Date of the Judgment: January 04, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 19
Judges: B. R. Gavai, J., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J., Aravind Kumar, J.
Can a conviction be upheld when the prosecution’s case relies heavily on circumstantial evidence that is not fully convincing? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a man accused of poisoning his wife. The court overturned the conviction, citing significant doubts about the reliability of the evidence presented. This judgment highlights the importance of a strong, unbroken chain of evidence in cases relying on circumstantial evidence. The bench was composed of Justices B. R. Gavai, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, and Aravind Kumar, with the judgment authored by Justice Aravind Kumar.
Case Background
The case revolves around the death of Amrik Kaur, who was married to Darshan Singh, the appellant, in 1988. The prosecution alleged that Darshan Singh had an illicit relationship with Rani Kaur, which led to a strained marital relationship. It was further alleged that on the night of May 18-19, 1999, Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur administered poison to Amrik Kaur, causing her death. The marriage was arranged through Melo Kaur (PW-3), the cousin sister of the deceased.
The prosecution’s case was that Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur, motivated by their illicit relationship, conspired to eliminate Amrik Kaur. The prosecution contended that on the intervening night of 18.05.1999 and 19.05.1999, they administered poison, specifically aluminum phosphide, to Amrik Kaur, resulting in her death. The prosecution’s case rested on circumstantial evidence, as there were no direct eyewitnesses to the alleged crime.
Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Trial Court convicted both of them, but the High Court acquitted Rani Kaur, while upholding Darshan Singh’s conviction. The State of Punjab did not challenge Rani Kaur’s acquittal.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1988 | Amrik Kaur married Darshan Singh. |
| Approximately 1996 | Darshan Singh allegedly developed an illicit relationship with Rani Kaur. |
| May 18, 1999, 8:00 PM | Gurmel Singh (PW-4) allegedly saw Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur at Darshan Singh’s house. |
| May 19, 1999, 4:45 AM | Melo Kaur (PW-3) allegedly found Amrik Kaur dead at Darshan Singh’s house. |
| May 19, 1999, 5:30 AM | Gurmel Singh (PW-4) was informed by his wife about the death. |
| May 19, 1999, 6:00 AM | An independent witness (PW-5) allegedly saw Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur leaving in a jeep. |
| July 23, 2009 | High Court of Punjab & Haryana upheld Darshan Singh’s conviction but acquitted Rani Kaur. |
| January 22, 2010 | Supreme Court granted special leave to appeal to Darshan Singh. |
| January 04, 2024 | Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Darshan Singh. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court convicted both Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing them to life imprisonment. The Trial Court concluded that it was a case of homicide and not suicide. They reasoned that Darshan Singh had a strong motive to kill his wife and that both he and Rani Kaur were present at the house on the night of the incident. The Trial Court placed the burden on the accused to explain how Amrik Kaur’s death occurred, given their presence at the scene.
On appeal, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana upheld the conviction of Darshan Singh but acquitted Rani Kaur, citing a lack of sufficient evidence to prove her presence at the scene of the crime. The High Court found that there was no evidence, except the testimony of PW3 and PW4, to prove Rani Kaur’s presence on the night of the incident. The State of Punjab did not challenge Rani Kaur’s acquittal.
Legal Framework
The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with the punishment for murder, and Section 34 of the IPC, which addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. The case also considers Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which states that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Specifically, Section 302 of the IPC states: “Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
Section 34 of the IPC states: “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act states: “Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.—When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.”
Arguments
Arguments on behalf of the Appellant (Darshan Singh):
- Unreliable Witness: The primary witness, Melo Kaur (PW-3), is unreliable due to inconsistencies and improvements in her testimony. Her testimony regarding the appellant’s presence at the crime scene should be disregarded. The appellant argued that it is unsafe to rely on the uncorroborated testimony of PW-3, and if her testimony is ignored, there is no other evidence to establish the appellant’s presence at the spot of crime.
- Aluminum Phosphide: The nature of aluminum phosphide makes it difficult to administer deceitfully due to its pungent smell. Since no injury marks were found on the deceased, it is likely a case of suicide, not homicide. The appellant argued that the deceased, Amrik Kaur, committed suicide due to embarrassment after being confronted by her sister, Melo Kaur, regarding her alleged illicit affair with Melo Kaur’s husband.
- Defense Evidence: The lower courts did not give sufficient weight to the defense evidence, particularly the testimony of DW3 and DW4.
- Benefit of Doubt: Since Rani Kaur was acquitted by the High Court by extending the benefit of doubt, the same benefit should have been extended to the appellant, as the prosecution’s case was that both were present at the scene of the crime.
