The Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia of the Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi held that the burden of proving the existence of circumstances to bring the case within the purview of Section 84 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) lies on the Accused in terms of Section 105 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
Brief facts:
The factual matrix of the case was that the Appellant took his two sons and strangulated them to death and threw their dead bodies into the canal. Furthermore, the Appellant tried to project this case as accidental drowning. It was also claimed that the Appellant was a drunk who questioned his wife's chastity and suspected that the children’s paternity.
The Trial Court convicted the Appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the Appellant and affirmed the findings and conclusions of the Trial Court.
Contentions of the Appellant:
It was contended that the strained relationship between the Appellant and his wife was not proved by the material evidence. Therefore, there was no reason or motive for the Appellant to kill his sons. Further, that the alleged want of explanation on the part of the Accused-Appellant cannot be a ground for conviction. It was contended that there was a fundamental flaw in the trial when the Trial Court failed to examine the Appellant's capacity in accordance with Section 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 while ignoring the material evidence on record indicating that the Appellant was not of sound mental disposition as he was admitted to a rehabilitation centre for de-addiction and was discharged against the advice of the centre.
Contentions of the Respondent-State:
It was contended that when both the deceased were last seen with the Appellant, the burden was hard on the Appellant to explain the cause of their unnatural death, which he had failed to discharge; instead, he projected false information about the children drowning accidentally. It was submitted that the plea of unsoundness of mind was not valid as the same was not raised before the Trial Court or the High Court.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that motive, when proved, supplies an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence but, the absence of motive cannot by itself be a ground to reject the prosecution case. However, the absence of motive in a case based on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the Accused.
The Bench remarked that based on the evidence available, it was proved that the deceased children were last seen with the Appellant and that they died an unnatural death. Further, the Appellant was trying to concoct a story about accidental drowning and in case of such circumstances, the principles of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act come into play. It becomes the duty of the Accused in such cases to explain the facts and circumstances related to the incident.
It was noticed that when the evidence on record unambiguously proves the guilt of the Accused-Appellant, the factor relating to motive cannot displace or weaken the conclusions naturally flowing from the evidence. Moreover, the present case cannot be said to be of want of motive altogether. Differently put, when all the facts and circumstances are taken together, the present one is not a case where there had been any missing link in the chain of circumstances, leading only to the conclusion of the guilt of the Appellant.
Concerning the plea of mental incapacity of the Appellant the Apex Court observed that the burden of proving the existence of circumstances to bring the case within the purview of Section 84 IPC lies on the Accused in terms of Section 105 of the Evidence Act. In the present case, there was nothing to show that the Accused was medically treated as an unsound person.
It was also observed that the plea of unsoundness of mind and the benefit of Section 84 IPC was never taken in the trial nor any evidence was led in this regard. In the given set of facts and circumstances, the Top Court was unable to find anything on record for which the benefit of Section 84 IPC could even be remotely extended to the appellant.
The decisions of the Court:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Appellant was neither suffering from any medically determined mental illness nor could be said to be a person under a legal disability of unsound mind. Hence, neither Section 84 IPC applies to the present case nor Section 329 CrPC would come to the rescue of the Appellant. The prosecution case was amply established by the cogent and convincing chain of circumstances, pointing only to the guilt of the Appellant, who caused the death of two children. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: Prem Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2023
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 14 SC
Advocate for Appellant: Adv. Nidhi
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Shubhranshu Padhi
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments