LexSUJIT BISWAS versus STATE OF ASSAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 3 S.C.R. 830 SUJIT BISWAS v. STATE OF ASSAM (Criminal Appeal No. 1323 of 2011) MAY 28, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA. JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s.376(2)(f) and 302 - Rape and murder of minor girl - Circumstantial evidence - Appreciation C of- Standard of proof- Mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' - Held: Suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof-Large difference between something that 'may be' proved, and something that 'will be proved' - Vital distance between mere conjectures and sure conclusions - The court D must draw an inference with respect to whether the chain of circumstances is complete, and when the circumstances therein are collectively considered, the same must lead only to the irresistible conclusion, that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime in question - The instant case is one E of circumstantial evidence, and only two circumstances appeared against the accused-appellant, namely, a) that he had been able to point out the place where the qeceased girl was lying, after his demand for Rs. 201- had been accepted; and b) that subsequently, he had left the said place and F boarded a bus immediately - However, the most material piece of evidence which could have been used against the appellant was that the blood stains found on his underwear matched the blood group of the deceased girl - However, the said circumstance was not put to the appellant while he was G being examined u/s.313 CrPC by the trial court, and in view thereof, the same cannot be taken into consideration - Hence, even by a stretch of the imagination, it cannot be held that the circumstances clearly point towards the guilt of the H 830 SUJIT BISWAS v. STATE OF ASSAM 831 appellant - Burden lies not only on the accused to prove his A innocence, but also upon the prosecution, to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt - In a case of circumstantial evidence, the burden of proof on the prosecution is much greater - Conviction of appellant (as recorded by courts below) set aside - Evidence. B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.313 - Examination of accused person u/s.313 CrPC - Purpose - Held: Is to meet the requirement of'the principles of natural justice, i.e. audi alteram partem - No matter how yveC]k the c evidence of the prosecutiOn may be, it is the duty of the court to examine the accused, and to seek his explanation as regards the incriminating material that has surfaced against him - Circumstances not put to the accused in his examination u/s.313 CrPC, cannot be used against him and D must be excluded from consideration. Evidence - Conduct of the accused - Act of absconding - Effect - Held: Mere abscondance of an accused does not lead to a firm conclusion of his guilty mind - An innocent E man may also abscond in order to evade arrest -In a given situation, such an action may be part of the natural conduct of the accused - Abscondance is in fact relevant evidence, but its evidentiary value depends upon the surrounding circumstances, and hence, the same must only be taken as a minor item in evidence for sustaining conviction. Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 11 - Omission of important facts affecting the probability of the case - Held: Is a relevant factor uls. 11 to judge the veracity of the case of the prosecution. Criminal Trial - Adverse inference against the accused - When drawn - Held: Adverse inference can be drawn against the accused only and only if the incriminating material stands fully established, and the accused is not able to furnish F G H 832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 3 S.C.R. A any explanation for the same - However, the accused has the right to remain silent, as he cannot be forced to become a witness against himself. A three year old minor girl went missing and was B later found gasping, wrapped in a jute-sack (gunny bag), the mouth of which was closed. The girl was taken to a nursing home and then to a medical college where she subsequently died. On p.ost-mortem examination, various injuries were found on her body, including an injury to c her vagina. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had raped and caused the death of the girl. The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 376(2)(f) and 302 IPC 0 sentencing him to death. The High Court commuted the death sentence of the appellant to life imprisonment, with a direction that the appellant would breathe his l
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.