing on record to show that appellant was medically treated as a person of unsound mind or was legally required to be taken as a person of unsound mind – Contrary to even a trace of want of mental capacity of appellant at the time of commission of crimes in question, manner of commission, with strangulation of children one by one; throwing of their dead bodies into canal; appellant himself swimming in canal and coming out; and immediately thereafter, stating before several persons that children had accidentally slipped into canal so as to project it as a case of accidental drowning, if at all, show an alert and calculative mind, which had worked with specific intent to cause death of children and to cause disappearance of evidence by throwing dead bodies into canal and thereafter, to mislead by giving a false narrative – By no logic and by no measure of assessment, appellant who is found to have carried all these misdeeds, could be said to be a person of unsound mind. (Paras 21, 23 and 26)

(C) Constitution of India – Articles 134 and 136 – Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 – Section 2 – Appeal – Scope and ambit – It is not a matter of regular appeal – Supreme Court would not interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on pure appreciation of evidence nor it is scope of these appeals that this Court would enter into reappreciation of evidence so as to take a view different than that taken by Trial Court and approved by High Court. (Para 12)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 29.02.2016, as passed by High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 879 of 2013, whereby the High Court has dismissed the appeal against judgment of conviction and order of sentence, respectively dated 03.09.2011 and 08.09.2011, as passed by Court of Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Rohini (Outer), Delhi in Sessions Case No. 238 of 2009, whereby appellant was held guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was awarded varying punishments, including that of imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 IPC.

Findings of Court:

Viewed from any angle, contention urged on behalf of appellant, as to be given benefit of provisions meant for a person of unsound mind, cannot be accepted. Said provisions do not enure to benefit of appellant from any standpoint.

Result : Appeal dismissed.