1. Murder by poisoning — Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC — Appeal against conviction based on circumstantial evidence. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 16
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
Darshan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.163 of 2010
Decided on : 04-01-2024
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Evidence of a rustic/illiterate witness must not be disregarded if there were to be certain minor contradictions or inconsistencies in the deposition – It cannot be subjected to a hyper-technical inquiry.
(2) Proof of fact – Prosecution cannot seek to prove a fact during trial through a witness which such witness had not stated to police during investigation.
(3) Statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. cannot form sole basis of conviction.
(1) Evidence of a rustic/illiterate witness must not be disregarded if there were to be certain minor contradictions or inconsistencies in the deposition – It cannot be subjected to a hyper-technical inquiry.
(2) Proof of fact – Prosecution cannot seek to prove a fact during trial through a witness which such witness had not stated to police during investigation.
(3) Statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. cannot form sole basis of conviction.
Subject
Criminal Law - Appeal against Conviction
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Murder of wife – Common intention – Illicit relationship – Life sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Circumstance of illicit relationship has been cogently established – Evidence of a rustic/illiterate witness must not be disregarded if there were to be certain minor contradictions or inconsistencies in the deposition – It cannot be subjected to a hyper-technical inquiry – Doctor’s testimony on the basis of chemical examiner’s report that cause of death was linked to Aluminium Phosphide poisoning remains unchallenged – There cannot be a gap in chain of circumstances – When conviction is to be based on circumstantial evidence solely, then there should not be any snap in chain of circumstances – If there is a snap in chain, accused is entitled to benefit of doubt – If some of circumstances in chain can be explained by any other reasonable hypothesis, then also accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt – Concurrent findings of conviction set aside. (Paras 11, 27, 30, 37 and 38)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 161 – Proof of fact – Prosecution cannot seek to prove a fact during trial through a witness which such witness had not stated to police during investigation – Evidence of that witness regarding the said improved fact is of no significance – If PWs had failed to mention in their statements u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. about involvement of accused, their subsequent statement before court during trial regarding involvement of that particular accused cannot be relied upon. (Para 26)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313 – Examination of accused – Statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. cannot form sole basis of conviction – Presence of appellant cannot be found solely based on his statement, notwithstanding lack of independent evidence led by prosecution – Mere omission to take a specific plea by accused when examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C., is not enough to denude him of his right if same can be made out otherwise. (Para 33)
Facts of the case:
Trial Court convicted both accused persons for the offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. Illicit relationship between Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur is said to have lasted for at least three years before the fateful day.
Findings of Court:
Even though it was the very same evidence that was sought to be used to prove presence of appellant in the house, benefit of doubt has not been similarly extended to him. High Court reasoned that appellant, being the husband, it was only natural for him to be present in house.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Saroha, Adv. Mr. Praveer Singh, Adv. Mr. Manav Bhalla, Adv. Mr. Sidhant Awasthy, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, AOR Mr. Harshit Khanduja, Adv. Mr. Umang Mehta, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Saroha, Adv. Mr. Praveer Singh, Adv. Mr. Manav Bhalla, Adv. Mr. Sidhant Awasthy, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, AOR Mr. Harshit Khanduja, Adv. Mr. Umang Mehta, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Reliability of witnesses — Nature of poison and possibility of suicide — Application of Section 106, Evidence Act — Parity in benefit of doubt between co-accused. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Failure to prove presence at crime scene — Glaring omissions in witness testimonies — Plausibility of suicide due to poison characteristics — Inconsistency in treating co-accused. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 34 , 35 , 36 )
4. Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain excluding all other hypotheses; failure to prove a key link entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt. (Para 9 , 30 , 37 )
5. Appeal allowed — Conviction and sentence set aside. (Para 38 )
6. What is the standard for conviction based on circumstantial evidence?
Circumstances must be cogently and firmly established, point unerringly toward the guilt of the accused, and form a complete chain that excludes every other possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. (Para 9 , 30 , 37 )
