STATE OF HARYANA versus JAGBIR SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 165 · Decided: 26-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
STATE OF HARYANA 
A 
v. 
JAG8IR SINGH AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 26, 2003 
(DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Trial: 
Circumstantial Evidence-Appreciation of Evidence-Inference of 
guilt-Held, accused entitled as of right to be acquitted where there is any C 
reasonable doubt regarding his guilt-In the facts, held, evidence 
contradictory and unacceptable~Hence acquittal upheld-Indian Penal 
Code, 1860-Sections 302, 364, 201 and 384. 
Extra-judicial confession-Prosecution case that it was made by D 
accused before many persons-PWs not stating about it-No mention in 
FIR also about it-Effect-In the facts, held, extra judicial confession 
neither voluntary nor believable. 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Power of Court to direct any person 
present in Court to give specimen writings-Accused in custody produced E 
before Magistrate for giving specimen signature for comparison-Case 
still under investigation-No proceedings before Court-Held, pendency 
of proceeding before Court is the sine qua non for exercise of power under 
Section 7 3-Power given for the purpose of enabling Court to compare 
and not for enabling investigating or other agency 'to compare'- F 
Power to take specimen writings not given for anticipated necessity for 
comparison in proceedings to be later instituted in Court. 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Section 27-Whether applicable-
Recovery of dead body on the basis of information already known-Held, 
Section 27 not applicable. 
G 
Prosecution alleged that accused-respondents, J & U, kidnapped 
a 4 years old child for demanding ransom for his release and caused 
his homicidal death. Prosecution case before Trial Court was based on 
circumstantial evidence that ransom note was in handwriting of H 
165 
166 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A accused, J; that accused made ~xtra-judicial confession before PW-10; 
and that dead body was recovered on the basis of 'information given 
by accused while in custody in terms 'or Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 
1872. Trial Court found the circumstantial evidence sufficient and 
. 
.; ,:1 
i"' 
. 
convicted accused, J, under Sections 302, 364, 201 and 384 of the 
B Indian Penal Code, 1860 ,and accused, U, under Section 201. IPC. In 
appeal preferred by the accused persons, High Court acquitted the!". 
Hence, these appeals by the State and the informant. 
Appellants contended that police was adopting a partisan role and 
·. 
, 
,.. 
-
. 
" 
I 
I 
, 
I•-
1 
did not place adequate material, before~Court; that ransom note was 
C erroneously discarded by the High Co~~t as accused had· ad mitt~~ the 
handwriting on it and the handwriting expert's report was available 
to be used against the accused particularly when handwriting was 
given voluntarily for comparison; that extra judicial confession made 
by accused before PW-10 was discarded without any reasonable basis; 
D and that High Court should have relied upon the circumstance that 
. 
·'' 
dead body was recovered from the house of accused on the basis of 
information given while in custody. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
E 
HELD:_ 1. 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 or the guilt of any other person. The circumstances from 
which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to 'be 
F proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely 
connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those 
circumstances. If there be any reasonabie doubt of the guilt of the 
accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted. (171-D-F, 173-C] 
Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors., AIR (1990) SC79; 
G Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1984) SC 1622, 
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR (1977) ~C 1063; Eradu a.nd 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) SC 1224; Ba/winder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1987) SC 350; 
H Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of MP., AIR (1989) sc' 1890; Bhagat 
! 
I 
' 
.. 
ST ATE.'" .IAGBIR SINGH 
167 
Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR (1954) SC 621, C. Chenga Reddy & Ors. A 
v. State of A.P., 119961 10 SCC 193; State of UP. v. As/10k Kumar 
Srivastava, (1992) Crl; L. J. 1104, Hanumant Govind Nargundhar and 
Anr. v. State of Mad
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.