PREM SINGH versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: [2023] 5 S.C.R. 800 · Decided: 02-01-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
800
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
   [2023] 5 S.C.R. 800
800
PREM SINGH
v.
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
(Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2023)
JANUARY 02, 2023
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 201 and s.84 – Murder –
Disappearance of evidence – Circumstantial evidence –
Appreciation of – Plea of mental incapacity – Tenability –
Allegations against appellant that, he took his two sons, aged about
9 years and 6 years, near a canal, strangulated them to death, and
threw their dead bodies into the canal – Trial court held appellant
guilty u/ss.302 and 201 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment
– High Court upheld the conviction and sentence – Held: There is
no infirmity in the findings concurrently recorded by the Trial Court
and the High Court that the prosecution case was amply established
by cogent and convincing chain of circumstances, pointing only to
the guilt of the appellant, who caused the death of victim children,
his sons, by strangulation and also caused the evidence of offence
to disappear by throwing the dead bodies into the canal – In the
given set of circumstances, when the deceased children were last
seen in the company of the appellant, who was none else but their
father and when their death was caused by manual strangulation,
the burden, perforce, was heavy upon the appellant to clarify the
facts leading to the demise of his sons, which would be presumed to
be specially within his knowledge – Principles of s.106 of Evidence
Act operated heavily against the appellant – But there was no
explanation on his part and immediately after the incident, he
attempted to create a false narrative of accidental drowning of the
children – The submission that strained relationship of appellant
with his wife may not provide sufficient motive for killing the children
cannot be accepted for the reason that the motive projected in the
present case had been that the appellant doubted the paternity of
the deceased children and suspected that they were not his sons –
Submission that the appellant be extended the benefit of alleged
want of mental capacity also baseless – The evidence on record,
taken as a whole, at the most shows that the appellant was addicted
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
801
to alcohol and was admitted to the rehabilitation centre for de-
addiction – However, appellant was neither suffering from any
medically determined mental illness nor could be said to be a person
under a legal disability of unsound mind – Hence, neither s.84 IPC
applies to the present case nor s.329 CrPC would come to the rescue
of the appellant – Therefore, no case for interference made out –
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 –
s.329.
Penal Code, 1860 – s.84 – Charges of murder – Burden of
proof in the context of plea of unsoundness of mind – Held: Burden
of proving the existence of circumstances so as to bring the case
within the purview of s.84 IPC lies on the accused in terms of s.105
of the Evidence Act – Where the accused is charged of murder, the
burden to prove that as a result of unsoundness of mind, the accused
was incapable of knowing the consequences of his acts is on the
defence, as duly exemplified by illustration (a) to s.105 of the
Evidence Act – Mandate of law is that the Court shall presume
absence of the circumstances so as to take the case within any of
the General Exceptions in the IPC – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.105.
Criminal Trial – Motive – Motive, when proved, supplies
additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence – But, absence
thereof cannot, by itself, be a ground to reject the prosecution case;
although absence of motive in a case based on circumstantial
evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused – When
the evidence on record unambiguously proves the guilt of the
accused-appellant, the factor relating to motive cannot displace or
weaken the conclusions naturally flowing from the evidence.
Constitution of India – Art.136 – Appeal by special leave –
Distinction in the scope of a regular appeal and an appeal by special
leave.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:
Chain of circumstances, last seen theory, s.106 Indian
Evidence Act
1.1. When the facts established by the evidence on record
and the surrounding factors are put together, the chain of
PREM SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
802
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
circumstances had unfailingly been that the deceased children
were lastly seen alive

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