BALDEV SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 826 · Decided: 01-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 16 S.C.R 826 
BALDEV SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 2007) 
DECEMBER 1, 2008 
-
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 354 - Conviction under 
c - By Courts below - On the basis of circumstantial evidence 
- On appeal, held: Circumstances on which the Courts below 
held the accused guilty are not determinative to hold the 
accused guilty of the offence - Hence, acquitted. 
Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Reliance on -
D Held: Conviction can be based on such evidence - Condition 
precedent for reliance before conviction, discussed. 
Appellant-accused faced trial for commission of 
offences punishable u/ss. 302, 376 or in the alternatives. 
E 376/511 IPC. Prosecution case was based on 
circumstanUal evidence. As per prosecution, accused 
was arrested after he made extra-judicial confession to 
PW-11 and ex Sarpanch of the village. Trial Court 
convicted the appellant holding him guilty u/ss. 302 and 
F 354 IPC. High Court confirmed the conviction. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that his 
con'{iction barely on the basis that injuries were present 
~ · 
on the person of the accused was not correct as both the 
courts had found that the rape was not proved; that extra-
G judicial confession was not proved and last seen 
evidence through PW-9 was also not sufficient to hold the 
accused guilty. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
826 
BALDEV SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 
827 
~ 
~ 
1 
HELD: 1. The judgment of trial court affirmed by High 
A 
Court cannot be maintained. The trial court held that the 
accused was examined by the doctor (PW 3) who found 
abrasions on the thighs and hip joints ofthe accused, as 
the injuries must have been received in a scuffle. Thi$ 
circumstance found supported from the finding of B 
'chappals' and other articles. It was held that recovery of 
utensil and 'chappals' of the deceased does not lead to 
" 
the guilt of the accused, but that circumstances show the 
involvement of the accused who was found to have 
injuries on the person corresponding with the injuries on c 
the deceased. Circumstances on which the trial court and 
the High Court had relied on to hold the accused guilty,, 
by no stretch of imagination can be determinative of the 
fact that accused was responsible for the commission of 
rape. Even if it is accepted that the chappals and the 
D 
utensils were found in the fields of the appellant, the dead 
body was found at another place. (Paras 14, 15 and 16] 
(835-8-C, H; 836-A-B] 
2. Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial 
evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when 
E 
all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found 
to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or 
the guilt of any other person. There is no doubt that 
conviction can .be based solely on circumstantial 
I 
evidence but it should be tested by the touch-stone of F 
-. 
law relating to circumstantial evidence. They are the 
~ 
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be 
drawn should be fully established. The circumstances 
. concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' 
established; the facts so established should· be 
G 
.,,.. 
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
1 
accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable 
..,, 
on any other hypothesis except that the accused is 
guilty; the circumstances should be of a conclusive 
nature and tendency; they should exclude every possible 
H 
.... 
828 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20081 16 S.C.R. 
A hypothesis except the one to be proved; andthere 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 
B accused. [Paras 5, 10 and 12] [831-C; 833-D; 834-C-G] 
. Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1977 SC 1063; 
Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316; 
"( 
.... 
Earabhadrappa v. State of Kamataka AIR 1983 SC 446; 
c 
Stat~ of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. AIR 1985 SC 1224; 
Ba/winder Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1987 SC 350; Ashok 
Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. AIR 1989 SC 1890; Bhagat 
Ram v. State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621; C. Chenga Reddy 
and Ors. v. State of A.P. 1996 (10) SCC 193; Padala Veera 
D 
Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 79; State of U.P. 
v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava 1992 Crl.LJ 1104;

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.