RAJIV SINGH versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANOTHER

Citation: [2015] 12 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 16-12-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 12 S.C.R. 1 
RAJIVSINGH 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR &ANOTHER 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1708 of2015) 
DECEMBER 16, 2015 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.]· 
1 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: ss.3048, 201, 498A - Unnatural 
death of woman - Appellant and his wife 'A' went on c 
honeymoon trip after 4 months of marriage and spent 4-5 
days there -
While travelling on their way back, 'A' 
disappeared from the train - After 3 days, a dead body of a 
woman was found near the railway track of the same train 
route - Body had been lying prostrate due to which the face D 
was not recognizable - The cousin of 'A' surveyed the dead 
body and opined that it was not of 'A' - As per post mortem 
report, the time lag between the death and post mortem 
examination was more than 6 days- Pending investigation, 
mother of 'A' filed complaint against appellant alleging dowry E 
demand- Testimony of co-passengers was to the effect that 
'A' was seen by them to be hale and hearty in the train till 
Katihar much beyond Azamgarh where dead body was found 
- Trial court held the appellant-husband guilty - High Court 
affirmed the same - On appeal, held: There was discrepancy F 
in the wearing apparel of the dead body and that of 'A'. -
Even the parents of 'A' were not convinced that the dead body 
found by the side of the railway track was that of their daughter 
- This was proved by the fact that the mother had filed a writ G 
of habeas corpus which having regard to ongoing 
investigation was dismissed - Viscera of the dead body 
contained poisonous substance, however prosecution failed 
to establish how and when she was administered poison since 
according to the co-passengers she was in a normal state, 
H 
1 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A neither restive nor irritating, pungent or sick - DNA test was 
not carried out in a government laboratory and instead was 
done at a private laboratory in violation of the norms - Thus, 
DNA test report and evidence of the Director of the FSL failed 
to inspire confidence in view of shortcomings and 
l::s 
deficiencies -
Prosecution failed to establish beyond 
reasonable doubt the death of 'A' - The evidence as a whole 
bearing on dowry demand and harassment or ill-treatment 
in connection therewith was also not convincing - Courts 
below failed to examine and evaluate the evidence on record 
C in the right perspective both factual and legal and thus have 
grossly erred in returning a finding of guilt against him on 
the above charges. 
Criminal jurisprudence: It is a well entrenched principle 
D of criminal jurisprudence that a charge can be said to be 
proved only when there is certain and explicit evidence to 
warrant legal conviction and that no person can be held guilty 
on pure moral conviction - Howsoever grave the alleged 
offence may be, and otherwise stirring the conscience of any 
E court, suspicion alone cannot take the place of legal proof -
The well established cannon of criminal justice is "fouler the 
crime higher the proof' - In unmistakable terms, it is the 
mandate of law that the prosecution in order to succeed in a 
F criminal trial, has to prove the charge(s) beyond all 
reasonable doubt. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. If the testimony of co-pas. 
gers PWs 5, 
G 6 and 7 in particular is to be believed, 'A' was with her 
husband, the appellant, in the train till Barauni junction 
which is several stations away from Azamnagar Station 
and distanced by a journey of approximately 6 & 1/2 
hours. Axiomatically therefore, from the consistent 
H evidence of these witnesses, who have not been 
. RAJIV SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 
3 
decl~red hostile by the prosecution, it is very unlikely A 
that the dead body recovered .near Azamnagar station 
could have been, to start with, that of 'A'. 
Even the 
parents of 'A' or any of her family members have not 
claimed that the dead body was of 'A'. Significantly as 
well, the letter addressed by the cousin of 'A' to the B 
Station House Officer, Mokamah G.R.P.S., divulges in 
clear terms that on repeated survey of the dead body, 
he had in clear terms opined that it was not of 'A' and 
had cited as many as nine reasons in support of his 
unqualified conclusion to that effect. He was however C 
not examined by the prosecution for reasons best known 
to it. [Paras 44, 45] [38-C-F, G] 
2. The finding recorded in the post-mortem report 
as to the probable time of death also compounds the D 
mounting difficulties of the prosecution. Apa

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