2024 Supreme(SC) 1096

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Bela M. Trivedi, Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.
Vijaya Singh & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 2013
Decided On : 25-11-2024

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Murder of wife and disappearance of evidence – 100% burn injuries was not possible in case of self-inflicting burns.
(2) Statement of witnesses – Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be discarded at drop of a hat – To permit retraction by a witness from a signed statement recorded before Magistrate on flimsy grounds or on mere assertions would effectively negate difference between a statement recorded by police officer and that recorded by Judicial Magistrate.
(3) Appreciation of evidence – Evidence of every witness cannot be subject to same level of scrutiny and Court must be alive to social position of witness – Natural testimony is bound to have variations.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 201 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 103(1) and 238] – Murder of wife and disappearance of evidence – Life sentence – Circumstantial evidence – When a case is based on circumstantial evidence, circumstances proved must point unequivocally to guilt of accused and must be incompatible with any theory of his being innocent – Deceased had sustained 100% burn injuries – 100% burn injuries was not possible in case of self-inflicting burns – If it was indeed a case of self-immolation, appellants must have done something to save her and her body would not have suffered 100% burns – This fact assumes greater gravity when it is seen that room was not bolted from inside and was open for access – Conduct of appellants, previous to and at the time of incident, pointed in an incriminating direction – Only inference which could be drawn from presence of fresh injuries is that there was physical resistance from deceased when she was being set ablaze – Circumstantial evidence available on record appears to be consistent and does not leave much scope for innocence of appellants – Circumstances overwhelmingly point in direction of guilt of appellants and cumulative effect of circumstances has been analyzed correctly by courts below – In absence of finding of illegality or perversity or impossibility of impugned findings, consistent views taken by two courts cannot be disturbed on mere conjectures or surmises – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 11, 20, 34, 35, 38 and 41)

(B) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Evidence of every witness cannot be subject to same level of scrutiny and Court must be alive to social position of witness – Mere presence of minor variations is not fatal to case of prosecution – Natural testimony is bound to have variations – Whether variations or contradictions could be termed as fatal to case of prosecution, needs to be answered in light of other evidence on record by examining whether oral testimonies have found corroboration from other evidence or have remained isolated testimonies. (Para 25)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 164 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 183] – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 157 [Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Section 160] – Statement of witnesses – Such statement is not considered as a substantive piece of evidence, as substantive oral evidence is one which is deposed before Court and is subjected to cross-examination – However, statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. could be used for both corroboration and contradiction – It could be used to corroborate testimonies of other witnesses – Statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. serves a special purpose in a criminal investigation as a greater amount of credibility is attached to it for being recorded by a Judicial Magistrate and not by Investigating Officer – Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not subjected to constraints attached with a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and vigour of Section 162 Cr.P.C. does not apply to a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. – It must be considered on a better footing – However, relevancy, admissibility and reliability are distinct concepts in realm of law of evidence – Weight to be attached to such statement (reliability thereof) is to be determined by Court on a case-to-case basis. (Paras 27 and 28)

(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 164 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 183] – Statement of witnesses – Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be discarded at drop of a hat and on a mere statement of witness that it was not recorded correctly – Judicial satisfaction of Magistrate to the effect that statement being recorded is correct version of facts stated by witness, forms part of every such statement and higher burden must be placed upon witness to retract from same – To permit retraction by a witness from a signed statement recorded before Magistrate on flimsy grounds or on mere assertions would effectively negate difference between a statement recorded by police officer and that recorded by Judicial Magistrate. (Para 31)

Facts of the case:

After conclusion of investigation and trial, Trial Court found appellants guilty under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. In appeal, High Court of Uttarakhand also found them guilty and upheld decision of Trial Court.

Findings of Court:

Appellants, if enlarged on bail, shall surrender before concerned Jail Superintendent within two weeks from date of this judgment for serving their sentence. Registry to communicate the order forthwith.

Result : Criminal Appeal dismissed.