LexSUCHA SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 6 S.C.R. 560 SUCHA SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 1190 of 2007) JUNE 20, 2013 [A.K. PATNAIK AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 & 394 - Conviction under, of the appellant - Propriety - Held: On facts, proper - Evidence C of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-8 and PW-11 sufficient to unfold the prosecution story and prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellant had killed the deceased and committed theft of his mule cart - Appellant made extra-judicial confession to PW- 8 - Motive of the appellant was to take possession of the mule D cart and sell the same and make money - Recoveries of articles pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the appellant clearly point to the guilt of the appellant. Evidence - Witness - Appreciation of- Held: All witnesses E of the prosecution need not be called - But witnesses essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution is based must be called by the prosecution. F Evidence - Confession - Extra-judicial confession - Admissibility of. PW1 found the dead body of PW2's son lying in a pit in the road side. The dead body had multiple injuries. The trial cou'rt held that there was no eye-witness to the incident In which the deceased was killed, but the chain G of circumstances established by the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant killed the deceased and stole his mule cart. These circumstances were thait the appellant had· hired the mule cart of the deceasei:I and the deceased left for the house of the H 560 SUCHA SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 561 appellant as deposed by PW-2. Further, the appellant A made extra-judicial confession to PW-8 that he had killed the deceased. He also made a statement before the police pursuant to which the 'Jlfeapon of offence (Kassi Ex.P~22) and other articles (Exts.P-23 and P-24) were recovered. The Kassi (Ex.P-22), bed-sheet (Ex.P-23) and Khes (Ex.P- B 24) were found to be stained with human blood of the same group of blood, which was detected on the clothes of the deceased (Shirt, Ex.P-2, Jersey, Ex.P-4 and Underwear Ex.P-5) worn by him at the time of the occurrence. On the basis of the aforesaid circumstantial c evidence, the trial court convicted the appellant under S~ctions 302 and 394 IPC, holding that the case of the pr,osecution was a full-proof case, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The conviction and sentence was upheld by the High Court, and D. therefore the instant appeal. In the instant appeal, contentions were raised on behalf of the appellant: 1) that the prosecution die( not examine all the witnesses cited in the charge-sheet; 2) th't the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been E made by the appellant to PW-8 ought not to have been believed; 3) that the disclosure statement made by the appellant to the police was under pressure from the police and there were no independent witnesses to the recovery made pursuant to the statement; 4) that the FIR F was not proved through the policeman who received the FIR; 5) and that the motive of the appellant to kill the deceased was not established by the prosecution. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. All the witnesses of the prosecution need not be called but witnesses who were essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution is based must be called by the prosecution whether the G H 562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 6 S.C.R. A effect of their testimony is for or against the case for the prosecution and failure to examine such a witness might affect a fair trial. However, whether an examination of a particular witness was essential to the unfolding of the prosecuti!on story will depend upon the facts and B circumstances of each case. [Para 6] [568-A-C] 1.2. In the facts of the present case, the witnesses who are essential for unfolding the prosecution case against the appellant have been examined. The evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-8 and PW-11 are sufficient to C unfold the prosecution story against the appellant and prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is the appellant who had kiilled the deceased and committed theft of his mule cart. On the facts of this case, it is difficult to hold that non-examination of other witnesses cited by the D prosecution in the charge-sheet adversely affects the prosecution case or in any way was unfair to the accused. [Para 7] (568-D; 569
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.