NDLI: State of Punjab Vs. Kewal Krishan

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Penal Code 1860 – s. 302 – Acquittal confirmed – Prosecution case that the deceased was last seen alive in his own house in the company of the accused at about 7.00 p.m. on 10.12.1998
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	.Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 – Acquittal confirmed –Prosecution case that the deceased was last seen alive in his ownhouse in the company of the accused at about 7.00 p.m. on10.12.1998 – PW-6, nephew of the deceased discovered body ofdeceased on 12.12.1998 – FIR was registered – Name of the accuseddid not surface on the record till 25.12.1998 – PW-2, the sole witnessof the last seen circumstance, in his deposition in court, stated thathe had expressed his suspicion in respect of accused’s involvementto the police on 13.12.1998 – It was also alleged that accused madean extra-judicial confession before PW-3 – Accused made adisclosure to the police regarding knife used in the crime, which ledto its recovery – Trial Court convicted and sentenced the respondentu/s. 302 – However, the High Court acquitted him – On appeal,held: The High Court opined that if PW-2 was aware of the lastseen circumstance and had made such a disclosure, there was noreason for the police not to act against the accused till 25.12.1998– Therefore, the statement of PW-2 in respect of imparting knowledgeof the last seen circumstance appeared doubtful and it appearedthat the witness was set up to create link evidence – The allegeddate and time when the deceased was last seen alive was at quite adistance from the date and time when the deceased was found dead– There was no evidence as to when the accused left the house andthat no one else could have entered the house in the interregnum,other intervening circumstances including hand of some third personin the crime was not ruled out by the prosecution evidence –Recovery of the knife was denied by the accused and there was noserologist report to connect it with the crime – Insofar as the evidenceof extra judicial confession made by the accused is concerned, therewas no evidence to demonstrate that the accused had any priorrelations with PW-3 or that the accused hoped for, or sought, anyhelp from PW-3 and, therefore, made the confession to him – Notably, the accused denied making any such confession – The incriminatingcircumstances were not proved beyond reasonable doubt andotherwise also the circumstance of last seen was inconclusive, theHigh Court was justified in setting aside the order of convictionrecorded by the Trial Court.Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Held: It is trite law thatto convict an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, theprosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt each of theincriminating circumstances on which it proposes to rely; thecircumstance(s) relied upon must be of a definite tendency unerringlypointing towards accused’s guilt and must form a chain so farcomplete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within allhuman probability it is the accused and no one else who hadcommitted the crime and they (it) must exclude all other hypothesisinconsistent with his guilt and consistent with his innocence.Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 106 – Section 106 of the EvidenceAct does not absolve the prosecution of discharging its primaryburden of proving the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt –It is only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed,will sustain a conviction, or which makes out a prima facie case, thequestion arises of considering facts of which the burden of proofwould lie upon the accused..
Judge	Hon'ble Ms. Justice B.V. Nagarathna Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 583
Petitioner	State Of Punjab
Respondent	Kewal Krishan
SCR	[2023] 10 S.C.R. 1
Judgement Date	2023-06-21
Case Number	2128

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

State of Punjab Vs. Kewal Krishan

Please Log-in to view this content

Keshav Vs. State of Maharashtra

Shantanu Sitaram @ Anil Divekar Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Amrit Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Babu Vs. State of Kerala

State of U.p. Vs. Ram Kumar & Ors.

Jayanta Sil Vs. State of Assam

Hakeem Khan & Ors. Vs. State of M.p.

Brij Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan

Fazar Ali & Ors. Vs. State of Assam

State of Punjab Vs. Kewal Krishan

State of Punjab Vs. Kewal Krishan

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Keshav Vs. State of Maharashtra

Shantanu Sitaram @ Anil Divekar Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Amrit Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Babu Vs. State of Kerala

State of U.p. Vs. Ram Kumar & Ors.

Jayanta Sil Vs. State of Assam

Hakeem Khan & Ors. Vs. State of M.p.

Brij Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan

Fazar Ali & Ors. Vs. State of Assam

State of Punjab Vs. Kewal Krishan