SURENDRA SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1056 · Decided: 04-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1056                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
SURENDRA SINGH & ANR.
v.
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
(Criminal Appeal No. 1768 of 2010)
DECEMBER 04, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
ss.457, 380 and 302/34 – Prosecution under – Of three
accused – Circumstantial evidence – Conviction of all the three
accused by courts below – Appeal against A-1 abated due to death
of A-1 during pendency of appeal to Supreme Court – Held: All the
circumstances viz. motive, accused last seen, recovery of stolen
articles at the instance of accused and identification of the articles,
discovery of weapon of offence at the instance of accused; recovery
of blood-stained clothes of the accused and discovery of lock and
key of the shop of the deceased at the instance of A-1, were proved
by the prosecution with the aid of oral evidence beyond all
reasonable doubt – It is established by the prosecution that none
else other than the appellants were the persons involved in the crime.
Constitution of India:
Art.136 – Jurisdiction under – Scope of – Held: When two
courts below have appreciated the entire ocular evidence, the
Supreme Court would be very slow in exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction u/Art. 136 to appreciate the evidence afresh, unless the
concurrent findings are wholly perverse or recorded without any
evidence or recorded by misreading or ignoring the material
evidence.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. When the two Courts below in their respective
jurisdiction have appreciated the entire ocular evidence, then
this Court would be very slow in exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution to appreciate
the evidence afresh unless the appellants are able to point out
that the concurrent findings of the two Courts below are wholly
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 1056
1056
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1057
perverse or are recorded without any evidence or are recorded
by misreading or ignoring the material evidence. [Para 30]
[1064-C-E]
Lachman Singh v. State AIR 1952 SC 167 : [1952]
 SCR  839 – referred to.
2.1 The motive was held proved by the two Courts below
with the aid of ocular evidence of PWs 3, 4, 10 and 11 by the
prosecution. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of
these four prosecution witnesses on this issue. Firstly, no
evidence was adduced by the defense; Secondly, no explanation
was given by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. proceedings;
Thirdly, all the four witnesses knew each other including the
accused persons and ‘R’ because all were the residents of one
village and of nearby area. [Paras 34 and 35][1065-A-D]
2.2 The second circumstance is of “appellants last seen”.
This was held proved by the two Courts below with the aid of
ocular evidence of PWs 3, 11 and  13. There is again no reason to
disbelieve the evidence of these three witnesses on this issue.
First, no evidence was adduced by the defense; Second, no
explanation was given by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
proceedings and lastly, this was one of the relevant circumstances
to prove the chain of events which led to commission of the crime.
[Paras 37 and 38][1065-E, F-G]
2.3 The third circumstance is of “recovery of stolen articles
at the instance of accused persons”. This was held proved with
the aid of evidence of PWs 3, 8, and 14.  This was also one of the
relevant circumstances to prove the chain of events, which led
to commission of crime. The reason was that the deceased was
sleeping in his shop where he was found dead and several articles
kept in his shop for sale which were found missing were later
recovered at the instance of the accused persons. Neither any
evidence nor any explanation was given by the accused on
this issue. Therefore, there is no reason to find fault in
this circumstance for reversing the finding on this issue.
[Paras 39, 40 and 41][1065-D-G]
2.4 The fourth circumstance is of “identification of stolen
articles”.  This was held proved with the aid of evidence of PWs
SURENDRA SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1058                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
3 and 8. It was proved that the items recovered at the instance of
the appellants were got tallied with the stolen items with the aid
of these two witnesses.  As there was neither any defense
evidence and nor any explanation given by the appellants under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. proceedings, the two Courts below were
justified in holding the fourt

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