BIJENDER @ MANDAR versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 1138 · Decided: 08-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1138
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
BIJENDER @ MANDAR
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal No. 2438 of 2010)
NOVEMBER 08, 2021
[N. V. RAMANA, CJI., SURYA KANT AND
HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 392 and 397 – Robbery using deadly
weapons – Prosecution case that appellant and co-accused armed
with pistols robbed the complainant and his nephew – Conviction
u/ss. 392 and 397 and sentenced accordingly, on basis of the
disclosure statement and recovery made thereof – High Court upheld
the conviction, however, reduced the sentence u/s. 397 – On appeal,
held: Court can convict an accused exclusively on the basis of his
disclosure statement and the resultant recovery of inculpatory
material – However, in order to sustain the guilt of such accused,
the recovery should be flawless and not be shrouded with elements
of doubt – Where the prosecution fails to inspire confidence in the
manner and/or contents of the recovery with regard to its nexus to
the alleged offence, the court ought to give the benefit of doubt to
the accused – On facts, prosecution miserably failed to bring home
the guilt of the appellant – Courts below were influenced by
irrelevant considerations, such as rise in the incidents of dacoity –
Courts below shifted the burden on the appellant to explain how he
was in possession of the incriminating articles, without primarily
scrutinizing the credibility and admissibility of the recovery as well
as its linkage to the misconduct – Inference was drawn against the
appellant, in spite of the prosecution’s failure to dispense with its
burden of proof to depict culpability of the appellant – Evidence on
record did not establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable
doubt – Thus, the orders passed by the courts below set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The Court can convict an accused exclusively
on the basis of his disclosure statement and the resultant recovery
of inculpatory material. However, in order to sustain the guilt of
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 1138
1138
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1139
such accused, the recovery should be unimpeachable and not be
shrouded with elements of doubt. [Para 16][1146-B-C]
1.2 Where the prosecution fails to inspire confidence in
the manner and/or contents of the recovery with regard to its
nexus to the alleged offence, the court ought to stretch the benefit
of doubt to the accused. The cardinal principle of criminal
jurisprudence is that “it is better that ten guilty persons escape,
than that one innocent suffer”. The doctrine of extending benefit
of doubt to an accused, notwithstanding the proof of a strong
suspicion, holds its fort on the premise that “the acquittal of a
guilty person constitutes a miscarriage of justice just as much as
the conviction of the innocent”. [Para 17][1146-E-G]
2. It may not be wise or prudent to convict a person only
because there is rampant increase in heinous crimes and victims
are oftenly reluctant to speak truth due to fear or other extraneous
reasons. The burden to prove the guilt beyond doubt does not
shift on the suspect save where the law casts duty on the accused
to prove his/her innocence. It is the bounden duty of the
prosecution in cases where material witnesses are likely to be
slippery, either to get their statements recorded at the earliest
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. or collect such other cogent evidence
that its case does not entirely depend upon oral testimonies. [Para
18][1147-A-B]
3. The prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt
of the appellant and courts below have been unwittingly swayed
by irrelevant considerations, such as rise in the incidents of
dacoity. The trial court and High Court have hastened to shift
the burden on the appellant to elucidate how he bechanced to be
in possession of the incriminating articles, without primarily
scrutinizing the credibility and admissibility of the recovery as
well as its linkage to the misconduct. The High Court and trial
court failed to take into consideration that the testimony of ASI
(PW-14) exhibited no substantial effort made by the police for
conducting the search of the residence of the appellant in the
presence of local witnesses. The only independent witness to
the recovery was PW-8 who was admittedly a companion of the
BIJENDER @ MANDAR v. STATE OF HARYANA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1140
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
complainant. The complainant (PW-4) as well as PW-8, have
unambiguously refuted that neither the passbook, nor the ‘red
cloth’ 

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