Case title: Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab
Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. 163 of 2010
Decided on: 04.01.2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai, Hon’ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Hon’ble Justice Arvind Kumar.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
This special leave appeal is based on the High Court of Punjab and Haryana’s judgement and order dated July 23, 2009, in Criminal Appeal No.593-DB of 2000.
The deceased, Amrik Kaur, married the appellant, Darshan Singh, sometime in 1988. Melo Kaur, the deceased’s cousin sister, helped arrange the marriage. The prosecution claims that Darshan Singh’s illicit partnership with Rani Kaur (A2) strained their marital relationship. Several relatives had urged the appellant to end his relationship with Rani Kaur, but to no avail. Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur allegedly had an illicit relationship for at least three years prior to the fateful day. The prosecution claims that on the intervening night of May 18, 1999, and May 19, 1999, Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur administered poison and intentionally caused Amrik Kaur’s death.
Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur were charged with violating Section 302 of the IPC in conjunction with Section 34. The Trial Court convicted both of the accused for the offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 and sentenced them to life in prison. In the appeal, the High Court agreed with the Trial Court’s findings in relation to the appellant and acquitted Rani Kaur by giving her the benefit of the doubt.
ISSUES:
- What is the standard of proof to be met by an accused in support of his defence?
- If circumstantial evidence is the only basis for a conviction, what standards should be applied when assessing it?
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
The court convicted the accused to life imprisonment under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. The crime of murder is covered in Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. Section 302 of the Code, however, stipulates the punishment for the offender. This Section states that a murderer will either receive life in prison or the death penalty in addition to a fine.
Section 34 of the IPC defines the acts committed by several people in furtherance of a common intention. The section states that “when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons shall be liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
According to the court ruling on circumstantial evidence, the court cited the case of Bhimsingh Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2015) 4 SCC 281 which held that a case involving circumstantial evidence typically follows this pattern: the circumstances from which the accused’s guilt is to be inferred must be persuasively and firmly established, they must have a clear tendency that unmistakably points to the accused’s guilt, and when the circumstances are considered cumulatively, they should form a chain so complete that there is no way out of the conclusion. According to the prosecution’s case, the illicit relationship between Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur was the primary motivation for them to collaborate in the murder of the deceased. The testimony of witnesses provides sufficient evidence that they were in an illicit relationship. As a result, the situation has been clearly established.
When dealing with Melo Kaur’s illiteracy, the court ruled that the appreciation of evidence presented by such a witness must be treated differently than that of other witnesses. It cannot be subjected to a highly technical investigation, and undue emphasis should not be placed on imprecise details revealed in the evidence. If the deposition contains minor contradictions or inconsistencies, the testimony of a rustic/illiterate witness should not be ignored.
However, Melo kaur’s testimony suffers from more than just technical flaws; there are glaring omissions and improvements revealed during cross-examination that cannot be attributed to the individual deposition’s illiteracy. Minor contradictions and inconsistencies could have been overlooked because the recollection of exact details about location and time can be attributed to illiteracy, which is not the case here.
When discussing the standard of proof under Section 313 of the Crpc, the court cited the case of Pramila vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2021 SCC OnLine SC 711 in which the court ruled that the standard of proof that an accused must meet in support of his defence under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure is not beyond all reasonable doubt, and thus the prosecution bears the burden of proving the charge. The accused only needs to raise a question, and it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused will not benefit from the situation.
The statement of an accused under Section 313 CrPC is not ‘evidence’ because, first, it is not under oath, and second, the other party, i.e. the prosecution, does not have the opportunity to cross-examine the accused.
The learned counsel for the respondent-State has argued that no specific plea of alibi was made in the appellant’s statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC. Indeed, it is claimed that there is an implicit admission of his presence in the house. It is well established that an accused’s statement under Section 313 CrPC is not ‘evidence’ because, first, it is not under oath, and second, the other party, i.e. the prosecution, is not given the opportunity to cross-examine the accused. It is well established law that a statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC cannot be used as the sole basis for conviction. As a result, the appellant’s presence cannot be determined solely based on his statement, despite the lack of independent evidence presented by the prosecution.
Finally, the court ruled that we do not need to consider the evidence relating to other circumstances sought to be proved by the prosecution because failure to prove a single circumstance convincingly can cause a break in the chain of circumstances. There cannot be a gap in the chain of events. When a conviction is based solely on circumstantial evidence, there should be no break in the chain of events. If the chain snaps, the accused has the benefit of the doubt. If some of the events in the chain can be explained by another reasonable hypothesis, then the accused is also entitled to the benefit of the doubt. As a result, the court allowed this appeal and set aside the lower court’s concurrent findings of conviction.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith
