RAJ KUMAR SINGH @ RAJU @ BATYA versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2013] 8 S.C.R. 599 · Decided: 06-05-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 8 S.C.R. 599 
RAJ KUMAR SINGH @ RAJU @ BATYA 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 931-932 of 2009) 
MAY 6, 2013 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302, 376 and 201 - Prosecution 
under -
For murder and rape of 4 years old girl -
C 
Circumstantial evidence - Conviction by Courts below - On 
appeal, held: Prosecution evidence is shaky and chain of 
links ·connecting the accused with the crime is inconclusive 
- Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond_reasonable 
doubt - Accused entitled to benefit of doubt - Hence o 
acquitted. 
Evidence: 
Circumstantial evidence - In a case of circumstantial 
evidence, judgment remains essentially inferential, drawn 
E 
from the established facts as the circumstances lead to -
Hence, all the circumstances, so established must be 
conclusive, and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt 
of the accused. 
Quality and credibility of evidence - In criminal case -
Suspicion and conjectures vis-a-vis proof - Held: Mere 
suspcision or conjectures cannot take the place of legal proof. 
F 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.313 - Statement 
under - Evidentiary value of - The purpose of the provision 
G 
is to meet the requirement of principles of natural justice audi 
alteram partem - It is not a substantive piece of evidence -
It cannot be a substitute for prosecution evidence - It cannot 
be treated as an evidence within the meaning of s.3 of 
599 
H 
600 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 
A Evidence Act - The statement under the provision cannot be 
made basis for conviction - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.3. 
Appellant-accused was prosecuted for having 
committed rape and murder of a 4 years old girl. Trial 
8 Court convicted him for the offences punishable under 
sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC, relying on the 
circumstances, viz. conduct of the appellant; evidence 
relating to injuries on the person of the deceased; false 
explanation given by the appellant; and evidence relating 
to injuries on the appellant. Appellant was sentenced to 
C life imprisonment. High Court confirmed his conviction 
and sentence. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant inter alia contended 
that depositions of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 are not reliable as 
o there are material contradictions in their statements and 
also they are self contradictory; and that the 
circumstances of the case do not provide complete chain 
required to prove the guilt of the appellant. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The prosecution failed to prove the case 
against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and thus, 
he becomes entitled for benefit of doubt. The conviction 
and sentence imposed on the appellant are set aside. 
F [Para 40] [629-G-H; 630-A] 
2.1. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, 
minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect 
the core of the case of the prosecution, must not prompt 
G the court to reject the evidence thus provided, in its 
entirety. The irrelevant details which do not in any way 
corrode the credibility of a witness, cannot be labeled as 
omissions or contradictions. Therefore, the courts must 
be cautious and very particular, in their exercise of 
H appreciating evidence. The app.roach to be adopted is, if 
RAJ KUMAR SINGH @ RAJU @ BATYA v. STATE OF 601 
RAJA ST HAN 
the evidence of a witness is read in its entirety, and the 
A 
same appears to have in it, a ring of truth, then it may 
become necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence 
more particularly, keeping in mind the deficiencies, 
drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the said 
evidence as a whole, and evaluate them separately, to 
B 
determine whether the same are completely against the 
nature of the evidence provided by the witnesses, and 
whether the validity of such evidence is shaken by virtue 
of such evaluation, rendering it unworthy of belief. 
"Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. c 
But it can be one of the factors to test the credibility of 
the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put 
in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of 
credibility." It is in fact, the entirety of the situation which 
must be taken into consideration. While appreciating the 
0 
evidence, the court must not attach undue importance to 
minor discrepancies, rather must consider broad 
spectrum of the prosecution version. The discrepancies 
may be due to normal errors of perception or observation 

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