IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 67 OF 2008
Jagroop Singh .....……..Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab ………Respondent
j u d g m e n t
Dipak Misra, J.
This appeal preferred by special leave under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India calls in question the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 199/DB of 1997 whereby the High Court
has affirmed the conviction and confirmed the sentence passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, in Sessions Trial No. 31 of 1992 wherein
he had found that the appellant along with one Bikkar Singh was guilty of
the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 201 of
the Indian Penal Code 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) and sentenced the accused
persons to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous
imprisonment for two months each on the first count and rigorous
imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default, to
suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month each on the second score
with the stipulation that both the substantive sentences shall be
concurrent.
2. The factual matrix giving rise to the trial is that about 3.15 p.m.
on 2.4.1991, when Sukhdev Singh, PW-8, was feeding fodder to his cattle at
his house, accused Jagsir Singh came to his house and asked his son, Jagjit
Singh @ Jagga, to accompany him for plucking flowers from the field.
Jagjit Singh, a 10 year old boy, accompanied him. As the boy did not
return home till evening, the complainant went to the house of Jagroop
Singh, Uncle of Jagsir Singh, to enquire about his son. As the doors were
not opened and there was no response he searched for his son in the village
but could not find him. On the next day, in the morning he proceeded with
the co-villagers to search for the boy in the fields. After he reached the
fields of Santosh Singh, he found some freshly dug earth near a heap of
sticks. Being suspicious, all of them dug out the earth and found the dead
body of Jagjit Singh lying buried over there having injury marks on the
head. Sukhdev Singh left his brother Gurmail Singh there for guarding the
body and proceeded towards the police station. On the way near the bus
stand he met ASI Surjit Singh who recorded his statement and accompanied
him to the fields of Jagroop Singh. The investigating officer prepared the
inquest report, recovered the blood stained weapon of offence and sample of
earth smeared with blood, prepared two distinct sealed parcels thereof,
Exhibits P-1 and P-2, and sent the dead body for post mortem. In the FIR,
it was stated that the deceased had been murdered by Jagsir Singh with the
aid and assistance of other persons and they had buried the dead body.
3. As the factual narration would reveal, on 21.4.1992, Jagroop Singh
and Jagsir Singh made an extra judicial confession before Natha Singh, PW
14, and accused Bikkar Singh made an extra-judicial confession before Zora
Singh, PW-2, and both Natha Singh and Zora Singh produced the accused
persons before the police. After being arrested, they led to the discovery
of one `Kassi’ (spade) which was buried under the ground near the place
wherefrom the dead body was recovered. The seized weapon was sent for
chemical analysis examination in the forensic science laboratory and after
completing the investigation, the investigating officer placed the charge-
sheet before the concerned Magistrate, who committed the matter to the
Court of Session for trial of offences under Section 302 read with Section
34 and 201 of IPC. Be it noted, in the course of investigation, it was
found that Jagsir Singh was a juvenile and was produced before the
appropriate forum at Bhatinda.
4. Both the accused persons denied the charge and pleaded false
implication due to animosity.
5. The prosecution, to prove its case, examined Dr. Devinder Mittal, the
autopsy surgeon as PW-1, Zora Singh, PW-2, Sukhdev Singh, PW-8, Gurdev
Singh, PW-10, Natha Singh, PW-14, Balwinder Singh, PW-17 and ASI Surjit
Singh, PW-18, as principal witnesses. The rest of the witnesses are formal
witnesses. The reports of the Forensic Science Laboratory and many other
documents were brought on record and marked as exhibits.
6. The defence chose not to adduce any evidence.
7. The learned trial Judge, on appreciation of the evidence brought on
record, came to hold that the death of the deceased Jagjit Singh was
homicidal in nature; that the deceased was last seen with the accused
persons; that the accused had made extra-judicial confessions admitting the
guilt; that the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the field of
the father of accused Jagroop Singh; that the weapon used in the crime was
recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement made by accused Jagroop
Singh; that as per the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, the weapon
used, spade, was found stained with human blood; and that the doctor who
had conducted the post mortem had clearly stated that the injuries found on
the body of the deceased could be caused by the seized weapon. On the
aforesaid basis, he came to hold that the prosecution had been able to
prove the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and
accordingly recorded the conviction and imposed the sentence.
