Supreme Court: Purpose of Inquest Report Limited to Apparent Cause of Death; Discrepancy with Post-Mortem Not Fatal

 On examination of the aforesaid pleas, insofar as the factual context is concerned, there is little doubt that there is not a minor but a major difference in recording the number of injuries suffered by the deceased in the inquest report and the post-mortem report. However, this will not be fatal in our view. We say so keeping in mind the purpose of an inquest report, which is not a substantive evidence. The objective is to find out whether a person who has died under suspicious circumstances, what may be the apparent cause of his death. In the present case the death was unnatural. There were wounds. There is no doubt that it is a homicide case. The expert is the doctor who carries out the post-mortem and has been medico legal expert. The two fire arm injuries have been clearly identified with the wounds at the entry and at the exit being identified. We have already discussed the proximity of the time period between the intimation and the police proceeding with it right up to the stage when the post-mortem commenced. We do not find any substance in this plea. {Para32}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1492 of 2021 and 1202-1203 of 2014 

Decided On: 31.01.2022

Pappu Tiwary Vs. State of Jharkhand

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

Citation: (2022) 8 S.C.R. 121, 2022 INSC 118,MANU/SC/0115/2022.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances the accused has failed to prove the plea of Alibi?

In our considered opinion, when the trial court as well as the High Court have disbelieved the plea of alibi which is a concurrent finding of fact, there is no warrant to dislodge the same. The evidence that has been adduced by the Accused to prove the plea of alibi is sketchy and in fact foes not stand to reason. It is not a case where the Accused has proven with absolute certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence. The evidence adduced by the Accused is not of such quality that the Court would entertain a reasonable doubt. The burden on the Accused is rather heavy and he is required to establish the plea of alibi with certitude. {Para 27}

In Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana (2012) 6 SCC 204 this Court stated that:

71. .... The burden of establishing the plea of alibi lay upon the Appellants and the Appellants have failed to bring on record any such evidence which would, even by reasonable probability, establish their plea of alibi. The plea of alibi in fact is required to be proved with certainty so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence of the Accused at the place of occurrence and in the house which was the home of their relatives.

18. It has been rightly pointed out that the most material witness would have been Dr. M.P. Singh, who was not produced as a defence witness nor summoned.

19. We may note that there is some identity confusion in the judgment of the trial court as a reference has been made to one Dr. M.P. Singh (PW-1), who is not the same doctor. The advise stated to be given by Dr. M.P. Singh was also not proved nor was the x-ray plate produced. DW-2 stated that he took Law Tiwari to Garhwa Hospital but no papers of admission or treatment at the hospital were produced in support of the treatment of a fractured leg in the hospital. Thus, on all these aspects Law Tiwari failed to discharge the burden to establish the plea of alibi and, thus, the trial court and the High Court cannot be said to have fallen into any error in rejecting the plea of alibi. This was the only aspect to be examined by us.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1492 of 2021 and 1202-1203 of 2014 

Decided On: 31.01.2022

Pappu Tiwary Vs. State of Jharkhand

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

Citation: (2022) 8 S.C.R. 121, 2022 INSC 118,MANU/SC/0115/2022.

Print Page

Trace Evidence vs. Ante-Mortem Injuries: Applying Surinder Pal Jain in Sessions Trials

Defence advocates in Sessions Courts frequently cite Surinder Pal Jain v. Delhi Administration (1993 SCC (Cri) 1096; 1993 Supp (3) SCC 681) whenever a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report returns negative or inconclusive. They argue that a negative forensic report entitles the accused to bail or acquittal.

However, trial courts must examine the exact foundation of the prosecution's case before applying this precedent. A vital evidentiary line separates a prosecution resting on microscopic trace evidence from one resting on ante-mortem injuries.

Understanding Trace Evidence

Trace evidence comprises microscopic physical materials transferred between people, objects, or environments during contact. Forensic science anchors this concept in Locard’s Exchange Principle, which states that "every contact leaves a trace."

Print Page

Supreme Court: Beyond Sharad Birdhichand Sarda: How Gargi Added the "Second-Party Guilt" Test to Circumstantial Evidence

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — S. 3 & S. 106 — Circumstantial Evidence — Duty of Court to Exclude Hypothesis of Second-Party Guilt — Scope and Application.

In a criminal trial resting solely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of circumstances pointing exclusively toward the guilt of the accused. Beyond excluding every hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused, the court is under an additional duty to exclude the reasonable possibility of second-party guilt—that is, the involvement or independent commission of the offence by another person.

Where the prosecution’s own case implies that the physical act of the crime could not have been accomplished by the sole accused acting alone, and the alleged co-accused persons are acquitted for want of evidence, the chain of circumstantial evidence stands fatally broken. A conviction cannot be sustained by leaving the participation of an unidentified "second party" to conjecture, nor can Section 106 of the Evidence Act be invoked to shift the burden onto the accused to explain facts that the prosecution has failed to prima facie establish. (Paras 18, 25–28, 33)

B. Penal Code, 1860 — S. 302 — Murder by Strangulation and Subsequent Hanging — Physical Improbability of Sole Execution — Benefit of Doubt.

The appellant-wife was convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly strangulating her husband and hanging his body from a ceiling fan to simulate suicide, purportedly with the assistance of her brothers. While the High Court acquitted the brothers due to lack of incriminating evidence, it upheld the sole conviction of the appellant-wife based on the "last seen" theory and marital discord.

Setting aside the conviction, the Supreme Court held that it was physically improbable for the appellant to single-handedly lift and suspend the body of a grown man from a ceiling fan. Once the alleged accomplices were acquitted, the prosecution case left open the distinct possibility of third-party/second-party intervention, rendering the circumstantial chain incomplete. Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted. (Paras 26–34).

Ratio: In simple language, this sentence means that before convicting someone based on indirect clues (circumstantial evidence), the court must be 100% sure that no other person could have committed the crime.

In criminal law, the first party is the person on trial (the accused), and the second party refers to any other person—whether an outside intruder, another family member, or a co-accused person.

What This Duty Means for a Court

When there are no eyewitnesses to a crime, judges rely on a chain of indirect clues. Under the rule laid down in Gargi v. State of Haryana (2019) 9 SCC 738 by the Supreme Court of India, a judge has to check two things:

• Rule out innocence. The clues must prove that the accused did not simply have an innocent explanation for being near the crime.
• Rule out another culprit. The clues must also prove that nobody else could have stepped in and committed the crime instead.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1046 of 2010 +

Decided On: 19.09.2019

Gargi Vs. State of Haryana

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.

Author: Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Citation: (2019) 9 SCC 738,2019 INSC 1056,MANU/SC/1288/2019

Print Page