CHANDRA BHAWAN SINGH versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [2018] 5 S.C.R. 646 · Decided: 01-05-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
646
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
CHANDRA BHAWAN SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2018)
MAY 01, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
s. 302/34 – Prosecution under – Of four accused –
Circumstantial evidence – Acquittal of one accused and conviction
of the rest by trial court – High Court confirmed the conviction of
appellants-accused while acquitting the third accused – On appeal,
held: The circumstances of the case set out by the High Court for
holding the appellants-accused guilty, establish chain of events and
being directly connected with the incident, establish involvement of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt – The story of suicide set up
by the accused is unbelievable on the evidence on record – The
appellants-accused were required to explain the circumstances in
which the deceased died, which they failed – One of the appellants-
accused also failed to adduce any evidence to prove his plea of
alibi – Conviction confirmed.
Constitution of India:
Art. 136 – Jurisdiction under – In criminal case – Held: In
exercise of jurisdiction u/Art. 136, courts should be slow in interfering
with concurrent findings of facts which are based on due
appreciation of evidence – Court not to appreciate the evidence de
novo unless prima facie shown that courts below did not consider
relevant piece of evidence, or there existed perversity or/and
absurdity in their findings.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is a settled principle of law that when the Courts
below have recorded  concurrent findings against the accused
persons which are based on due appreciation of evidence, this
Court under Article 136 of the Constitution would be slow to
interfere in such concurrent findings and secondly would not
   [2018] 5 S.C.R. 646
 646
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
647
appreciate the evidence de novo unless it is prima facie shown
that both the Courts below did not either consider the relevant
piece of evidence or there exists any perversity or/and
absurdity in the findings recorded by both the Courts
below etc. [Para 31] [652-C-D]
2. The Courts below properly appreciated the evidence and
came to a right conclusion that the appellants were responsible
for commission of the offence of murder. [Para 30] [652-B]
3. There is evidence to prove the factum of demand of dowry.
PW-1, the real brother of the deceased, was the complainant. His
evidence was rightly relied on by the two Courts below for holding
that the appellants were persistently making a demand of dowry
from the deceased and her family members and they used to
harass her for such cause. The testimony of PW-1 is natural and
consistent having no material contradiction, Therefore, there is
no justification to disbelieve it. So far as the story of suicide set
up by the appellants is concerned, it is wholly unbelievable on
the evidence brought on record. [Paras 33 and 34] [652-F-G]
4.  The circumstances set out by the High Court for holding
the appellants guilty cannot be faulted with. These circumstances
do establish the chain of events and being directly connected
with the incident in question, establish the involvement of the
appellants in commission of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
The test laid down to prove the guilt by circumstantial evidence
in the present case is fully satisfied by the circumstances against
the appellants. [Para 37] [653-H; 654-A]
5.  Both the appellants-accused in their statements recorded
under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 failed
to give any explanation when asked about the circumstances in
which the incident occurred in their house. When the incident
admittedly occurred in their house, the appellants were required
to explain the circumstances in which the deceased died. They,
however, failed to give any explanation.  Appellant-accused ‘T’
also failed to adduce any evidence to prove his plea of alibi.
[Paras 39 and 40] [654-C-D, E]
CHANDRA BHAWAN SINGH v. THE STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
648
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :  Criminal Appeal
No. 654 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.05.2014 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1114/1986
WITH
Criminal Appeal No. 655 of 2018.
Nagendra Rai, Sr. Adv., Shekhar Prit Jha, Akhand Pratap Singh,
Ms. Aditi Mittal, Bahul Kalra, Ms. Meghna Sharma, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Ratnakar Dash, Sr. Adv., Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Sam

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