Brajendra Singh V/s State of M.P

Information Type: Judicial Information
Court: Supreme Court
Date of Judgment(s): 2012-02-28
Case No: 113-114 of 2010
Case Type: Appeal (Criminal)
Judge Name: A.K. Patnaik & Swatanter Kumar
Subject: Criminal Law-Capital Punishment
Statutes / Acts: Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
Section: Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 43 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) - Section 354(3) Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 302 Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 309
Bench Strength: Double Bench
Advocate: Chanchal Kumar Ganguli and Chitanya S.(P) & S.K. Dubey, Sr. Adv., C.D. Singh, Sakshi Kakkar and Kusumanjali Sharma (R)
State of Appellant(s): Madhya Pradesh
History of Case No: Order dated 20.08.2009 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore, in Criminal Appeal No. 734 of 2007
Equal Citation Details :

AIR2012SC1552, 2013(2)AJR287, (2012)3CALLT49(SC), 2012CriLJ1883, 2012(1)Crimes330(SC), 2012(2)J.L.J.R.80, 2012(2)JLJ1(SC), 2012MLJ(Crl)848, 2012(2)N.C.C.18, 2012(3)SCALE195, (2012)4SCC289, 2012(1)UC727, 2013(1)UC727, 2012ACR2160, 

Case Note / Description :

Legality of - Circumstantial evidence - Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Appeals were against judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, confirming judgment of conviction passed by trial Court - Whether case of prosecution was to be accepted as proved beyond reasonable probability or whether defense of Appellant was to be accepted by Court - Whether instant case fell under category of 'rarest of rare' cases - Whether any other sentence, except death penalty, would be inadequate in facts and circumstances of present case - Held, statement of an Accused under Section 313 of CrPC, could be used as evidence against Accused, insofar as it supported case of prosecution - Statement under Section 313 of CrPC, simplicitor normally could not be made basis for conviction of Accused - But, where statement of Accused under Section 313 of CrPC, was in line with case of prosecution, then certainly heavy onus of proof on prosecution was, to some extent, reduced - FIR was recorded by Sub-Inspector based on statement of Appellant itself, made in Police Station - This could not be treated, in law and in fact, as a confessional statement made by Accused and it would certainly attain its admissibility in evidence as an FIR recorded by competent officer in accordance with law - It was not a case of direct evidence but, conviction of Accused was founded on circumstantial evidence - Prosecution had to satisfy certain conditions before a conviction based on circumstantial evidence could be sustained - Circumstances should be conclusive and proved by prosecution - There must be a chain of events so complete so as not to leave any substantial doubt in mind of Court - Circumstances forming chain of events should be proved and they should cumulatively point towards guilt of Accused alone - In such circumstances, inference of guilt could be justified only when all incriminating facts and circumstances were found to be incompatible with innocence of Accused or guilt of any other person. 

 
 
SignUp For News Letter

Get news and updates from OLIS group, to your email :
Contact Information
Raj Kumar (Ph.D Research Scholar)
Dr. M. Madhusudhan (Supervisor)
DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
II Floor, Tutorial Building, University of Delhi , Delhi-110 007
Mobile : +91-011-27666656
Email : info@olisindia.in
All Rights Reserved@ University of Delhi, Website Designed and Developed by Raj Kumar(Ph.D Research Scholar)