LexRAVINDER KUMAR versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 3 S.C.R. 767 : 2024 INSC 211 Ravinder Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi (Criminal Appeal No. 918 of 2024) 06 March 2024 [B.R. Gavai* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.] Issue for Consideration 1) Whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict the accused; 2) Whether burden of proof u/s. 106 Evidence Act can be on accused before the prosecution proves its case; 3) Whether recovery pursuant to statement made u/s. 27 Evidence Act can be admissible, when recovery was from a place known to all and not exclusively within knowledge of maker. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Evidence Act, 1872 – ss. 106, 27 – Appellant’s wife found dead with throat slit – Appellant convicted by trial court for offences punishable under ss. 302, 304B/34, 498A/34 IPC – High Court set aside conviction under ss. 304B/34 but sustained under ss. 302, 498A/34 IPC – Prosecution relying on circumstantial evidence to sustain conviction under s. 302 – Courts below found: (i) plea of alibi without substance (ii) bloodstained clothes recovered at Appellant’s parental home (iii) English calendar with Appellant’s name found in the house (iv) Appellant created a scene in the house so as to make it seem like robbery. Held: (1) When prosecution case relies on circumstantial evidence, circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established – Accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ guilty – Facts so established should be consistent only with guilt of accused, not explainable on any another hypothesis – Chain of evidence must be so complete to show beyond reasonable doubt that act was committed by accused – (2) Before burden shifts on accused under s. 106 Evidence Act, prosecution has to establish before death occurred, deceased and accused were seen in the house- more so when accused raises specific plea of alibi – (3) For recovery to be admissible on statement made under S. 27 768 [2024] 3 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Evidence Act, recovery must be from place exclusively within knowledge of maker – In present case, recovery was from place accessible to all [Paras 8, 9, 10 11, 13, 17]. Case Law Cited Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [1985] 1 SCR 88 : (1984) 4 SCC 116 : 1984 INSC 121 – relied on. Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra [2006] Suppl. 7 SCR 156 : (2006) 10 SCC 681 : 2006 INSC 691 – relied on. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Evidence Act, 1872. List of Keywords Principles of Circumstantial evidence; S. 106 Evidence Act; Burden of proof – Alibi; Recovery under S. 27 Evidence Act, when admissible. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 918 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 12.10.2015 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CRLA No.287 of 2015 Appearances for Parties Ms. Neha Kapoor, Kaushal Mehta, Pulkit Srivastava, Ankit Bhutani, Advs. for the Appellant. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Nachiketa Joshi, P V Yogeshvaran, Udai Khanna, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Sachin Sharma, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment B.R. Gavai, J. 1. This appeal arises against the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi on 12th [2024] 3 S.C.R. 769 Ravinder Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi October, 2015 in Criminal Appeal No.287 of 2015, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant herein. 2. The facts in brief leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under: 2.1 Deceased-Meena, daughter of Mani Ram (PW.3) and Gyanwati (PW.6), got married to the appellant-Ravinder Kumar (accused No.1) on 20.06.1999. A male child named Harry was born out of the said wedlock on 26.08.2000. On 27.04.2001, at 0055 hours, a First Information Report (“FIR” for short) bearing No.129/2001 (Ext. PW-9/A) was registered at the instance of deceased-Meena in the Police Station Civil Lines, Delhi for investigation into the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short. ‘IPC’). In the said FIR, deceased-Meena made allegations with regard to cruelty made by her husband-Ravinder Kumar (accused No.1) and his two brothers, namely, Pushpender Singh (accused No.2) and R. Harshinder (accused No.4) during her stay at the matrimonial home at H.No.252, Old Chandrawal, Civil Line, Delhi. In the said FIR, after completion of the investigation a Report unde
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.