8. On an appeal being preferred, the High Court reappreciated the
evidence and came to hold that the circumstantial evidence from all
spectrums led to the only conclusion that the accused persons had committed
the crime and concurred with the view expressed by the learned trial Judge.
9. We have heard Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned counsel for the appellant, and
Mr. Jayant K. Sood, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-
State.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following
contentions: -
(a) The learned trial Judge as well as the High Court has not appreciated
the evidence brought on record in proper perspective keeping in view
the parameters laid down by this Court in various authorities relating
to restriction of conviction on circumstantial evidence and hence,
the judgments are unsustainable in law.
(b) The circumstances which have weighed with the Courts, namely, last
seen with the deceased, the extra-judicial confession made by the
accused before Zora Singh, PW-2, and Natha Singh, PW-14, and recovery
of spade and body of the deceased near the field of the father of the
accused-appellant at his instance are unacceptable inasmuch as the
testimony of witnesses are replete with improvement, embellishment and
contradiction.
(c) The time gap between the point of time when the accused was last seen
with the deceased and when the deceased was found dead is of long
duration and, therefore, the said circumstance is to be ignored.
(d) The reliance on extra-judicial confession before Zora Singh, PW-2 and
Natha Singh, PW-14 is unacceptable inasmuch as the confession was made
after 18 days which makes it absolutely dented. There is no earthly
reason that the appellant would confess before Zora Singh, PW-2, since
there was prior enmity between the informant and the appellant and
Zora Singh, PW-2, is a close relation of the father of the deceased.
That apart, there are improvements in the course of examination in
court and the same makes the extra-judicial confession, a weak piece
of evidence, wholly unreliable.
(e) The circumstance pertaining to recovery of the weapon is not to be
given any credence. There is incurable discrepancy with regard to the
place of recovery. Further, though the seized earth and the weapon
were sent for examination, the report is silent as regards the
matching of blood group with that of the deceased and such lack of
corroboration makes the said circumstance hollowed and that makes the
judgment of conviction sensitively vulnerable.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent combated the aforesaid
proponements. The learned counsel has advanced the following submissions:-
(i) The attack on the last seen circumstance on the foundation that there
is a long duration between the last seen and when the dead body was
found is totally untenable inasmuch as the opinion in the post mortem
report is that the death had occurred within twenty four hours. That
apart, the testimony of PW 10 and 17 is unimpeachable since they have
stood embedded in their stand.
(ii) The circumstance of extra-judicial confession cannot be disregarded
despite some improvements in the version of Natha Singh, PW 14, as
there is no suggestion that his version is tainted. Quite apart from
that, after abscondance of the accused Bikkar Singh, he came and
confessed before Zora Singh and the present appellant along with
Jagsir Singh before Natha Singh who produced them before the Police
and there is nothing on record to state that either Zora Singh, PW-2,
or Natha Singh, PW-14, applied any force.
(iii) There is no reason to doubt the disclosure statement and leading to
recovery on the ground that the weapon was recovered in the nearby
field but not in the field of the appellant and there has been no
matching of blood stains with that of the appellant’s blood.
(iv) Both the High Court and the trial court have kept themselves alive to
the parameters of circumstances and there can be no trace of doubt
that all the circumstances cumulatively prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt, for there are no such flaws which would
compel a court of law to disregard the vital circumstance and
entertain pleas artificially grafted by imagination.
12. As is evincible, the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence.
Before we analyse and appreciate the circumstances that have weighed with
the trial Court and the High Court, we think it apposite to refer to
certain authorities pertaining to delineation of cases that hinge on
circumstantial evidence.
13. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra[1], a three-Judge
Bench has laid down five golden principles which constitute the
“panchsheel” in respect of a case based on circumstantial evidence.
