NDLI: Prem Singh Vs. State of Nct of Delhi

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	1860 – ss.302 201 and s.84 – Murder – Disappearance of evidence – Circumstantial evidence Penal Code
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India, Supreme Court (enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 (28 of 1970) Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302, 201 and s.84 – Murder – Disappearance of evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Appreciation of – Plea of mental incapacity – Tenability – Allegations against appellant that, he took his two sons, aged about 9 years and 6 years, near a canal, strangulated them to death, and threw their dead bodies into the canal – Trial court held appellant guilty u/ss. 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment – High Court upheld the conviction and sentence – Held: There is no infirmity in the findings concurrently recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court that the prosecution case was amply established by cogent and convincing chain of circumstances, pointing only to the guilt of the appellant, who caused the death of victim children, his sons, by strangulation and also caused the evidence of offence to disappear by throwing the dead bodies into the canal – In the given set of circumstances, when the deceased children were last seen in the company of the appellant, who was none else but their father and when their death was caused by manual strangulation, the burden, perforce, was heavy upon the appellant to clarify the facts leading to the demise of his sons, which would be presumed to be specially within his knowledge – Principles of s.106 of Evidence Act operated heavily against the appellant – But there was no explanation on his part and immediately after the incident, he attempted to create a false narrative of accidental drowning of the children – The submission that strained relationship of appellant with his wife may not provide sufficient motive for killing the children cannot be accepted for the reason that the motive projected in the present case had been that the appellant doubted the paternity of the deceased children and suspected that they were not his sons – Submission that the appellant be extended the benefit of alleged want of mental capacity also baseless – The evidence on record, taken as a whole, at the most shows that the appellant was addicted to alcohol and was admitted to the rehabilitation centre for de-addiction – However, 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 s. 84 IPC applies to the present case nor s.329 CrPC would come to the rescue of the appellant – Therefore, no case for interference made out – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 329. Penal Code, 1860 – s. 84 – Charges of murder – Burden of proof in the context of plea of unsoundness of mind – Held: Burden of proving the existence of circumstances so as to bring the case within the purview of s. 84 IPC lies on the accused in terms of s.105 of the Evidence Act – Where the accused is charged of murder, the burden to prove that as a result of unsoundness of mind, the accused was incapable of knowing the consequences of his acts is on the defence, as duly exemplified by illustration (a) to s. 105 of the Evidence Act – Mandate of law is that the Court shall presume absence of the circumstances so as to take the case within any of the General Exceptions in the IPC – Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 105. Criminal Trial – Motive – Motive, when proved, supplies additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence – But, absence thereof cannot, by itself, be a ground to reject the prosecution case; although absence of motive in a case based on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused – 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. Constitution of India – Art.136 – Appeal by special leave – Distinction in the scope of a regular appeal and an appeal by special leave.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 3
Petitioner	Prem Singh
Respondent	State Of Nct Of Delhi
SCR	[2023] 5 S.C.R. 800
Judgement Date	2023-01-02
Case Number	01

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Prem Singh Vs. State of Nct of Delhi

Please Log-in to view this content

G. Parshwanath Vs. State of Karnataka

Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan

Khim Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand

Gajraj Vs. State (nct) of Delhi

Sangili @ Sanganathan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Jagroop Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Dr. Sunil Clifford Daniel Vs. State of Punjab

Arun Bhakta @ Thulu Vs. State of West Bengal

Hari Singh Gond Vs. State of M.p.

Prem Singh Vs. State of Nct of Delhi

Prem Singh Vs. State of Nct of Delhi

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

G. Parshwanath Vs. State of Karnataka

Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan

Khim Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand

Gajraj Vs. State (nct) of Delhi

Sangili @ Sanganathan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Jagroop Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Dr. Sunil Clifford Daniel Vs. State of Punjab

Arun Bhakta @ Thulu Vs. State of West Bengal

Hari Singh Gond Vs. State of M.p.

Prem Singh Vs. State of Nct of Delhi