LexDR. SUNIL CLIFFORD DANIEL versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2012] 7 S.C.R. 1100 DR. SUNIL CLIFFORD DANIEL V. STATE OF PUNJAB (Criminal Appeal No. 2001 of 2010) SEPTEMBER 14, 2012 (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ) PENAL CODE, 1860: ss. 302 and 201 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded by courts below - Held: The statement of prosecution witnesses, the medical evidence, the serological report, the conduct of D the accused remaining absconding, and the recoveries made pursuant to disclosure statement of the accused on his arrest, make the chain of circumstances complete leading to the guilt of the accused - There is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by two courts below - Evidence E - Circumstantial evidence - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 313. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: s. 313 - Examination of accused - Held: It is obligatory F on the part of the accused wHile being examined u/s 313, to furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the court must take note of such explanation even in a case of circumstantial evidence, to decide as to whether or not the chain of G circumstances is complete - In the instant case, the accused could not furnish any explanation as to how the blood stained clothes were found in his room. H ss. 162 (1) and 162 (2) - Statement made to police officer 1100 DR. SUNIL CLIFFORD DANIEL v. STATE OF 1101 PUNJAB - Held: There is a prohibition in peremptory terms and law A requires that a statement made before the Investigating Officer should not be signed by the witness - However, in the event that a police officer, ignorant of the statutory requirement asks a witness to sign his statement, the same would not stand vitiated - At the most, the court will inform the witness, that he B is not bound by the statement made before the police - However, the prohibition contained in s. 162(1) is not applicable to any statements made uls 27 of Evidence Act, as explained by the provision uls 162(2) - Merely because the recovery memo was not signed by the accused, will not c vitiate the recovery itself, as every case has to be decided on its own facts - In the instant case, it cannot be said that the recoveries are vitiated. CRIMINAL LAW: D Motive - Held: In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great significance and importance, for the reason that the absence of motive would put the court on its guard and cause it to scrutinize each piece of evidence very closely in order to ensure that suspicion, emotion or E conjecture do not take the place of proof. F The appellant was prosecuted for committing the murder of his wife and throwing her dead body at a distant place. The case of the prosecution was that the appellant and the deceased, both qualified doctors and working in the same hospital, were living in separate hostels. On 9.3.1996, the appellant handed over a set of blood stained clothes to the Medical Superintendent (PW1) stating that when he reached his room, he found the same therein. PW-1 informed the said fact to the G police on the same day. PW-2, the mother of the deceased, residing in a different city (Jagadhari) reached the place of her daughter on 10.3.1996 and when she found her missing, she lodged an FIR on the same day H 1102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 7 S.C.R. A at 9.40 p.m., expressing her apprehension that the appellant might have abducted her with the intention to kill her. PW-13, the ASI entrusted with the investigation went to the appellant's hostel, but found his room locked from outside and could not trace him anywhere. PW-1 s then handed over the blood stained clothes to the 1.0. On 11.3.1996, the SHO (PW-14), on receiving a wireless message from a Police Chowki at about 20 kms away from the city, went alongwith PW-2 there and recovered the dead body of the deceased which was found lying c in the bushes. The post-mortem report disclosed that the deceased died of strangulation and also had grievous injuries. The case u/s 364 IPC was converted to one u/ ss 302 and 201 IPC. The trial court found the appellant guilty on both the counts and sentenced him to 0 imprisonment for life and 2 years' RI respectively. The High Court dismissed the appeal of the accused. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: E 1.1 In Sha rad Birdhichand Sarda's case*, this court held t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.