Referring to the decision in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtra[2], it was opined that it is a primary principle that the
accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and
the mental distance between `may be’ and `must be’ is long and divides
vague conjectures from sure conclusions. Thereafter, the Bench proceeded to
lay down that the facts so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be
explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; that
the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; that they
should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
that there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been
done by the accused.”
14. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others[3], this
Court held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, the
following tests must be satisfied: (SCC pp. 710-11, para 10)
“(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is
sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency
unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain
so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that
within all human probability the crime was committed by the
accused and none else; and
(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction
must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other
hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such
evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the
accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.”
The similar view has been reiterated in Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and
another v. State of A.P.[4].
15. In Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab[5], it has been laid down that
the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should
be fully proved and those circumstances must be conclusive in nature to
connect the accused with the crime. All the links in the chain of events
must be established beyond reasonable doubt and the established
circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of
the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. In a case based
on circumstantial evidence, the Court has to be on its guard to avoid the
danger of allowing suspicion to take the place of legal proof and has to be
watchful to avoid the danger of being swayed by emotional considerations,
however strong they may be, to take the place of proof.
16. In Harishchandra Ladaku Thange v. State of Maharashtra[6], while
dealing with the validity of inferences to be drawn from circumstantial
evidence, it has been emphasised 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 and
further 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.
17. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava[7], emphasis has been laid
that it is the duty of the Court to take care while evaluating
circumstantial evidence. If the evidence adduced by the prosecution is
reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must
be accepted. That apart, the circumstances relied upon must be established
and the cumulative effect of the established facts must lead to a singular
hypothesis that the accused is guilty.
18. In Ram Singh v. Sonia and Ors.[8], while referring to the settled
proof pertaining to circumstantial evidence, this Court reiterated the
principles about the caution to be kept in mind by Court. It has been
stated therein that in a case depending largely upon circumstantial
evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take
the place of legal proof. The Court must satisfy itself that various
circumstances in the chain of events have been established clearly and such
completed chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable
likelihood of the innocence of the accused. It has also been indicated
that when the important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped
and the other circumstances cannot in any manner, establish the guilt of
the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
19. In Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab[9], after referring to the
aforesaid principles pertaining to the evaluation of circumstantial
evidence, this Court stated that it must nonetheless be emphasised that
whether a chain is complete or not would depend on the facts of each case
emanating from the evidence and no universal yardstick should ever be
attempted.
20. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, we shall presently proceed
to scrutinize and evaluate the circumstances whether the said circumstances
establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. First, we
shall advert to the reliability and credibility of the ‘last seen’ theory
as propounded by the prosecution. The testimony of PWs-8, 10 and 17 are
relevant to be seen for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion whether
the circumstance of ‘last seen’ has been established. PW-8 is the father
of the deceased. He has stated that Jagsir Singh, who was residing with
Jagroop Singh, his maternal uncle, came to his house and asked Jagjit Singh
to accompany him to pluck Genda (marigold) flowers in the field. Jagjit
accompanied him. PW-10, Gurdev Singh, has deposed that about 4.00 p.m.
