RAJBIR SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2022] 11 S.C.R. 80 · Decided: 24-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
80
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 11 S.C.R.
 RAJBIR SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No. 2152 of 2010)
AUGUST 24, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Death by poisoning alleged –
Circumstantial evidence – As per the prosecution, PW-1-informant’s
wife died after consuming the milk brought from the appellant,
residing in the neighbourhood and carrying on the business of dairy
farm and selling milk – Appellant convicted u/s.302 – On appeal,
held: In the present case, chain of evidence has many missing and
weak links – None of the essential ingredients to record conviction
in a case of circumstantial evidence and that of poisoning case are
made out – Prosecution has not established the charge beyond
reasonable doubt so as to record conviction u/s.302 – It has failed
to bring home the guilt – Both the courts below committed error in
recording conviction – Appellant extended benefit of doubt –
Judgments of the High Court and the Trial Court set aside –
Appellant acquitted.
Criminal Law – Case of poisoning – Circumstantial evidence
– Principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of
Maharashtra reported as Held: In a case of circumstantial evidence,
the five golden principles as laid down by this Court in Sharad
Birdhichand case have remained unaltered and are still followed –
With respect to the case of poisoning, four important circumstances
for recording a conviction were further laid down – These principles
have also remained unaltered.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1 This is a murder case of circumstantial evidence
by poisoning. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the five golden
principles as laid down by this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda
vs. State of Maharashtra have remained unaltered and are still
followed. One of the issues to be considered in the present case
would be as to whether the chain of evidence was so complete so
[2022] 11 S.C.R. 80
80
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
81
as not to leave any reasonable ground that there could be any
other hypothesis except the one put forward by the prosecution.
With respect to the case of poisoning, this Court in the case of
Sharad Birdichand Sarda further laid down four important
circumstances for recording a conviction. The principles laid down
in the case of Sharad Birdichand Sarda have remained unaltered
and even as recently as 11.08.2022 this Court in Criminal Appeal
No.25 of 2012, Ram Niwas vs. State of Haryana, has relied upon
the same with approval. It is also well settled that suspicion,
howsoever strong it may be, cannot replace proof beyond
reasonable doubt. [Paras 35, 37-39][95-G-H; 97-E-F; 98-B]
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
(1984) 4 SCC 116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88; Ram Niwas v.
State of Haryana Decision of Supreme Court dtd.
11.08.2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2012 – relied
on.
1.2 The motive set up by the prosecution that appellant
had taken a loan of Rs. 1 lakh and had executed a pronote as well
as receipt is denied by the appellant. In his statement under
section 313 CrPC, there is specific denial of borrowing any money
and also executing of pronote. The defence set up in the cross-
examination of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7 as also the statement under
section 313 of CrPC was that the informant was carrying on a
business of Committees of which the appellant was a member
and there was an amount due from the informant to the appellant.
Running of business of Committees by the informant; there being
defaulters; there being financial loss is admitted. According to
the appellant, amount was due to him from the informant and that
he had been falsely implicated to deprive him from recovering
the same from the informant. A case of false implication, therefore,
cannot be ruled out. Reliance placed upon the pronote and the
receipt is also not proved in as much as the original was not
produced, rather a false plea was raised that it was filed before
the Civil Court, which stands belied by the Ex-D/1 filed by the
appellant, and secondly, no attesting witness was produced by
the prosecution. [Para 41, 42][98-D-F]
 RAJBIR SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
82
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 11 S.C.R.
1.3 The next question which arises for consideration is as
to whether mixing of the poisonous compound in the milk was
done by the appellant or it could have been done by someone
else, and for the same there are two windows. First, the time
between the collection of milk from the appellan

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