Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Sukhpal Singh – Appellant
Versus
NCT Of Delhi – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s).55 of 2015
Decided on : 07-05-2024
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 299 – Recording of evidence in absence of accused – Procedure contemplated under Section 299 of Code of Criminal Procedure is an exception to principle embodied in Section 33 of Evidence Act inasmuch as under Section 33 evidence of a witness which a party has no right or opportunity to cross-examine is not legally admissible – Being an exception, it is necessary that all conditions prescribed, must be strictly complied with – Before recording statement of witnesses produced by prosecution, court must be satisfied that accused has absconded or that there is no immediate prospect of arresting him. (Para 32)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Life sentence – Circumstances of motive, last seen, confession and abscondence from crime scene after committing crime are all spoken to by witness in his statement recorded on sworn affirmation during proceedings under Section 299 Cr.P.C. – Medical Jurist gave categoric testimony to the effect that deceased had been manually strangled and cause of death was Asphyxia – Statement of witness by itself provides a complete chain of circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish guilt of accused appellant – Accused appellant vanished from crime scene and remained absconding for a period of nearly 10 years – Investigating Officer duly proved process of arrest of accused after more than 10 years of incident – Connected together, all these facts form a clinching and complete chain of incriminating circumstances pointing exclusively towards guilt of accused appellant and totally inconsistent with his innocence or involvement of any other person in crime – Impugned judgments do not suffer from any infirmity warranting any interference – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 36, 37, 38, 43, 48, 49 and 50)
Facts of the case:
Trial Court convicted accused appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-(in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months). Appeal filed by appellant against judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 6th March, 2003 passed by Trial Court was rejected by High Court of Delhi.
Findings of Court:
Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He shall surrender before trial Court within next 60 days to serve remainder of sentence. In case appellant fails to surrender before trial Court within aforesaid period, Trial Court shall take steps to apprehend him and make him serve out sentence.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7th January, 2010 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 296 of 2003 whereby the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 6th March, 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘trial Court’) was rejected.
2. By the said judgment, the trial Court convicted the accused appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘IPC’) and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-(in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months).
3. Leave was granted by this Court in this matter on 8th January, 2015 and the accused appellant was released on bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Brief facts:-
4. The accused appellant was married to Usha and three children were born out of the wedlock. However, the spouses got embroiled in a matrimonial strife and thus the appellant left company of his wife Usha and started residing at his village Khatta, U.P.
5. The officers of Police Station Bhajan Pura received a wireless message on 20th May, 1990 from the PCR regarding an incident which had taken place outside the shops of Rori and Badarpur. Acting on the said information, Head Constable Mohan Lal, Constables Jai Pal, Bhagwan Dass and Ramesh Chand along with Inspector Ishwar Singh reached House no. J-387, Gali No. 14, Kartar Nagar, Delhi where Usha w/o Sukhpal(the appellant herein) was found lying dead on a cot in a room of the said house. On cursory inspection, abrasions, scratches and other injury marks associated with bleeding were noticed on the neck, mouth, shoulder and private parts of the deceased Usha. Marks of dragging were also found on the right leg below the knee. Strips of tablets were found scattered around the cot on which the dead body was lying. The police officials claim to have recovered a handwritten note(Exhibit PW-12/E) from the crime scene bearing a recital indicating that the scribe was the killer of Usha. The prosecution alleges that the said note was written by the accused appellant.
6. Statement(Exhibit PW-1/A) of Ashok Kumar Pathak, resident of House No. J-386, Gali No. 14, Kartar Nagar, Delhi was recorded by the police officials on 20th May, 1990 wherein he stated that he was residing in the immediate vicinity of House No. J-387, Gali No. 14, Kartar Nagar, Delhi, where Usha with her husband Sukhpal(accused appellant) and three children had been residing for the last 3-4 years. Ashok Kumar Pathak was serving with M/s. R.P. Associates and that he had got Sukhpal employed in that very firm. Sukhpal suspected his wife Usha of infidelity which often led to quarrels between them and, therefore, Sukhpal left his wife and children and started residing in village Khatta, U.P. He used to commute from the village for attending to his job. Sometimes, he would also come and stay with Usha. Four days prior to the alleged occurrence, Sukhpal had visited Usha and on that day, Usha’s sister(Sudha) had also come there. Sukhpal quarrelled with Usha and went away. On the next day, Usha’s sister, Sudha(PW-10) took the three children of Usha and went to her house. On the day prior to incident, i.e., on 19th May, 1990, in the evening when Ashok Kumar Pathak had returned from duty and got free after having his meals, at about 9.30 p.m., he saw that Sukhpal had come to visit Usha on his cycle. The spouses were talking while sitting on a cot in the courtyard. He went to the terrace for sleeping and after some time, it started raining so he came downstairs and saw that Sukhpal and Usha had also gone inside their room. The next morning i.e. 20th May, 1990, while he was carrying out his daily chores, he saw Sukhpal’s cycle parked in the courtyard and presumed that he and Usha were inside the house. He did not see any movement in th
Murder – Long abscondence of accused is a strong circumstance of his culpability.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt in murder cases, as reiterated by the court.
Point of law:Acquital upheld - If the trial court takes a view that the accused deserves to be acquitted on the basis of evidence on record, such verdict cannot be reversed unless there is gross perv....
The court held that mere suspicion is insufficient for a conviction; a complete chain of circumstantial evidence is required to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, caution against relying solely on the testimony of a hostile witness, and the absence of conclusive evidence poi....
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
