LexINDER SINGH & ANR. versus THE STATE (DELHI ADMN.)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• , 393 INDER SINGH & ANR. v. THE STATE (DELHI ADMN.) February 24, 1978 [V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND JAswANT SINGH, JJ.] Proof-l'lature of Proof and credibility of testimony in crbninal cases- Co11stitutio1: of India, 1950 Art. 21-Duty of the Court in giving directions in criminal cases to ensure that deprivation of liberty is accompanied by curative strategy and human dignity. · Criminal Procedure Code, (Act II of 1974) 1973-Ss. 149 to 151-Police to prevent cognizable offences-Their duties reiterated. The petitioners aged 16 and 20 were convicted for offences u/s 302 read with s. 34 and s. 307 I.P.C. and sentenced tO''life in1prisonment by the trial Court and the High Court affirmed both the conviction and the sent~nce awarded to the accused. Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court A B c HELD: 1. Credibility of testimony, oral and circumstantial, depe:'lds D considerably on a judicial evaluation of the. totality, not isolated scrutiny. While it is necessary that proof beyond reasonable doubt should be adduced in all criminal cases, it is not necessary that it should be perfect. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish and guilty man cannot get away with it because truth suffers some infirmity '-":hen projected_ through human processes. Judicial uestq for perfect proof often accounts for police presen~ tation of fool-proof-concoction. Infirmity in some aspect or other of this prosecution case cannot invalidate the culpability \Vhich is otherwise vcraclouslY made out. [394 D·F] E The rationale of Court sentence is social defence coupled \Vith personal correction. Article 21 of the Constitution is the jurisdictional root for legal liberalism. Courts are responsible to ensure that deprivation of liberty ts accompanied by curative strategy and human dignity, by issuing certitn positive directions in this regard. [397 B] The Court directed the State Government (a) to issue appropriate instruc- F tions to the jail authorities to give the prisoners treatment and work whtch are not likely to offend dignity and decency and if necessary in consultation with t.he medical officer; (b ) _ _If their beha".iour shows responsibility and trust- worth1ness, to allow them hberal and cautious parole so that their family Lies may be maintained and inner tensions may not further build up; (c) To enlarge. them. on parole f?r two months after every period of one year, (d) to afford 1nterv1ews by. f~mtly !Jlembers as often as ar~ sought, and (e) to teach them useful crafts 1ns1de prison and encourage their studies. The Court fur- ther directed the Sessions Judge to make jail visits to ensure cornPfiance \Vith G the above directions. [396 G-H, 397 A] OBSERVATION: Criminology is n1o:e tha.n. police. "billy" and "peace and order" is more than sm~rt F.LR. It is positive action for prevention. detection and prompt prosecutwn. [395 G] · (The Court reiterated the preventive action of the police u/ss. 149 to 1 ~1 contained in Ch. XI of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 "which duty has go~e by default"] H. A 3)4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ Jl)78J 3 S.C.R. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRI~nICTION : Special Lea\'e Petition (Criminal) No. 238 of 1978. (Appeal by Special from the Judgment and Order dt. 16-12-77 of the Delhi High Court in Cr!. A. No. 135 of I 975). Frank A lllhony, Chanum Lal ltorara and o. P. Soni for the Peti- B lioners. D E F G H The Order of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J.-Mr. Frank Anthony has argued elaborately, punctuated with stridant emphasis, several points in support of the innocence of the petitioners who have been convicted under s. 302 read with s. 34 and s. 307 I.P.C. The High Court has affirmed the conviction entered by the trial court and ~~ntenccs of life imprison- ment have been awarded by both the courts for both the _accnsed. Certainly, some persuasive factors, which may militate against the culpability of the accused and the prosecution version of the precise nature of the occurrence, were brought to our notice by counsel who also strongly urged that there were embellishments and improbabili- ties invalidating the conviction. We have had the advantage of persu- ing the extensively spread-out judgment of the High Court, in the Jigl1t of the critical arguments addressed, but remain unconvinced that there is any serious error which warrants grant of leave. · Credibility of testimony, ora
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.