Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2003(4) Crimes 241 (SC)
Supreme Court of India
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Doraiswamy Raju & Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
State of Haryana —Appellant
versus
Jagbir Singh & Anr. —Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1721 of 1996
With
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1237-38/2003
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1076-1077 of 1996)
Decided on 26-9-2003

Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :D.P. Singh, Additional Standing Counsel, V.K. Garg, Ms. Avneet Toor, Ms. Kavita Wadia, Advocates.
For the Appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1237-38/2003 :Rishi Malhotra, Prem Malhotra, Advocates.
For the Respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 1721/96:Ms. Amita Gupta, Advocate (NP).

Important points
1. Where case depends upon conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of circumstances must be such as to negative innocence of accused and bring offences home beyond any reasonable doubt.
2. At the stage of investigation of case, Section 73 of Evidence Act does not permit a Court to give a direction to accused to give specimen writings for anticipated necessity for comparison in a proceedings which may later be instituted in Court.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302, 364 and 201—Conviction based on circumstantial evidence—Sustainability—Circumstances from which inference as to guilt of accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt—Cumulative effect of circumstances must be such as to negative innocence of accused.
       Held : It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977 SC 1063); Eradu & Ors. v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC 316); Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1983 SC 446); State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi & Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1224); Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350); Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. (AIR 1989 SC 1890). The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621), it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt. (Para 8)
       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302, 364 and 201—Kidnapping and murder of 4 year old child and case was based on circumstantial evidence—Trial Court convicted both accused respondents on circumstances that ransom notes were in handwriting of accused, there was extra judicial confession before PW 10 and recovery of dead body at instance of accused—High Court set aside conviction in appeal—State appeal—Specimen writing of accused during investigation when he was in custody was not permissible—Comparison of signature on alleged ransom note would not help prosecution—Though extrajudicial confession was stated to have been made when many other people besides PW 10 were present but no other person spoke about it—No mention of fact in FIR—Factual scenario showing that extra-judicial confession was not voluntary—Recovery of dead body did not appear admissible under Section 27 Evidence Act—Conviction set aside by High Court called for no interference. (Paras 17 and 19 to 23)
       (iii) Evidence Act, 1872—Section 73—Specimen writing and signatures of accused during investigation stage—Provision does not permit Court to give a direction to accused to give a specimen writing for anticipated necessity for comparison in a proceedings which may later be instituted in Court. (Paras 17 to 19)
       Result : Appeal dismissed.

Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Leave granted in SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1076-1077/1996.

2. Questioning legality of judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Criminal Appeal No. 1721 of 1996 has been filed by the State of Haryana. The other two appeals are by the informant. An innocent child of about 4 years was the victim of unnatural death. According to the prosecution, respondents caused his homicidal death after kidnapping him. The motive for the killing was stated to be intended demand of ransom for his release. The Sessions Judge, Bhiwani found the respondent-accused Jagbir Singh to be guilty of offences punishable under Section 302 IPC. He was also convicted for offence punishable under Sections 364, 201 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’). For the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC he was awarded death sentence and for other offences period of sentence already undergone in custody. Accused Umed Singh was convicted for offences punishable under Section 201 IPC and was directed to suffer RI for 3 years and fine. Both the accused persons preferred appeal before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment found them not guilty.

3. According to the prosecution, death of the victim was on 6.9.1991 and passing through a chain of incidents and happenings, finally the First Information Report was lodged on 9.9.1991. In between, a ransom letter meant for somebody else was found in torn condition and that led to suspicion against the accused-respondents. Accused-Jagbir is related to Daya Nand (PW 7), a teacher. It appears that on account of several circumstances, the villagers thought that accused-Jagbir was responsible for disappearance of the child. He was given time to produce the child. A ransom note was found to be in the hand writing of accused-Jagbir and he is stated to have pointed out the place where the dead body was buried in his house and also on the basis of his information certain articles were recovered. It was also the version of PW 7 that at a point of time, accused-Jagbir was taken to the police with the material indicating his complicity in the alleged incident. But the police did not arrest him and left him off. It was pointed out there was grave doubt about the manner in which the investigation was being conducted, and alleged inaction of police. On completion of investigation charge sheet was placed and accused faced trial. The case before the Trial Court was based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances which according to the prosecution established guilt of the accused are as follows :

(1) The ransom notes were in the handwriting of the accused-Jagbir Singh;

(2) There was extra-judicial confession before PW-10 and;

(3) Recovery of dead body on the basis of information given by the accused while in custody in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Evidence Act’).

4. The Trial Court found the above circumstances sufficient for establishing guilt of the accused persons for the offences alleged. In appeal, the High Court upset the findings and held the accused persons not guilty.

5. In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the State and the informant submitted that the High Court’s approach was erroneous. It failed to notice that the police was adopting a partisan role and the evidence of witnesses brought on record was in a particular line. The investigation was done otherwise and the police did not place adequate material before the Court. It was pointed out that the ransom note has been erroneously discarded by the High Court. It should have noticed that the accused-Jagbir accepted the handwriting to be his and, therefore, the handwriting expert’s report was available to be used against the accused; particularly when the handwriting was given voluntarily for comparison. Further the extra judicial confession before PW-10 has been discarded without any reasonable basis. Finally, when the dead body was recover

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Cases Referred (13)