Supreme Court reportable case: Darshan Singh v State of Punjab ([2024] 1 S.C.R. 248 : 2024 INSC 19) 4th Jan,2024

Published On - May 5, 2024

spatraadmin Supreme Court Reportable Cases

1 Judgement synopsis

Facts :

  1. The deceased, Amrik Kaur, was married to the appellant, Darshan Singh.
  2. The prosecution alleged that Darshan Singh had an illicit relationship with Rani Kaur (A2) for about three years.
  3. On the intervening night of 18.05.1999 and 19.05.1999, Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur allegedly administered poison to Amrik Kaur, causing her death.
  4. The prosecution’s case rested on circumstantial evidence.
  5. The key witnesses were PW-3 (Melo Kaur, the deceased’s cousin’s sister) and PW-4 (Gurmel Singh, PW-3’s husband).
  6. PW-3 claimed to have seen Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur leaving the appellant’s house on the morning of 19.05.1999.
  7. PW-4 claimed to have seen Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur entering the appellant’s house on the evening of 18.05.1999.
  8. PW-5, an independent witness, claimed to have seen Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur leaving in a jeep on the morning of 19.05.1999.
  9. The appellant claimed that Amrik Kaur had committed suicide by consuming poison.
  10. The Trial Court convicted both Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur under Section 302/34 IPC.
  11. The High Court upheld Darshan Singh’s conviction but acquitted Rani Kaur.
  12. The State did not challenge Rani Kaur’s acquittal.
  13. The cause of death was aluminium phosphide poisoning, as per the chemical examiner’s report.
  14. The appellant argued that aluminium phosphide has a pungent smell and cannot be administered deceitfully.
  15. There were no injury marks on the deceased’s body, suggesting no forceful administration of poison.

Law Points :

  1. In cases of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be cogently and firmly established, forming a complete chain unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
  2. The circumstances should be inconsistent with any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused.
  3. Minor contradictions or inconsistencies in the testimony of a rustic/illiterate witness should not lead to discarding their evidence entirely.
  4. However, significant omissions and improvements in the testimony of a witness cannot be ignored, even if the witness is rustic/illiterate.
  5. If a witness does not mention a fact in their statement under Section 161 CrPC, their subsequent statement regarding that fact during trial cannot be relied upon.
  6. The statement of an accused under Section 313 CrPC is not ‘evidence’ and cannot form the sole basis of conviction.
  7. The accused has only to create a doubt, and the prosecution must then establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
  8. Mere omission to take a specific plea by the accused under Section 313 CrPC does not denude them of their right if the same can be made out otherwise.
  9. In cases of circumstantial evidence, if a single circumstance is not cogently proved, it can cause a snap in the chain of circumstances, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt.
  10. If some circumstances in the chain can be explained by another reasonable hypothesis, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
  11. In cases where the offence is committed inside a house, the burden on the prosecution is comparatively lighter, and the inmates have a corresponding burden to offer a cogent explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
  12. If an accused offers a false explanation or remains silent, it can become an additional link in the chain of circumstances.
  13. The standard of proof for an accused in support of their defence under Section 313 CrPC is not beyond reasonable doubt.
  14. When multiple accused are tried together, and one is acquitted, the evidence against the other accused must be scrutinized independently.
  15. If the evidence against one accused is found to be insufficient, the same evidence cannot be relied upon against the other accused.

Judgement :

  1. The Supreme Court found that the presence of Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur in the appellant’s house on the intervening night of 18.05.1999 and 19.05.1999 was not firmly and cogently established.
  2. There were several omissions and improvements in the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4, which seriously dented their credibility.
  3. The Court found that the prosecution had not proved the circumstance of presence beyond reasonable doubt.
  4. The Court held that there was a strong hypothesis that the deceased had committed suicide, which explanation was led by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, and it was sufficient to create doubt.
  5. The Court found it perverse that the High Court had distinguished the case of the appellant from that of Rani Kaur, who was acquitted, despite relying on the same evidence to prove their presence.
  6. As the presence was not proved cogently, the Court held that it caused a snap in the chain of circumstances, entitling the appellant to the benefit of doubt.
  7. The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the concurrent findings of conviction against the appellant.
  8. The Court did not consider the other circumstances sought to be proved by the prosecution, as the failure to prove a single circumstance cogently can cause a snap in the chain of circumstances.
  9. The Court held that when the conviction is based solely on circumstantial evidence, there should not be any snap in the chain of circumstances.
  10. If there is a snap in the chain, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
  1. https://digiscr.sci.gov.in/pdf_viewer?dir=YWRtaW4vanVkZ2VtZW50X2ZpbGUvanVkZ2VtZW50X3BkZi8yMDI0L3ZvbHVtZSAxL1BhcnQgSS8yMDI0XzFfMjQ4LTI2Nl8xNzA1NDg5NTM5LnBkZg== ↩︎