Arguments on behalf of the Respondent (State of Punjab):
- Reliable Witness: Melo Kaur (PW-3), being an illiterate witness, is prone to minor inconsistencies. The Trial Court correctly appreciated her testimony by separating the corroborated parts from the uncorroborated parts. The State contended that minor inconsistencies are expected from an illiterate witness and that the Trial Court had rightly appreciated her testimony by excluding uncorroborated parts.
- Presence of the Accused: The accused himself admitted his presence at the scene of the crime in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This, along with the testimony of PW3, PW4, and PW5, is sufficient to prove the presence of the accused at the spot of crime.
- Circumstantial Evidence: The prosecution has cogently and convincingly proven the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is drawn. These circumstances include motive, presence at the scene of the crime, cause of death by poisoning, opportunity to administer poison, conduct, and false explanation in the Section 313 statement.
- Burden of Proof: The appellant was under a burden to explain the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased, as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The State relied on the principle laid down in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, arguing that the degree of evidence needed in cases resting on circumstantial evidence within a private space is comparatively lighter.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellant) | Sub-Submissions (State) |
|---|---|---|
| Reliability of Melo Kaur (PW-3) | ✓ PW-3 is unreliable due to inconsistencies and improvements in her testimony. ✓ Her testimony should be disregarded as it is uncorroborated. |
✓ PW-3 is an illiterate witness; minor inconsistencies are expected. ✓ Trial Court correctly separated the corroborated parts from the uncorroborated parts of her testimony. |
| Nature of Death | ✓ Aluminum phosphide has a pungent smell, making deceitful administration unlikely. ✓ No injury marks on the deceased suggest suicide, not homicide. |
✓ The cause of death was poisoning, as confirmed by the doctor’s opinion and the chemical examiner’s report. |
| Presence at the Scene | ✓ If PW-3’s testimony is ignored, there is no evidence to establish the appellant’s presence. | ✓ The appellant admitted his presence in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. ✓ Testimony of PW3, PW4, and PW5 also prove the appellant’s presence. |
| Burden of Proof | ✓ The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. | ✓ Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the appellant was under a burden to explain the circumstances of the death. |
| Benefit of Doubt | ✓ Since Rani Kaur was acquitted, the same benefit should be extended to the appellant. | ✓ The prosecution has proven the circumstances from which an inference of guilt can be drawn. |
Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument regarding the nature of aluminum phosphide and its implications for the manner of administration was innovative. The appellant argued that the pungent smell of aluminum phosphide would make it difficult to administer deceitfully, suggesting that the death was more likely a suicide than a homicide. This argument was based on expert opinions and research papers, adding a scientific dimension to the defense.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt the entire chain of circumstances, not leaving any link missing for the appellant to escape from the clutches of law.
- Whether the presence of the appellant and Rani Kaur in the appellant’s house on the intervening night of 18.05.99 and 19.05.99, has been firmly and cogently established.
- Whether the High Court was correct in extending the benefit of doubt to Rani Kaur, while not extending the same benefit to the appellant.
- Whether the Trial Court was correct in disbelieving the theory of suicide sought to be advanced on behalf of the appellant.
