LexCHATTAR SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' [2008] 12 S.C.R. 765 - -.. CHATTAR SINGH AND ANR. A v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 2001) AUGUST 26, 2008 8 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM _d. SHARMA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 201 and 498-A - Death of a woman within 7 years of marriage and also of her infant c daughter - Circumstantial evidence - Extra-judicial confessions of accused (husband and father-in-law) that they had done the deceased to death suspecting her fidelity - Complaint by father of the deceased that it was a dowry death - Deceased last seen together with the accused - Prosecution D of husband u/ss. 302, 201 and 498A - Prosecution of father- ... in-Jaw and other relatives u/s 498-A - Courts below convicting I' the husband and father-in ... Jaw and acquitting other relatives - On appeal; held: Conviction justified - Extra-judicial confession can be accepted and form the basis for conviction E if passes the test of credibility - Sentence of father-in-law reduced to the period already undergone in view of his age - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 30. Criminal Trial - Extra-judicial Confession - Reliance on - Held: Can be relied on if voluntary, true and made in fit state F of mind - Voluntariness thereof to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case - Evidence Act, .1872 - s. 24. · Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Reliance on - Held: Conviction can be based on such evidence - Condition precedent for reliance before conviction, discussed. G 1' ~) Appellant-accused (husband) was prosecuted u/s 302, 201 and 498-A IPC and appellan!-accused (father-in- Law) was prosecuted u/s 498-A IPC. According to 765 H .. ··?6.6 SlJPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R. A prosecution appellant-husband was married to the ..f' .. deceased No. 1. A daughter (deceased No. 2) was born out of the wedlock. PW 3 (father of deceased No. 1) filed private complaint against seven accused including the appellant-husband and appellant (father-in-law), alleging B that the dispute which led to the death of the deceased ~ was demand of dowry. The police presented challan i against the appellants-accused placing reliance on -the ~ extra-judicial confessions made· by the appellant- (father- ( in-law) to PWs. 5, s· that they had done the deceased to I c death, because of infidelity of deceased No. 1. Appellant 'o- (father-in-law) made confession before PW-10 that his son ~ (appellant-husband) had done the deceased to death. The . ~- challans of the complainant as well as the police w~re . amalgamated and all the seven accused were tried. Trial r- court fo_und the appEfllant•husband guilty of offences _'U/s ·' D 302, 201 and 498-A. Appellant (father-in~law) was convicted u/s 498-A. The rest of the accused were acquitted. High .. '\ Court confirmed the conviction relying on extra-judicial. " confession. Hence the present ·appear. E Partly allowing the. app.eal; the Court i ~ HELD: 1. The conviction recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the High Court doe~ not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. However, coosidering F the age of Appellant (father-in law), his sentence is reduced to the period already undergon~ which is nearty one year. . [Para 19] [784-C".'D] \- 2.1 Where a case rests squarely .(.m circumstantla' evidence, the inference of guilt can. be justified only when G all the incrimina!ing te1cts and ci_rcumstances .are found to be incompatible with the innoc;ence ·of the accused or the guilt of any other person .. There i~ no doubt -that -l- conviction-can be based solely on circumstantial evidence \~ but it should be tested by the tcuch•stone of law relating H -to circumstantial evidence. They are the circumstances CHATTAR SINGH AND ANR. v. STATE OF 767 HARYANA from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be A fully established. The circumstances c~:mcerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established; the facts so established should be consistent only with _the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused B ,( is guilty; the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature ........ and tendency; they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to Jeave any reasonable ground forthe conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.