RAVINDER SINGH @ KAKU versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 589 · Decided: 04-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
589
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 589
589
RAVINDER SINGH @ KAKU
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No. 1307 of 2019)
MAY 04, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Penal Code,1860: ss. 302 r/w 120B and 364 – Murder and
kidnapping – Kidnapping and murder of two minor children –
Conviction of the main accused and other co-accused including
the mother of the children and imposed death sentence for offence
punishable u/s. 302 r/w 120B and ten years rigorous imprisonment
for offence punishable u/s. 364 – However, the High Court acquitted
the co-accused and sentenced the main accused to rigorous
imprisonment for 20 years – On appeal, held – When conviction is
based solely on circumstantial evidence, it is imperative that the
chain of circumstances is complete, cogent and coherent in order to
sustain a conviction – Circumstantial evidence against the main
accused does not conclusively establish his guilt in committing the
murder of the children – Motive, last seen theory, the arrest of the
accused, the recovery of material objects and the call details
produced, do not conclusively complete the chain of evidence –
Inconsistencies and contractions are found in the evidences given
against the main accused – Fact that he committed the murder of
the children not established – Thus, the conviction of main accused
solely on circumstantial evidence not possible and is set aside –
Evidence.
Evidence Act, 1872: s. 65B(4) – Certification of electronic
evidence – Requirement of – Held: Oral Evidence in place of such
certificate cannot suffice as s.65B(4) is a mandatory requirement
of the Law.
Evidence: Circumstantial evidence – Conviction on basis of
– When – Held: Inference of guilt can be justified only when all the
incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible
with the innocence of the accused – Circumstances from which an
inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved
beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
590
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those
circumstances.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1.1 In order to sustain a conviction, it is imperative
that the chain of circumstances is complete, cogent and coherent.
Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the
inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating
facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the
innocence of the accused. The circumstances from which an
inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved
beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely
connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those
circumstances. [Para 10][598-E, F-G]
1.2 The circumstantial evidence against the appellant-A2
does not conclusively establish the guilt of A2 in committing the
murder of the deceased children. The last seen theory, the arrest
of the accused, the recovery of material objects and the call details
produced, do not conclusively complete the chain of evidence
and do not establish the fact that A2 committed the murder of the
children of PW5. The submission of the respondent that the call
details produced relating to the phone used by A1 and A2 have
established that they shared an intimate relationship and that this
relationship became the root cause of offence is also cannot be
accepted. [Para 11][599-D-E]
1.3 When a conviction is based solely on circumstantial
evidence, such evidence and the chain of circumstances must be
conclusive enough to sustain a conviction. In the instant case, it
was submitted that conviction of A2 could not just be upheld solely
on the ground that the prosecution has established a motive via
the call records. However, it is held that not only is such
conviction not possible on the present scattered and incoherent
pieces of evidence, but that the prosecution has not even
established the motive of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. In
the instant case, the fact that A1 and A2 talked on call, only proves
that they shared a close relationship. However, what these records
do not prove, is that the murder was somehow in furtherance of
this alleged proximity between A1 and A2. The High Court’s
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
591
inference in this regard was a mere dubious conclusion that was
drawn in absence of any cogent or concrete evidence. The High
Court itself based its inferences on mere probability. Moreover,
the prosecuti

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