when he was going from village Jita Singh Wala to village Mari Mustafa to
see his daughter, near a turning outside village Jita Singh Wala, he found
that Roop Singh, Bikkar Singh and Jagsir Singh along with deceased Jagjit
Singh were proceeding towards the fields. In the cross-examination, he has
stated that the road by which the three accused were taking the deceased
was known to him as he had earlier gone on that passage and at that time he
did not suspect anything. The learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that there is a material contradiction in the statement of Gurdev
Singh, PW-10, and that of Sukhdev Singh, PW-8, inasmuch as Gurdev Singh had
stated that for the first time he made a disclosure about seeing the
deceased in the company of the accused persons whereas Sukhdev Singh had
stated that while he was searching for Jagjit Singh, Gurdev Singh told him
that he had seen the accused going together with the deceased. Keeping the
appreciation and analysis of this evidence in abeyance, it is apt to scan
the testimony of PW-17. Balwinder Singh, PW-17, has testified that on
2.4.1991, about 4.00 p.m., he was going to the bus-stand of village Kotla
Raika. When he reached the house of Jagroop Singh, he saw all the three
accused along with the deceased going towards the field of Jagroop Singh
who was carrying a spade with him. He had enquired from Jagjit Singh why
he was accompanying the accused with whom they were not on good terms, to
which he replied that he had no hostility with his companions and he was
going to pluck the flowers. Thereafter, Jagroop Singh told why he was
talking ill of them. The learned counsel for the appellant has criticised
the evidence of this witness on the ground that he has been convicted of
murder of the appellant’s brother and he had made two improvements in his
statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. inasmuch as when he has
deposed, he had stated before the police that the accused and deceased were
going towards the field of Jagroop Singh and further he has stated before
the police that the accused had told him why he was talking ill.
21. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant basically is
that there are omissions and improvements in the versions of the witnesses
and of such magnitude that they affect the prosecution case. In State Rep.
by Inspector of Police v. Saravanan and anr.[10], it has been stated that
the contradictions/omissions must be of such nature which materially affect
the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or
improvements which do not affect the core of the prosecution case should
not be made a ground to reject the evidence of the witness in entirety. In
Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) and others v. State of Maharashtra[11],
it has been laid down that the omissions which amount to contradictions in
material particulars, i.e., go to the root of the case/materially affect
the trial or core of the prosecution case, render the testimony of the
witness liable to be discredited. Keeping in view the aforesaid
principles, when the evidence of these three witnesses are scrutinized, we
find that PW 8, the father of the deceased, has categorically stated that
his son had accompanied the accused Jagsir. There is nothing on record to
disbelieve the said testimony. As regards the testimony of PW-17, the
omissions and the improvements which have been highlighted are absolutely
minor. In fact, to appreciate the same, we have anxiously perused the
statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and the deposition in
Court. We find that this witness has clearly stated that all of them were
going towards the field. The only omission is that he had not stated that
they were going to the field of Jagroop. As regards the improvement he
has made that the accused persons had told him why he was speaking ill of
them, in our considered view, these aspects do not affect the core of the
prosecution case. The evidence of PW-10, Gurdev Singh, is criticised on the
base that he had stated before the police that he had seen the accused
persons and not before anyone else whereas the complainant had stated the
he had said so before him. The aforesaid discrepancy cannot be regarded to
have created any dent in the prosecution story.
22. Quite apart from the above, what is argued is that there is a long
gap between the last seen and recovery of the dead body of the deceased.
As per the material on record, the informant searched for his son in the
village in the late evening and next day in the morning, he went to the
fields and the dead body was found. The post-mortem report indicates that
the death had occurred within 24 hours. Thus, the duration is not so long
as to defeat or frustrate the version of the prosecution. Therefore, there
can be no trace of doubt that the deceased was last seen in the company of
the accused persons.
23. The second circumstance pertains to extra- judicial confession. Mr.
Goel, learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently criticized the
extra-judicial confession on the ground that such confession was made after
18 days of the occurrence. That apart, it is submitted that the father of
Natha Singh and grand-father of the deceased are real brothers and,
therefore, he is an interested witness and to overcome the same, he has
deposed in Court that he has strained relationship with the informant,
though he had not stated so in the statement recorded under Section 161 of
Cr.PC.
24. The issue that emanates for appreciation is whether such confessional
statement should be given any credence or thrown overboard. In this
context, we may refer with profit to the authority in Gura Singh v. State
of Rajasthan[12] wherein, after referring to the decisions in Rao Shiv
Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh[13], Maghar Singh v. State of
Punjab[14], Narayan Siingh V. State of M.P.[15], Kishore Chand v. State of
H.P.[16] and Baldev Raj v. State of Haryana[17], it has been opined that it
is the settled position of law that extra judicial confession, if true and
voluntary, can be relied upon by the court to convict the accused for the
commission of the crime alleged. Despite inherent weakness of extra-
judicial confession as an item of evidence, it cannot be ignored when shown
that such confession was made before a person who has no reason to state
falsely and his evidence is credible. The evidence in the form of extra-
judicial confession made by the accused before the witness cannot be always
termed to be tainted evidence. Corroboration of such evidence is required
only by way of abundant caution. If the court believes the witness before
whom the confession is made and is satisfied that it was true and
voluntarily made, then the conviction can be founded on such evidence
alone. The aspects which have to be taken care of are the nature of the
circumstances, the time when the confession is made and the credibility of
the witnesses who speak for such a confession. That apart, before relying
on the confession, the court has to be satisfied that it is voluntary and
it is not the result of inducement, threat or promise as envisaged under
Section 24 of the Act or brought about in suspicious circumstances to
circumvent Sections 25 and 26.
25. Recently, in Sahadevan & Another v. State of Tamil Nadu[18], after
referring to the rulings in Sk. Yusuf v. State of W.B.[19] and Pancho v.
State of Haryana[20], a two-Judge Bench has laid down that the extra-
judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself and it has to be examined
by the court with greater care and caution; that it should be made
voluntarily and should be truthful; that it should inspire confidence;
that an extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and
evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and
is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence; that for an extra-
judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer
from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities; and that such
statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in
accordance with law.
26. Keeping in view the aforesaid parameters, the criticism advanced
against the evidence of Natha Singh, PW-14, and acceptance thereof have to
appreciated. There is no dispute that the confession was made before Natha
Singh after 18 days. The fact remains that Natha Singh was not in the
village and three days after his arrival in the village, the confession was
made before him. He has clearly deposed that Jagsir Singh and Roop Singh
alias Jagroop Singh had confessed before him. The appellant Jagroop Singh
had confessed about the crime and he had produced them before the ASI.
True it is, he has improved his version in the cross-examination that he
has strained relationship with the complainant which he had not stated in
his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C but the same cannot make the
testimony tainted. Barring that, there is nothing in the cross-
examination to discredit his testimony. That apart, there is no suggestion
that he had not produced the appellant before the police. There may be
some relationship between the informant and this witness but the evidence
is totally clear and the confessional statement is voluntary and, in no
way, appears to be induced and gets further strengthened by the fact that
he produced them before the police. There is no suggestion whatsoever that
he had applied any kind of force. It is borne out from that record that
Bikkar Singh, another accused, had absconded and the present appellant
along with Jagsir Singh came to Natha Singh and confessed and Bikkar Singh
confessed before Gurdev Singh, PW-10. In the confessional statement, he
has stated about the place where the spade was hidden and led to the
recovery to which Natha Singh is a witness. Appreciated from these angles,
we are of the considered opinion that the said confessional statement
inspires confidence as the same is totally voluntary and by no means
tainted.
27. The next circumstance is leading to recovery of the weapon as is seen
from the evidence. The accused led to recovery of the spade from the
wheat field near the heap of sticks. The disclosure statement has been
signed by Natha Singh and another witness, namely, Lal Chand. The
procedure followed for discovery is absolutely in accord with law and has
not been challenged. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that the recovery of the weapon does not aid and assist the prosecution
version. It is urged that though human blood is found on the spade, yet
the blood group was not matched. In support of the said stand, he has
commended us to the decision in Sattatiya Alias Satish Rajanna Kartalla v.
State of Maharashtra[21]. In the said case, the occurrence had taken place
on 1.10.1994 and the accused was arrested on 3.10.1994. He had led to
recovery of his blood stained clothes and that of the deceased and the
weapon used in the crime and all the articles were sent for chemical
examination. The clothes of the deceased were found having human blood of
‘O’ group. It was contended that the blood group was not matched. This
Court did not believe the recovery of the weapon due to various reasons.
Further, it opined that though blood stains were found on the clothes and
the weapon used, yet the same could not be linked with the blood of the
deceased, and, therefore, there was serious lacuna that the human blood
stains present on the clothes of the accused and the weapon were sufficient
to link the accused with the murder.
28. In the case at hand, the accused persons were arrested after 18 days
and recovery was made at that time. The blood stain found on the weapon
has been found in the serological report as human blood. In the case of
Sattatiya (supra), the recovery was doubted and additionally, non-matching
of blood group was treated to be a lacuna. It is worth noting that the
clothes and the weapon were sent immediately for chemical examination.
Here the weapon was sent after 18 days as the recovery was made after that
period. The accused have not given explanation how human blood could be
found on the spade used for agriculture which was recovered at their
instance. In this context, we may profitably reproduce a passage from John
Pandian v. State Represented by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu [22] :-
“The discovery appears to be credible. It has been accepted by
both the courts below and we find no reason to discard it. This
is apart from the fact that this weapon was sent to the forensic
science laboratory (FSL) and it has been found stained with
human blood. Though the blood group could not be ascertained, as
the results were inconclusive, the accused had to give some
explanation as to how the human blood came on this weapon. He
gave none. This discovery would very positively further the
prosecution case.”
29. Thus viewed, we do not find any substantial reason to disbelieve the
disclosure statement and the recovery of the weapon used. It is apt to
mention here that the doctor, who has conducted the post mortem, has
clearly opined that the injuries on the person of the deceased could be
caused by the weapon (blade of such spade) and the said opinion has gone
unrebutted.
30. Another aspect is to be taken note of. Though the incriminating
circumstances which point to the guilt of the accused had been put to the
accused, yet he could not give any explanation under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure except choosing the mode of denial. In State of
Maharashtra v. Suresh[23], it has been held that when the attention of the
accused is drawn to such circumstances that inculpated him in the crime and
he fails to offer appropriate explanation or gives a false answer, the same
can be counted as providing a missing link for completing the chain of
circumstances. We may hasten to add that we have referred to the said
decision only to highlight that the accused has not given any explanation
whatsoever as regards the circumstances put to him under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
31. From the aforesaid analysis, we are of the convinced opinion that all
the three circumstances which have been established by the prosecution
complete the chain. There can be no trace of doubt that the circumstances
have been proven beyond reasonable doubt. It is worthy to remember that in
Sucha Singh and another v. State of Punjab[24], it has been stated that the
prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by
the accused. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely
possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It
must grow out of the evidence in the case. If a case is proved perfectly,
it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some inevitable flaws
because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too
imperfect. The present case is one where there is no trace of doubt that
all circumstances complete the chain and singularly lead to the guilt of
the accused persons.
32. In view of the aforesaid premised reasons, we do not find any
infirmity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by
the learned trial Judge which has been affirmed by the High Court and,
accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of substance, stands dismissed.
……………………………….J.
[K. S. Radhakrishnan]
……………………………….J.
[Dipak Misra]
New Delhi;
July 20, 2012.
-----------------------
[1] AIR 1984 SC 1622
[2] AIR 1973 SC 2622 = (1973) 2 SCC 793
[3] 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706 : 1991 SCC (CRI) 407
[4] (2006) 10 SCC 172
[5] AIR 1996 SC 607
[6] AIR 2007 SC 2957
[7] AIR 1992 SCW 640 = AIR 1992 SC 840
[8] AIR 2007 SC 1218
[9] (2007) 13 SCC 90
[10] AIR 2009 SC 152
[11] (2010) 13 SCC 657
[12] (2001 ) 2 SCC 205
[13] AIR 1954 SC 322
[14] AIR 1975 SC 1320
[15] AIR 1985 SC 1678
[16] AIR 1990 SC 2140
[17] AIR 1991 SC 37
[18] 2012 AIR SCW 3206
[19] (2011) 11 SCC 754
[20] (2011) 10 SCC 165 : AIR 2012 SC 523
[21] (2008) 3 SCC 210
[22] (2010) 14 SCC 129
[23] (2000) 1 SCC 471
[24] (2003) 7 SCC 643
