Read Time: 16 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on January 4, 2024 said that if the prosecution witnesses have failed to mention in their statements before police under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code about the involvement of an accused, their subsequent statement before court during trial about it 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," a bench of Justices B R Gavai, P S Narasimha and Aravind Kumar said.

The apex court allowed an appeal by Darshan Singh against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgement which upheld his conviction and sentence of life term awarded to him by the trial court for killing his wife Amrik Kaur by administering poisonous substance aluminium phosphide in view of his illicit relationship with one Rani Kaur.

The High Court, however, had acquitted Rani Kaur by extending benefit of doubt to her.

The court noted that the present case was based on circumstantial evidence and there were improvements in the statements of prosecution witnesses, sister of the deceased, Melo Kaur and her husband Gurmel Singh.

The appellant claimed that deceased Amrik Kaur was having an illicit affair with Melo Kaur’s husband, Gurmel Singh and embarrassed with her sister finding it out, she self-administered the poisonous substance and committed suicide. 

The state counsel submitted that Melo Kaur was an illiterate witness and therefore, her testimony must be interpreted in that light. 

The bench, however, said, "We are cognizant that the appreciation of evidence led by such a witness has to be treated differently from other kinds of witnesses. It cannot be subjected to a hyper-technical inquiry and much emphasis ought not to be given to imprecise details that may have been brought out in the evidence. This Court has held 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."

It noted her testimony suffered not merely from technical imperfections, there are glaring omissions and improvements that have been brought out in the cross-examination, which cannot be attributed to the illiteracy of the individual deposition.

"If there were minor contradictions and inconsistencies, that could have been ignored since the recollection of exact details as to location and time can be attributed to the lack of literacy. However, such is not the case here," the bench said.

The court also said she had only heard from her husband that the appellant and Rani Kaur were seen together in the appellant’s house on May 18, 1999, the fateful night. To that extent, it is merely hearsay. Moreover, her husband has omitted to state this fact to her in his statement before the police. 

"We only wonder as to why she would visit the house of the appellant in the wee hours of the morning on 19.05.99. It seems quite unnatural for her to visit the house of the appellant at 430 am in the morning without any reason," the bench said.

"If she was aware that the appellant and Rani Kaur were in an illicit relationship for a sufficiently long duration, there was no reason to suspect all of a sudden that the two of them would get together, administer poison and murder the deceased on 19.05.1999, which fact, prompted her to visit the house of the appellant at such odd hours in the morning. Both the Courts have failed to take notice of the several significant omissions and improvements in the evidence of Melo Kaur and her husband," the bench said.

The court also pointed out review of scholarly literature and research papers suggested that the nature of this substance (aluminum phosphide) is such that it is not conducive for deceitful administration since it carries a pungent garlic-like odour, which cannot go unmissed. It was suspected that the substance was mixed in tea and served to her.

"We find it doubtful that the deceased would have been made to consume tea deceitfully given the nature of the substance. 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," the bench said. 

The court further said the main principle to be satisfied in a case of conviction based on circumstantial evidence is that the proved circumstances must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence- in other words, the circumstances should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. 

"In this case, it cannot be said that the proved circumstances, even if presence was proved, taken with other circumstances would lead to an unfailing conclusion that the appellant and Rani Kaur were guilty of murdering his wife. There was alive 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 is sufficient to create a doubt in our minds," the bench said.

The court also said it is important to notice that the respondent-State has not challenged the acquittal of Rani Kaur before this Court. It has accepted the verdict and therefore, the acquittal has reached finality. 

"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," the bench said.

According to us, if the evidence of 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 bench said.

"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," the bench said.

According to the prosecution, the accused persons were seen present together in the house on the night of May 18, 1999 and seen leaving together in the wee hours of the next morning. 

If the presence of Rani Kaur in the house on the date of the alleged incident is doubtful, then, the testimony of Melo's husband that he had seen her along with the appellant in the jeep, will also lose its strength. 

The bench said it need not go further and consider the evidence qua other circumstances sought to be proved by the prosecution since the failure to prove a single circumstance cogently can cause a snap in the chain of circumstances. There cannot be a gap in the chain of circumstances, the bench said.

"When the conviction is to be based on circumstantial evidence solely, then 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," the bench said.

 

Cause Title: Darshan Singh Vs State of Punjab