LexGURPREET SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
GURPREET SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA SEPTEMBER 12, 2002 [UMESH C. BANERJEE AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] B Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Murder of wife by husband- Circumstantial evidence against husband-Plea of Alibi-Disbelieved and convicted by courts below-On appeal-Held, in view of the conduct of the C accused, and the motive, there is sufficient evidence on record to connect him to the crime-Conviction upheld. Criminal Trial: Circumstantial evidence-Evidentiary value of-Held, can alone and by itself can form basis of conviction, provided chain of events is complete in such a way as to poi1Jt out the guilt of accused and none other. D Inconsistency between evidence and statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.-Ejfect of-Held, does not imply total rejection of the evidence, but the same to be subjected to close scrutiny. Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 136-Special Leave Petition- E Interference with concurrent finding of fact-Held, not permissible. Appellant-accused was prosecuted for having murdered his wife by setting her on fire. There was no eye witness to the incident. Prosecution relied on the circumstances that appellant-accused and deceased-wife were having estranged relationship and divorce proceeding by mutual consent F had already been initiated and husband had consented to give Rs. 3 lakhs to the deceased··Wife. She had half share in the house property jointly owned by the couple. Both of them were living together. PWl, neighbour of the appellant, had seen the appellant-accused beating the deceased 15- 16 days prior to the incident. On the date of incident, at night, PWl heard G shrieks and saw smoke from appellant's house and noticed the appellant and his servant present in the house. He informed the police and fire brigade. The investigating officer found the deceased in sitting posture on sofa, and appellant sitting in another room. Two rooms were burnt but the room in which appellant was sitting had no marks of burning. There 337 H 338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A were burn injuries on the person of the appellant. According to report of Serologist residues of petroleum were found on certain exhibits. Appellant took the plea of alibi, stating that he reached the house on being informed about the fire and he sustained burn injuries in the act of saving his wife. The evidence of PWl was inconsistent with his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. B c Trial Court convicted the appellant-accused u/s 302 IPC disbelieving his plea of alibi and relying on the circumstantial evidence. High Court confirmed the conviction. Hence this appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Circumstantial evidence alone and by itself can form the basis of conviction, provided, however, there is no snap in the chain of events: the chain of events must thus be complete in such a way so as to point to the guilt of the accused person and to none others-it is not a D mere matter of surmise or conjecture but the events ought to be so tell- tale that one cannot but come to the conclusion that accused is the guilty person. Standard of proof has thus to be at a much higher degree lest an innocent person gets the blame therefor. The approach of the court thus ought to be extremely cautious and upon proper circumspection as regards the appraisal of the available evidence on record. The Court ought thus E to scrutinize the evidence and deal with each circumstance and thereafter find the chain of the established circumstances being complete; if the answer is in the affirmative, there should not be any hesitation in the matter of return of a verdict of guilt on the basis of circumstantial evidence. In the event, however, there is a snap in the chain and the F conclusion may not steadfastly point or reach the accused, the latter is entitled to a benefit of doubt. [346-B-D; 348-A-CI Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1993[ 2 sec 684, relied on. G 2. In the event of a portion of evidence not being consistent with the statements given under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the witness stands declared hostile that does not, however, mean and imply total rejecti9n of the evidence. The portion which stands in favour of the prosecution or the accused may be accepted but the same shall be subjected to close H scrutiny. (346-G, Hf GURPREET SINGH v. STATE OF HARY ANA 339 State of UP. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra & Anr., 11996) to SCC 360, A referred to. 3. Plea of alibi s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.