LexVIJAYEE SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
VIJA YEE SINGH AND ORS. A v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH _ _c.--- APRIL 20, 1990 [S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, M. FATHIMA BEEVI AND B K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.] • Tndian Evidence Act: Section 105-'Burden of proof-What is r 'fact'-When proved-When 'disproved'-Presumption court is entitled to draw-What is. -'t' c 14 accused were tried for offences under section 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. for the murder of two pe..SOns named Mahendra Singh and Virendra Singh and injuries to 3 others named __.,,,, Vijay Narain Singh, P.W. 1, Uma Shankar Singh, P.W. 2and Kailash Singh. Accused No. 6 Chirkut Singh was further tried under Section 307 l.P.C. for attempting to murder P.W. 1 and all the remaining D accused under section 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. for causing ' injuries to Uma Shankar and Kailash Singh. The trial court relying on the evidence of P. Ws 1 and 2 who were the main eye witnesses con· victed all the 14 accused under section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. and awarded them life imprisonment. The convicted accused -A preferred appeals to the High Court and the State filed appeals for E enhancement of their sentence. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court consisting of Justice Katju and Aggarwal heard the appeals. While Justice Katju allowed the appeals by the accused and dismissed the State appeals, Justice Aggarwal disagreeing with him, dismissed all ~ the appeals, both by the accused and by the State. Consequently the >-- matter was referred to a third judge. Justice Seth who confirmed the F conviction and sentence awarded to accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 6 only and )- acquitted all the rest of the aecused on the view taken by him that the specific overt acts were attributable to only tJtese four accused and the rest should be given the benefit.of doubt. Criminal Appeals Nos. 375-377 of 1987 by special leave were pre- G ' ferred by the convicted accused Nos. 1, 3; 4 and 6 and Criminal Appeals Nos. 372-374 of 1987 preferred by the State against the acquittal of I other accused. Accepting the plea of the accused to the right of self- -,>..__ defence but holding that they bad defmitely exceeded this right when they went to the extent of intentionally shooting the deceased to death and therefore the offence COillillitted was one punishable under section H ,·- 573 574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1990] 2 S.C.R. A 304 Part I I.P.C. and not under Section 302 read with Seeton 149 I.P.C Accordingly in partly allowing the Appeals fded by the convicted accused and dismissing the State appeals, this Court, HELD: A fact is said to be "proved" when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist or considers its B existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. l596G-H] A fact ts said to be 'disproved' when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it does not exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the cir- cumstances. of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it C does not exist. A fact is said to be "not proved" when it is neither "proved" nor "disproved". l596H; 597AJ The maxim that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt is a rule of caution laid down by the Courts of Law in o respect of assessing the evidence in criminal cases. [60IE] Section I 05 places "burden of proof" on the accused in the first part and in the second part there is a presumption which the Court can draw regarding the absence of the circumstances, which presumption is always rebuttable. Taking the section as a whole the "burden of proof'' ,.\-_ E and the presumption have to be considered together. It is exiomatic when the evidence is sufficient as to prove the existence of a fact conclu- sively then no difficulty arises. But where the accused introduces material to displace the presumption which may affect the prosecutio'l.,!'ase or create a reasonable doubt about the existence of one or other ingre- dients of the offence and then it would amount to a case where prosecu- -"'\ F lion failed to prove its own case beyond reasonable doubt. [60IF-G] G The initial obligatory presumption regarding circumstances gets lifted when a plea of exception is raised. More so when there are circumstances on the record, gathered from the prosecut
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.