ROOP SINGH @ RUPA versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2008] 10 S.C.R. 52 · Decided: 20-06-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 10 S.C.R. 52 
,.., 
A 
ROOP SINGH @ RUPA 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No.1307 of 2005) 
r 
B 
JUNE 20, 2008 
y. 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ] 
EVIDENCE: 
Circumstantial evidence - HELD: Conviction can be based 
c on circumstantial evidence, but it should be tested by the touch-
stone of the law relating to circumstantial evidence - On facts, 
the circumstances highlighted by High Court while upholding 
the conviction of accused do not present a complete chain of 
circumstances to rule out the possibility of any other person being 
I-
I 
D assailant and/or to unerringly point to the accused as being guilty 
\ 
' 
of the offences charged - Conviction u/ss 302134 and 449134 
/PC set aside - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302134 and 449134. 
The appellant alongwith two others was prosecuted 
E for murder of the brother-in-law of PW-7. The deceased 
was found dead in his house. The prosecution case 
rested on circumstantial evidence. The four factors, which 
weighed with the trial court were: (1) presence of left foot 
print of the appellant on the spot of occurrence, (2) finger 
print on the bottle of liquor found near the place of occur-
~ 
F rence matched with right index finger of the appellant, (3) 
extra-judicial confession before PW 2 and (4) evidence of 
PW3 that he saw all the three accused together. The trial 
court convicted all the three accused of the offences pun-
ishable u/ss. 302/34 and 449/34 IPC. On appeal, the High 
G Court did not find the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 as cred-
ible and cogent and acguitted two of the accused. It, how-
>-
ever, held the chain of circumstances as complete so far 
as the appellant was concerned and accordingly upheld 
his conviction. 
H 
--
ROOP SINGH @ RUPA v. THE STATE OF 
53 
PUNJAB 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 There is no doubt that conviction can be 
based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be 
tested by the touch-stone of law relating to circumstan-
tial ev.idence. [para 1 O] [59-E] 
Hanumant Govind· Nargundkar and Anr. V State of 
Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343; and Sharad Birdhichand 
Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622 - relied on. 
A 
8 
1.2 It has been consistently laid down by this Court 
that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evi-
C 
dence, 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 or the guilt 
1 
of any other person. The circumstances from which an in-
ference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be D 
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 5] [57-D-G] 
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 197.7 SC 1063; E 
Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316 ; 
Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka AIR 1983 SC 446 ; State 
of UP v. Sukhbasi and Ors. AIR 1985 SC1224; Ba/winder 
Singh v. State of Punjab AIR1987 SC 350; Ashok Kumar 
r 
Chatterjee v. State of MP AIR 1989 SC 1890; Bhagat Ram v. 
State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621; C. Chenga Reddy and F 
Ors. V State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193; Padala Veera Reddy 
v. State A.P and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 79; and State of UP v. 
Ashok Kumar Srivastava 1992 Crl.LJ 1104 - relied on. 
"Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter VI), by Alfred G 
Wills - referred to. 
1.3. In the instant case, the two circumstances - pres-
ence of left foot print of the appellant on the spot and the 
finger print on the bottle of liquor found near the place of 
occurrence - highlighted by the High Court while uphold-
H 
54 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
ing the conviction of the appellant do not present a com-
plete chain of circumstances to rule out the possibility of 
any other person being the assailant and/o~ to unerringly 
point to the accused appellant as being guilty of the of-
fences charged. There was no evidence led by the pros-
B ecution to show that the prints in question came into ex-
istence at the time the alleged incjdent took place. Convic-
tion as recorded by the High Court cannot be maintained 
and is· set aside. [para 2, 13-14] [56 F; H; 60 G-H; 61 A-B] 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
C NO. 1307 of 2005 
D 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.9.2004 of the High 
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appeal No. 
80-DB/2004 
Rana Ranjit Singh for the Appellant. 
Kuldip
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.