The court also considered the sub-issue as to whether the standard of proof expected to prove a case based on circumstantial evidence is lesser than other cases of circumstantial evidence, when the offence is said to have taken place in the privacy of a house.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt the entire chain of circumstances? | The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the entire chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the circumstances relied on by the prosecution were not cogently and firmly established. |
| Whether the presence of the appellant and Rani Kaur in the appellant’s house on the intervening night of 18.05.99 and 19.05.99, has been firmly and cogently established? | The Court held that the presence of the appellant and Rani Kaur in the appellant’s house on the night of the incident was not firmly and cogently established. The court noted that there were several omissions and improvements in the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-4, which dented their credibility. |
| Whether the High Court was correct in extending the benefit of doubt to Rani Kaur, while not extending the same benefit to the appellant? | The Court found the High Court’s distinction between the appellant and Rani Kaur to be perverse. If the evidence was insufficient to prove Rani Kaur’s presence, it could not be relied upon to prove the appellant’s presence. The court noted that the State did not challenge the acquittal of Rani Kaur. |
| Whether the Trial Court was correct in disbelieving the theory of suicide sought to be advanced on behalf of the appellant? | The Court held that the Trial Court’s reasoning for disbelieving the theory of suicide was flawed. The court noted that the appellant had raised a doubt regarding his defense that the deceased had committed suicide. The court reasoned that the circumstances did not exclude the possibility of suicide. |
| Whether the standard of proof expected to prove a case based on circumstantial evidence is lesser than other cases of circumstantial evidence, when the offence is said to have taken place in the privacy of a house? | The Court, while acknowledging the principle laid down in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, held that the standard of proof is lesser in cases of circumstantial evidence within a private space, but the prosecution still needs to prove the circumstances cogently and firmly. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | Legal Point | How the Authority was used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 | Supreme Court of India | Principles of circumstantial evidence | The court referred to this case to reiterate the principles that govern cases based on circumstantial evidence. It emphasized that the circumstances must be cogently and firmly established and should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. |
| Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 | Supreme Court of India | Lesser standard of proof in cases of offences within a house | The court discussed the principle that when an offense occurs within the privacy of a house, the standard of proof for circumstantial evidence is lesser, and the burden shifts to the inmates to provide an explanation. |
| Jaipal v. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 169 | Supreme Court of India | Nature of aluminum phosphide poisoning | The court relied on this case to understand the characteristics of aluminum phosphide poisoning, noting its pungent smell and the symptoms it causes. This was used to assess the possibility of the poison being administered forcefully or deceitfully. |
| Rohtash v. State of Haryana, (2012) 6 SCC 589 | Supreme Court of India | Omissions in statements under Section 161 CrPC | The court referred to this case to emphasize that if a witness fails to mention a fact in their statement under Section 161 CrPC, their subsequent statement in court regarding that fact cannot be relied upon. |
| Sunil Kumar Shambhu Dayal Gupta v. State of Maharashtra, 2011 (72) ACC 699 (SC) | Supreme Court of India | Omissions in statements under Section 161 CrPC | The court cited this case to reinforce the principle that if a witness omits a fact in their statement to the police, that fact cannot be considered in court. |
| Rudrappa Ramappa Jainpur v. State of Karnataka, (2004) 7 SCC 422 | Supreme Court of India | Omissions in statements under Section 161 CrPC | The court mentioned this case to support the argument that if a witness fails to mention a fact in their statement under Section 161 CrPC, that fact cannot be used against the accused. |
| Vimal Suresh Kamble v. Chaluverapinake, (2003) 3 SCC 175 | Supreme Court of India | Omissions in statements under Section 161 CrPC | The court used this case to further emphasize that if a witness omits a fact in their statement to the police, that fact cannot be used against the accused. |
| State of U.P. v. Chhoteylal, AIR 2011 SC 697 | Supreme Court of India | Appreciation of evidence of illiterate witnesses | The court referred to this case to highlight that the evidence of an illiterate witness should not be disregarded due to minor contradictions or inconsistencies. |
| Dimple Gupta (minor) v. Rajiv Gupta, AIR 2008 SC 239 | Supreme Court of India | Appreciation of evidence of illiterate witnesses | The court used this case to support that the evidence of a rustic/illiterate witness must not be disregarded if there were to be certain minor contradictions or inconsistencies in the deposition. |
| Sidhartha Vashisht v. State of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2010 SC 2352 | Supreme Court of India | Statement under Section 313 CrPC is not evidence | The court stated that the statement of an accused under Section 313 CrPC is not evidence as it is not on oath and the prosecution does not have the opportunity to cross-examine the accused. |
| Periasami v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1996) 6 SCC 457 | Supreme Court of India | Effect of not taking a specific plea under Section 313 CrPC | The court cited this case to state that the mere omission to take a specific plea by the accused when examined under Section 313 CrPC is not enough to deny him his right if the same can be made out otherwise. |
| Pramila vs State of Uttar Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 711 | Supreme Court of India | Standard of proof for defense under Section 313 CrPC | The court referred to this case to state that the standard of proof to be met by an accused in support of the defense taken by him under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not beyond all reasonable doubt. |
| Bhimsingh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2015) 4 SCC 281 | Supreme Court of India | Principles of circumstantial evidence | The court cited this case to reiterate that when a conviction is based solely on circumstantial evidence, there should not be any snap in the chain of circumstances, and if there is a snap, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission: PW-3 is an unreliable witness due to inconsistencies. | The Court agreed that PW-3’s testimony had significant omissions and improvements, which dented her credibility. |
| Appellant’s submission: Aluminum phosphide’s nature suggests suicide, not homicide. | The Court found merit in this argument, noting the pungent smell and lack of injury marks, raising doubts about forceful administration. |
| Appellant’s submission: The lower courts did not give sufficient weight to the defense evidence. | The Court agreed that the lower courts had not properly considered the defense evidence and the possibility of suicide. |
| Appellant’s submission: The benefit of doubt should be extended to the appellant as it was to Rani Kaur. | The Court found the High Court’s distinction between the appellant and Rani Kaur perverse and agreed that the benefit of doubt should have been extended to the appellant as well. |
| State’s submission: PW-3 is a reliable witness, minor inconsistencies are expected. | The Court disagreed, noting that the inconsistencies and omissions were significant and could not be overlooked as mere minor issues. |
| State’s submission: The appellant admitted his presence at the scene of crime under Section 313 CrPC. | The Court clarified that a statement under Section 313 CrPC is not evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction. |
| State’s submission: The prosecution has proven the circumstances from which an inference of guilt can be drawn. | The Court disagreed, finding that the circumstances were not cogently and firmly established and that there was a possibility of suicide. |
| State’s submission: The appellant was under a burden to explain the circumstances of the death as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act. | The Court acknowledged this principle but noted that the prosecution still needed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant’s explanation had raised a doubt. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra*: The court used this case to reiterate the fundamental principles of circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the need for a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances.
- Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra*: The court acknowledged the principle of a lesser standard of proof in cases of offenses within a private space but clarified that the prosecution still needs to establish the circumstances cogently and firmly.
- Jaipal v. State of Haryana*: The court relied on this case to understand the characteristics of aluminum phosphide poisoning, which supported the defense’s argument that the death was more likely a suicide.
- Rohtash v. State of Haryana*, Sunil Kumar Shambhu Dayal Gupta v. State of Maharashtra*, Rudrappa Ramappa Jainpur v. State of Karnataka*, Vimal Suresh Kamble v. Chaluverapinake*: These cases were cited to underscore that if a witness fails to mention a fact in their statement under Section 161 CrPC, that fact cannot be relied upon in court.
- State of U.P. v. Chhoteylal* and Dimple Gupta (minor) v. Rajiv Gupta*: The court used these cases to clarify that while minor contradictions can be overlooked in the testimony of illiterate witnesses, significant omissions and improvements cannot be ignored.
- Sidhartha Vashisht v. State of NCT of Delhi*: The court cited this case to emphasize that a statement under Section 313 CrPC is not evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction.
- Periasami v. State of Tamil Nadu*: This case was used to support that the mere omission to take a specific plea by the accused when examined under Section 313 CrPC is not enough to deny him his right if the same can be made out otherwise.
- Pramila vs State of Uttar Pradesh*: The court relied on this case to state that the standard of proof to be met by an accused in support of the defense taken by him under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not beyond all reasonable doubt.
- Bhimsingh v. State of Uttarakhand*: The court cited this case to reiterate that when a conviction is based solely on circumstantial evidence, there should not be any snap in the chain of circumstances, and if there is a snap, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- Weak Circumstantial Evidence: The court found that the prosecution’s case rested on weak circumstantial evidence. The key witnesses, PW-3 and PW-4, had significant omissions and improvements in their testimonies, which cast doubt on their credibility.
- Doubtful Presence of the Accused: The court noted that the prosecution failed to firmly establish the presence of the appellant and Rani Kaur at the scene of the crime on the night of the incident. The High Court’s acquittal of Rani Kaur further weakened the prosecution’s case against the appellant.
- Possibility of Suicide: The court acknowledged the possibility of suicide, given the nature of aluminum phosphide and the lack of injury marks on the deceased. This raised doubts about the prosecution’s theory of homicide.
- Benefit of Doubt: The court emphasized that the benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused if the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The High Court’s inconsistent treatment of the appellant and Rani Kaur was considered perverse.
- Standard of Proof: While acknowledging the principle laid down in *Trimukh Maroti Kirkan*, the court clarified that even in cases of circumstantial evidence within a private space, the prosecution must still prove the circumstances cogently and firmly.
Final Order
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court, thereby acquitting Darshan Singh. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the circumstances did not exclude the possibility of suicide. The court emphasized that the conviction could not be sustained based on weak circumstantial evidence and unreliable testimony.
Flowchart of the Case
Trial Court
Convicts Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur
High Court of Punjab & Haryana
Acquits Rani Kaur, upholds Darshan Singh’s conviction
Supreme Court of India
Overturns Darshan Singh’s conviction, acquits him
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in *Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab* underscores the importance of a strong and unbroken chain of evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused if the evidence is not convincing. This case serves as a reminder that convictions cannot be sustained based on weak or unreliable evidence, and the possibility of other explanations, such as suicide, must be considered.