Rajiv Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.
|
Head Note
Criminal Laws - Criminal Jurisprudence
Held that a charge can be said to be proved only when there is certain and explicit evidence to warrant legal conviction - No person can be held guilty on pure moral conviction - Howsoever grave the alleged offence may be, otherwise stirring the conscience of any court, suspicion alone cannot take the place of legal proof - The well-established cannon of criminal justice is "fouler the crime higher the proof" - In unmistakable terms, it is the mandate of law that the prosecution in order to succeed in a criminal trial, has to prove the charge(s) beyond all reasonable doubt - If two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.
Criminal Laws - Criminal Jurisprudence
Held that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty - Burden of proof in a criminal case is on the prosecution to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt -Outcome of a wrong conviction is regarded as a significantly worse harm than wrongful acquittal.
Criminal Laws - Criminal Jurisprudence
Suspicion, howsoever grave cannot take the place of proof - Prosecution case to succeed has to be in the category of "must be" and not "may be" a distance to be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence to rule out any possibility of wrongful conviction of the accused and resultant mis-carriage of justice - For this, the Court has to essentially undertake an exhaustive and analytical appraisal of the evidence on record and register findings as warranted by the same.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 304-B , The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 113-B , The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 293
Dowry Death - Circumstantial Evidence - Evidence of last seen - Presumption - Evidence adduced by the prosecution dominantly is circumstantial in nature with no direct proof of the perpetration of the alleged offence by the appellant - It would be wholly unjustified to uphold the conviction of the appellant for the offences charged on the basis of the evidence, oral and documentary adduced by the prosecution - Shoddy, casual, laconical and insensitive investigation conducted by the police - Diary of decease, though seized, had not been produced at the trial - Evidence of witness, who had opined that the dead body was not that of deceased was withheld - Witnesses who supposedly had drawn the blood samples of parents of deceasedhave not been examine - Technician, FSL, Patna who, as claimed by the prosecution, had conducted the DNA test, was not produced - DNA test was not carried out in a government laboratory and instead was done at a private laboratory in violation of the norms - Dr.PW10, who was examined in connection with the DNA test, admittedly had no expertise in the line and his evidence is, thus, for all intents and purposes of no utility - No searching effort was made by the Investigating Officer to ascertain when and how and by whom poison was administered as found in the viscera of the dead body - Investigation is also wanting in the matter of identification of the dead body and the prosecution relied on inferences, conjectures and surmises to connect the appellant with the crime - The investigation in the case, therefore, has left gaping cracks in it incapable of being sealed or mended- Appeal liable to be acquitted of the charge.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 304-B , The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 113-B
Dowry Death - Presumption - Held that a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is attracted only in case of suicidal or homicidal death and not in the case of an accidental death - Harassment and cruelty by the husband has to have a perceptible connection with the dowry demand for his prosecution and punishment under Section 304B IPC.
Topic(s)-Dowry Death - Circumstantial Evidence - Acquittal