Brief Facts
- Amrik Kaur was married to Darshan Singh, the Appellant. The Prosecution claimed that the couple’s relationship was troubled due to Darshan Singh’s illicit affair with Rani Kaur. Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur allegedly administered poison to Amrik Kaur on intervening night of 18.05.1999 and 19.05.1999. It was the case of the Prosecution that both the accused persons were present in the house along with the deceased and on the same night the deceased died due to consumption of aluminum phosphide, though there were no physical injuries on the body of deceased. There was no eyewitness to the incident and case of the Prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence.
- Both were convicted under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC for her murder.
- While the High Court affirmed the conviction of Darshan Singh, it acquitted Rani of all charges. Thus, this appeal before the Supreme Court was preferred by Appellant Darshan Singh.
Issues
- Whether cases based on circumstantial evidence require a distinct approach?
- Whether a statement recorded u/s. 313 CrPC can form the basis of conviction?
- Relevancy, reliability and significance of the fact narrated by the witness for the first time during his statements during the trial but not stated in the statements recorded before the Investigation Agency under section 161 of the CrPC.
Observations by the Court
- The Apex Court quashed the concurrent findings of the High Court and the Trial Court and acquitted the Appellant. The Apex Court opined that:
a) Testimony of the PW-3 and PW-4 was not found to be reliable due to serious dent on their credibility arising from their deposition during the cross examination. PW-5 was found to be a chance witness.
b) Review of medical literature shows that Aluminum Phosphide has pungent garlic-like odor, which cannot go unmissed and thus, it is not conducive for deceitful administration. Forceful administration of this substance also seems doubtful since there are no injury marks suggestive of a scuffle. In light of the evidence on record, even assuming for a moment that the Appellant and Rani Kaur were present, it still cannot be said with certainty that it was a case of homicide and not suicide.
c) State has not challenged the order of acquittal of Rani Kaur. The State cannot on the one hand accept the verdict of the Court that the presence of Rani Kaur along with the appellant is doubtful and at the same time, maintain its case that the two of them were jointly present, committed the offence together and escaped together.
d) State cannot rely on the statement under 313 CrPC to prove the guilt of the Appellant.
e) In cases based on circumstantial evidence there cannot be a gap in the chain of circumstances, else the benefit of doubt will be given to the accused.
Relevancy of statement under section 313 CrPC
- It is too well settled that the statement of an accused under Section 313 CrPC is no ‘evidence’ because, firstly, it is not on oath and, secondly, the other party i.e. the prosecution does not get an opportunity to cross examine the accused.
- It is trite law that the statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC cannot form the sole basis of conviction. Therefore, the presence of the appellant cannot be found solely based on his statement, notwithstanding the lack of independent evidence led by the prosecution… mere omission to take a specific plea by accused when examined u/s 313 CrPC, is not enough to denude him of his right if the same can be made out otherwise.
Relevancy of the facts stated for the first time during the trial
- If the PWs had failed to mention in their statements u/s 161 CrPC about the involvement of an accused, their subsequent statement before court during trial regarding involvement of that particular accused cannot be relied upon. Prosecution cannot seek to prove a fact during trial through a witness which such witness had not stated to police during investigation. The evidence of that witness regarding the said improved fact is of no significance.
Relevant Paragraph
- 30, 31, 32, 33, 35