LexVIKRAMJLT SINGH@ VICKY versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
VIKRAMllT SINGH@ VICKY v. STA TE OF PUNJAB NOVEMBER 24, 2006 [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860--Prosecution case that husband murdered wife- Imposition of death sentence-Upheld by High Court-Correctness of-Held: A B Circumstances referred to by High Court did not form links in the chain- C It did not point out to the guilt of the accused-Also, circumstances which as per the prosecution led to the proof of guilt against accused were not put to accused in his examination under section 313 Cr.P. C.-Thus, order of courts below cannot be accepted-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 313. Criminal Law: Two views-Possibility, effect-Held: If.two views appear to be probable, one contended by accused should be accepted-On facts, 'courts below weighed the probability of two views and opined that accused not been able D to prove its case, prosecut~on case should be accepted, is not correct and E thus, set aside-Criminal jurisprudence. Suspicion, that in all probabilities accused guilty-Effect-Held: Suspicion, however, grave cannot be a substitute for proof-It would lead to only conclusion, ihat prosecution unable to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. F According to the prosecution case, M-wife was married to appellant- husband. On the fateful day M left her parents' house in appellant's car. It is alleged that she was wearing all her jewellery. After few hours, a Press Reporter received a call that the car in which the parties were travelling had met with an accident and both of them were lying in an injured condition. On G receiving the information, mother of M along with others reached ·the place of occurrence and found the car standing at an open place and also saw the b~\()ngings of appellant and M lying there. Both appellant and M were hospitalized. M died having suffered multiple stab injuries. Mother of M lodged 3~ H 376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 9 S.C.R. A FIR alleging that the appellant had murdered M since he had illicit relations with some other girl. Appellant received few superficial injuries. A knife was recovered pursuant to confession made by the appellant Some ornaments were also recovered from the scooter of A. The statement of the appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. Prosecution examined witnesses. Mother B of the deceased turned hostile. Other material witnesses also did not support the prosecution case at all. However, the Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty and imposed death penalty. High Court upheld the order. Hence the present appeal. c Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. It is beyond any cavil that where two views of a _story appear to be probable, the one that was contended by the accused should be accepted. In the instant case, there are two versions. Sessions Judge proceeded to weigh the probability of both of them and opined that the appellant having not been able to prove its case, the prosecution case should be accepted. The approach D of Sessions Judge was not correct. High Court erred in affirming the findings. Therefore, the view of the courts below cannot be accepted. (384-D-E) K. Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1979)1 SCC 355; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984] 4 SCC 116; Tota Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, AIR (1987) SC 1083; Divakar Neelkantha Hegde E and Ors. v. The State of Karnataka, JT (1996) 7 SC 63; State of Orissa v. Babaji Charan Mohanty and Anr., (2003) 10 SCC 57 and Hem Raj and Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2005) 10 SCC 614, relied on. 1.2. Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not relieve the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Only when the prosecution case F has been proved the burden in regard to such facts which was within the special knowledge of the accused may be shifted to the accused for explaining the same. There are certain exceptions to the said rule, e.g., where burden of proof may be imposed up on the accused by reason of a statute. (384-F-H! G 1.3 ln a situation of this nature where the court legitimately may raise a strong suspicion that in all probabilities the accused was guilty of commission of heinous offence but applying the principle of law that suspicion, however, grave may be, cannot be a substitute for proof, the same would lead to the only conclusion, that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond al reasonable doubt. [385-A-B) H 'I! VIKRAMJI
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.