LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
βš–οΈ Ask the AI about your situation:πŸš— Car AccidentπŸ’Ό Work / Job🏠 Housing / EvictionπŸ‘ͺ Family / DivorceπŸ“‹ Contract DisputeπŸ’° Money Owed

SUKHPAL SINGH versus NCT OF DELHI

Citation: [2024] 6 S.C.R. 315 · Decided: 07-05-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 315 : 2024 INSC 385
Sukhpal Singh  
v. 
NCT of Delhi
(Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2015)
07 May 2024
[B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Appellant was convicted u/s.302, Penal Code, 1860 for the murder 
of his wife. Courts below whether justified in holding that the 
statement of Complainant-PW-1 recorded in proceedings u/s.299, 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be read as a piece of 
substantive evidence; whether the prosecution could establish the 
links in the chain of incriminating circumstantial evidence. 
Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.299 – Record of evidence 
in absence of accused – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.33 – Appellant 
murdered his wife owing to her suspected infidelity however, 
fled away from the crime scene and remained absconding for 
nearly 10 years – Charge sheet was filed u/s.299 showing him 
to be an absconder – Complainant (PW-1) was examined on 
oath in proceedings u/s.299 where he gave detailed account of 
the sequence of events witnessed by him – However, he could 
not be produced for deposition in the trial which resumed after 
the arrest of the appellant, as he could not be found at the 
address given in the FIR despite all sincere efforts – Statement 
of PW-1 recorded during proceedings u/s.299 was relied upon 
as a piece of incriminating evidence against the appellant, 
apart from other incriminating circumstantial evidences and 
appellant was convicted u/s.302 – Conviction and sentence 
affirmed by High Court – Sustainability: 
Held: s.299 (1) is in two parts, the first part provides for proof 
of jurisdictional fact in respect of abscondence of an accused 
person and the second that there was no immediate prospect of 
arresting him – In the event, an order under the said provision 
is passed, deposition of any witness taken in the absence of an 
accused may be used against him if the deponent is dead or 
incapable of giving evidence or cannot be found or his presence 
316
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
cannot be procured without any amount of delay, expense or 
inconvenience which, under the circumstances of the case, would 
be unreasonable – In the present case, circumstances of motive, 
last seen, confession and abscondence from the crime scene 
after committing the crime etc. were all spoken by the witness 
(PW-1) in his statement recorded on sworn affirmation during the 
proceedings u/s.299 – His statement by itself provides a complete 
chain of circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish the guilt 
of the appellant – Thus, in light of the provisions of s.299 r/w 
s.33 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the trial Court and High Court 
were justified in holding that the statement of PW-1 recorded in 
these proceedings was fit to be read as a piece of substantive 
evidence – Prosecution established a clinching and complete 
chain of incriminating circumstantial evidence pointing exclusively 
towards the guilt of the appellant and totally inconsistent with 
his innocence or the involvement of any other person in the 
crime – Impugned judgments not interfered with. [Paras 31, 36, 
38, 39, 47, 48, 50]
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106 – Burden of proving fact especially 
within knowledge – Appellant failed to offer explanation for 
the homicidal death of his wife in the house during night 
time when only him and deceased were present, leading to 
interference of guilt by virtue of s.106:
Held: The circumstances leading to murder of appellant’s wife 
were in his exclusive knowledge – He offered no explanation 
as to the manner in which she was strangled to death within 
the confines of the room where only he and the deceased were 
present – The bald plea of denial offered by the appellant by way 
of an explanation to this gravely incriminating circumstance is not 
sufficient to absolve him of the burden cast upon him by virtue 
of s.106. [Para 46]
Case Law Cited
Nirmal Singh v. State of Haryana [2000] 2 SCR 807 : 
(2000) 4 SCC 41; Jayendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of 
Maharashtra & Another [2009] 8 SCR 591 : (2009) 7 
SCC 104 – relied on.
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Evidence Act, 1872; Penal 
Code, 1860.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
317
Sukhpal Singh v. NCT of Delhi
List of Keywords
Section 299 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Record of evidence 
in absence of accused; Piece of substantive evidence; Incriminating 
evidence; Links in the chain of incriminating circumstantial evidence; 
Burden of proving fact e

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