In Darshan Singh vs. The State of Punjab (2024), a 3-judge bench of Supreme Court held that 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. [Para 26].
The case before the Court arose from the judgment and order dated July 23, 2009 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CRLA No.593-DB of 2000.
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 May 18, 1999 and May 19, 1999, Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur, with the motive of eliminating the deceased, administered poison and intentionally caused the death of Amrik Kaur.
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.
The Trial Court had 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 May 18, 1999 and May 19, 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 May 18, 1999 turned into a corpse’ the next morning. The Court 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.
In appeal, the High Court had agreed with the findings of the Trial Court in so far as the appellant is concerned and had 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 May 18, 1999 and May 19, 1999 at the appellant’s house.
The High Court had 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 had not challenged the acquittal of Rani Kaur by filing any special leave petition. Darshan Singh had sought special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court and leave came to be granted by order dated January 22, 2010.
In its January 2024 judgement, the Supreme Court concluded: There cannot be a gap in the chain of circumstances. When the conviction is to be based on circumstantial evidence solely, then there should not be any snap in the chain of circumstances. If there is a snap in the chain, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. If some of the circumstances in the chain can be explained by any other reasonable hypothesis, then also the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. [See: Bhimsingh Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2015) 4 SCC 281.] Therefore, we allow this appeal and set aside the concurrent findings of conviction." The appeal was allowed.
No comments:
Post a Comment