Prosecution Can't Seek To Prove In Trial A Fact Which Witness Hasn't Told Police During Investigation : Supreme Court

“According to us, if the evidence of PW 3 and PW 4 was not sufficient to prove presence of Rani Kaur at the appellant's house, as a natural corollary, such evidence cannot be relied on to conclude that the appellant was present in the house.The manner in which the High Court has sought to distinguish the case of the appellant from Rani Kaur is perverse and does not seem to impress us.” 

Brief Factual Background 

As per the prosecution case, the deceased, Amrik Kaur, was married to Darshan Singh (appellant). However, their marital relationship was strained as Darshan Singh had developed an illicit partnership with one Rani Kaur. The illicit relationship between Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur is said to have lasted for at least three years. Prosecution alleged that on the intervening night of 18.05.1999 and 19.05.1999, Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur, with the motive of eliminating the deceased, administered poison and intentionally caused the death of Amrik Kaur.

Consequently, Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur were convicted by the Trial Court for the murder of the deceased. While the High Court affirmed the conviction of Singh, it acquitted Rani of all charges. Thus, Singh preferred the instant appeal.

Court's Observations

At the outset, the Court observed that there was no eye-witness to the incident, and the prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence. Thus, the Court observed that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established. The Court scrutinized the most important circumstance of the appellant and Rani Kaur having been present in the appellant's house on an intervening night. 

Thereafter, the Court relied on Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra. Therein, the Court has pointed out two important consequences that play out when an offence is said to have taken place in the privacy of a house.

Firstly, was that in such cases, the burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. Secondly, the appellant would be under a duty to explain the circumstances that led to the death of the deceased. If he remains quiet or offers a false explanation, such a response would become an additional link in the chain of circumstances., the Court explained.

The Court also examined the testimonies given by the prosecution witnesses. The Court doubted the testimonies of the two witnesses, given that there were several omissions in the cross-examination of these witnesses. It may be noted that these two witnesses were the deceased sister and the sister's husband.

Moving on to the testimony given by an independent witness, the Court noted that he had omitted to provide a statement before the police. Based on that, Court opined that if witnesses had failed to mention in their statements, under Section 161 of the CrPC, about the involvement of an accused, their subsequent statement before the court during the trial regarding the involvement of that particular accused could not be relied upon.

Additionally, the Court noted that the appellant had raised a doubt as regards his defence that the deceased had committed suicide and added:

“This Court has held that the standard of proof to be met by an accused in support of the defence taken by him under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure is not beyond all reasonable doubt, as such, a burden lies on the prosecution to prove the charge. The accused has merely to create a doubt and it is for the prosecution then to establish beyond reasonable doubt that no benefit can flow from the same to the accused.” 

In view of this, the Court found that the circumstance of the appellant and Rani Kaur being present in the house has not been convincingly proved beyond doubt. The Apex Court observed that there could not be a gap in the chain of circumstances. Elaborating on the same, the Court said that when the conviction is based solely on circumstantial evidence, there should not be any snap in the chain of circumstances.

“If there is a snap in the chain, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. If some of the circumstances in the chain can be explained by any other reasonable hypothesis, then also the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.” 

Case Title: DARSHAN SINGH vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB., Diary No.- 30701 - 2009

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 13

Click here to read the judgment