SATYE SINGH & ANOTHER versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 1137 · Decided: 15-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJIV KHANNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1137
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 1137
1137
SATYE SINGH & ANOTHER
v.
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
(Criminal Appeal No. 2374 of 2014)
FEBRUARY 15, 2022
[SANJIV KHANNA AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 34 and 201 – Homicidal death –
Circumstantial evidence – Dead body of married woman found in
burnt condition in the Chhan (hut) of her husband – Father of the
deceased gave written complaint implicating the husband, mother-
in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased – Accused-appellants i.e.
husband and mother-in-law of the deceased were convicted by the
Sessions Court u/s 302 r/w ss.34 and 201 IPC – High Court upheld
the conviction – Propriety – Held: Conviction can be based solely
on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested on the touchstone
of law relating to the circumstantial evidence that all circumstances
must lead to the conclusion that the accused is the only one who
has committed the crime and none else – In the present case, the
prosecution miserably failed to prove the entire chain of
circumstances which would unerringly conclude that alleged act
was committed by the accused only and none else – The burden
could not be shifted on the accused by pressing into service the
provisions contained in s.106 of the Evidence Act – Trial court and
the High Court committed gross error of law in convicting the accused
for the alleged crime, merely on basis of suspicion, conjectures and
surmises – Accused-appellants accordingly acquitted – Evidence
Act, 1872 – s.106.
Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Appreciation of – Held:
Circumstances howsoever strong cannot take place of proof – Guilt
of the accused has to be proved by the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. On the totality of circumstances and evidence
on record, at the most it could be said from the evidence of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1138
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
parents of the deceased that there was harassment by the accused
to the deceased, though no charge under section 498A IPC was
framed by the trial court against the accused. It could be further
inferred from the evidence on record that the deceased had left
the house on the previous evening of the alleged incident and
that she was not found during the whole night, nonetheless such
circumstance itself could not be said to be sufficient proof to come
to a conclusion that accused had murdered and burnt deceased
as alleged. It is settled position of law that circumstances
howsoever strong cannot take place of proof and that the guilt of
the accused have to be proved by the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt. [Para 11][1144-E-G]
2. Conviction can be based solely on circumstantial
evidence but it should be tested on the touchstone of law relating
to the circumstantial evidence that all circumstances must lead
to the conclusion that the accused is the only one who has
committed the crime and none else. [Para 14][1147-G]
3.1. In the present case, the prosecution had miserably
failed to prove the entire chain of circumstances which would
unerringly conclude that alleged act was committed by the accused
only and none else. Reliance placed on behalf of the State on
Section 106 of the Evidence Act is also misplaced, inasmuch as
Section 106 is not intended to relieve the prosecution from
discharging its duty to prove the guilt of the accused.
[Para 15][1147-H; 1148-A-B]
3.2. The prosecution having failed to prove the basic facts
as alleged against the accused, the burden could not be shifted
on the accused by pressing into service the provisions contained
in section 106 of the Evidence Act. There being no cogent
evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the entire chain
of circumstances which may compel the court to arrive at the
conclusion that the accused only had committed the alleged crime,
the trial court and the High Court had committed gross error of
law in convicting the accused for the alleged crime, merely on
the basis of the suspicion, conjectures and surmises.
[Para 16][1148-F-H]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1139
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Mahashtra 1984
(4) SCC 116: [1985] 1 SCR 88; State of U.P. v. Ashok
Kumar Srivastava (1992) 2 SCC 86: [1992] 1 SCR 37;
Majendran Langeswaran v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
(2013) 7 SCC 192: [2013] 10 SCR 907 and Shambu
Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer, AIR (1956) SC 404:
[1956] SCR 199 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[1985] 1 SCR 88
relied on
Para 11
[1992] 1 SCR 37 
relied on
Para 13
[2013] 10 SCR 907
rel

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