7. How does Section 106 of the Evidence Act apply to crimes committed within the privacy of a house?
While the initial burden remains with the prosecution, if an offence is committed in secrecy inside a house, there is a corresponding burden on the inmates to provide a cogent explanation for the crime. (Para 13 , 14 )
8. What is the legal effect of significant omissions in a witness's police statement compared to trial testimony?
If a witness fails to mention the involvement of an accused in their statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, subsequent trial testimony regarding that involvement is generally considered an improvement and is not reliable. (Para 26 )
9. Can a statement made by an accused under Section 313 CrPC be the sole basis for conviction?
No, a statement under Section 313 CrPC is not evidence because it is not made on oath and the prosecution is not given an opportunity to cross-examine the accused. (Para 32 , 33 )
10. Can a court extend the benefit of doubt to one accused while denying it to another based on the same evidence of presence?
If the prosecution's case is that accused persons acted jointly, and the evidence proving their joint presence is found insufficient to convict one, it cannot be relied upon to convict the other. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 )
JUDGMENT :
Aravind Kumar, J.
1. This appeal by special leave arises out of judgment and order dated 23.07.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No.593-DB of 2000 by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The High Court has upheld the order of conviction and sentence, as against Darshan Singh (the appellant) and has allowed the appeal of Rani Kaur (Accused No. 2), thereby acquitting her of all charges. The State of Punjab has not challenged the acquittal of Rani Kaur by filing any special leave petition. It is in this background that Darshan Singh had sought special leave to appeal before us and leave came to be granted by order dated 22.01.2010.
Case of the Prosecution:
2. The facts can be summed up in brief as follows:
The deceased, Amrik Kaur was married to Darshan Singh, the appellant, some time in 1988. The marriage was arranged through Melo Kaur (PW-3), the cousin sister of the deceased. The prosecution alleges that their marital relationship was strained owing largely to the fact that Darshan Singh had developed an illicit partnership with Rani Kaur (A2). Several relatives had prevailed on the appellant to put an end to his relationship with Rani Kaur, but to no avail. The illicit relationship between Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur is said to have lasted for at least three years before the fateful day. It is the case of the prosecution that on the intervening night of 18.05.1999 and 19.05.1999, Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur, with the motive of eliminating the deceased, administered poison and intentionally caused the death of Amrik Kaur.
3. On these allegations, Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur were prosecuted for charges under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC. The Trial Court convicted both the accused persons for the offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life.
Findings of the Trial Court and High Court:
4. The Trial Court has concluded that it was a case of homicide and not suicide. It has found that the appellant had a strong motive to commit the murder of his wife. It further held that the appellant and Rani Kaur were present in the house on the intervening night of 18.05.1999 and 19.05.1999 and therefore, the burden lay on them to explain as to ‘how the body of Amrik Kaur who was alive on the night of 18.05.1999 turned into a corpse’the next morning. The Court has completely disbelieved the theory of suicide sought to be advanced on behalf of appellant. It was noted that merely because there were no injuries on the body of the deceased, that by itself would not obviate the possibility of forceful administration of the poisonous substance. On the basis of the above circumstances taken together, the Trial Court held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and Rani Kaur.
5. In appeal, the High Court has agreed with the findings of the Trial Court in so far as the appellant is concerned and has acquitted Rani Kaur by extending her the benefit of doubt. It has found that there is no other evidence except the testimony of PW3 and PW4, to prove the presence of Rani Kaur on the intervening night of 18.05.1999 and 19.05.1999 at the appellant’s house.
ARGUMENTS OF MR. ABHIMANYU TEWARI, COUNSEL APPEARING FOR APPELLANT:
6. PW3, Melo Kaur, is not a reliable witness. The presence of the appellant, Darshan Singh, at the house on the intervening night of 18.05.1999 and 19.05.1999 is sought to be established based on her testimony. She has made several improvements in her version, and her testimony suffers from several contradictions, and therefore, it is not safe to rely on such a witnesses’ uncorroborated testimony. It would be prejudicial to the appellant to rely on only a part of her testimony and exclude the rest. If her testimony is ignored in toto, there is no other evidence to establish the key circumstance of appellant’s presence at the spot of crime.
6.1 That aluminium phosphide is rather impossible to administer in a deceitful manner owing to its pungent sm
