STATE OF U.P. versus SUNIL

Citation: [2017] 3 S.C.R. 815 · Decided: 02-05-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017) 3 S.C.R. 815 
STATE OF U.P. 
A 
v . 
. SUNIL 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1432-1434 of 2011) 
MAY02,2017 
B 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 rlw s.34 - Prosecution case was 
that complainants brother-in-law and respondent committed murder 
c 
of her father, mother and two sisters - Confessional statement 
leading to recovery of knife, blood stained clothes and o"ther articles 
from brother-in-law - Involvement of respondent unearthed on the 
basis of such confessional statement - Accused-brother-in-law died 
during the trial - Prosecution case was not only corroborated .by 
medical evidence but also confirmed by FSL report which proved 
presence of human blood on weapon of murder and clothes of both 
D· 
the accused - Since the finger prints and foot prE1ts were not clear. 
the trial court directed both the accused to give fresh foot prints 
and finger prints - On refusal to comply with this order by accused 
for about 5 years, trial court treated it as an adverse inference 
against them - Conviction and death sentence by trial court based E 
on circumstantial evidence - High Court set aside the order of trial 
court holding inter alia that adverse inference cannot be drawn by 
the court on refusal to give specimen palm impression inspite of 
order of the court - On appeal, held: Although any person can be 
directed to give his foot-prints for corroboration of evidence but 
the same cannot be considered as violation of the protection 
guaranteed u!Art.20(3) of the Constitution - However, non-
compliance of such direction of the Court may lead to adverse 
inference - Nevertheless, the same cannot be entertained as the 
F 
sole basis of conviction - Evidence on record showed that the basic 
foundation of the prosecution had crumbled down in this case by 
G 
not connecting the respondent with the incident in question and 
hence the circumstantial evidence became inconsequential - In such 
circumstances, judgment of conviction could not be founded on the 
sole circumstance that recovery of weapon and other articles were 
made - Prosecution miserably failed to connect the occurrence with 
H 
815 
816 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
respondent - High Courts order of acquittal is upheld - Constitution 
of India -Art.20(3) .:... Adverse inference - Evidence - Circumstantial 
evidence. 
· 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Whether compelling an accused to provide his 
B 
fingerprints or footprints etc. would come within the purview of 
Article 20(3) of the Constitution oflndia i.e. compelling an accused 
of an offence to be a "witness" against himself? Albeit any person 
can be directed to give his foot-prints for corroboration of evidence 
but the same cannot be considered as violation of the protection 
c guaranteed under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India. 
However, non-compliance of such direction of the Court may lead 
to adverse inference, nevertheless, the same cannot be 
entertaiu.ed as the sole basis of conviction. In a case where there 
is no direct witness to prove the prosecution case, conviction of 
the accused can be made on the basis of circumstantial evidence 
D provided the chain of the circumstances is complete beyond all 
E 
reasonable doubt. [Paras 8, 12 and 13)(820-G-H; 823-C-E] 
Haroon Haji Abdulla v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 
SC 832 : [1968] 2 SCR 641; State of Bombay v. Kathi 
Kalu Oghad & Ors. [1962) 3 SCR 10; Selvi v. State of 
Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263 : (2010] 5 SCR 381 -
relied on. 
2. A perusal of the evidence on record showed that the basic 
foundation of the prosecution had crumbled down in this case by 
not connecting the respondent with the incident in question. And 
F 
when basic foundation in criminal cases is so collapsed, the 
circumstantial evidence becomes inconsequential. The 
prosecution has miserably failed to connect the occurrence with 
respondent. (Paras 15, 16][824-G; 825-A] 
Prakash v. State of Karnataka (2014) 12 SCC 133; 
G 
Musheer Khan v. State of M.P. (2010) 2 SCC 748 : 
(2010) 2 SCR 119 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
(1968) 2 SCR 641 
relied on 
Para 5 
H 
••• -i 
STATE OF U.P. v. SUNIL 
817 
[1962) 3 SCR 10 
relied on 
Para 9 
(2010) 5 SCR 381 
relied on 
Para 11 
(2014) 12 sec 133 
relied on 
Para 13 
(2010) 2 SCR 119 
relied on 
Para 14 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
Nos.1432-1434of2011. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.05.2008 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Al

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