Case: Swinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab

members of Raj Singh to whom the girl had been betrothed. 3. On receipt of that information Raj Singh decided not to marry the girl. It is also admitted that this girl Balwindro thereafter died either of poisoning or by being killed by her relatives. However, the fact remains that the girl died under some suspicious circumstances. This according to the prosecution was the motive for the appellant to put an end to the life of the deceased whom the appellant suspected to have been responsible for the tragic end of his sister. It is, said that the appellant, thereafter, was not in talking terms with the deceased for about six months. Subsequently, he developed his friendship again with the deceased. The next piece of evidence the prosecution has attempted to adduce is that the appellant and the deceased travelled together by a bus to Amritsar. To substantiate this part of the case the prosecution has examined PWs 6 and 7. Yet another circumstantial piece of evidence put forth by the prosecutions that the deceased was taken to the hospital, SGTB-Hospital, Amritsar by the appellant where he was examined by PW 1 (Doctor). He examined Prabhdiyal Singh who was at the time was in a state of coma and having alcoholic smell. The deceased was taken to the hospital by the appellant about 8.10 p. m. and he expired at 8.40 p. m. Postmortem was conducted by PW 1 who found four abrasions on the body of the deceased, which injuries in the opinion of the medical officer could have been caused by a blunt weapon. The viscera was sent for chemical analysis. On receipt of the report of the chemical examiner, PW 1 gave his opinion stating that the death of the deceased in his opinion was due to strychnine and alcohol poison. According to the medical officer the blood alcohol found in this case showed that it was a fatal dose of alcohol. The case was registered by PW 8 and the same was investigated. However, the police filed a report referring the case on the ground that the evidence gathered during the investigation was not sufficient for presenting a challan against the appellant. 4. It was only thereafter the mother of the deceased PW 5 gave a private complaint. The Magistrate who after taking the evidence committed the case for trial. The Trial Court for the reasons mentioned in its judgment found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302, IPC and convicted and sentenced him thereunder as aforementioned which judgment of the Trial Court for the reason given by the High Court was confirmed. Hence this appeal. 5. It is true that the evidence discloses strong motive for the appellant against the deceased. Not denying the fact that the deceased died of taking poison mixed in alcohol but the question that arises for consideration is as to whether the appellant and the appellant alone was responsible for causing the death of the deceased by administering the alcohol mixed with poison. The explanation given by the appellant is that he was a close friend of the deceased, that on the date of occurrence, he met the deceased near the Railway Station of Amritsar in a drunken condition; that at the request of the deceased he took him to SGTB Hospital where the deceased ultimately died and that thereafter, he informed PW 5 about the death of the deceased at about midnight on 1-4-1976. So far as the evidence regarding the movement of the deceased in the company of the appellant on the fateful day, the prosecution has rested its case on the evidence of PWs 6 and 7. The High Court after discussing the evidence of these two witnesses in detail has made the following observation : "We have thus considered it safer to exclude the evidence given by Tehal Singh like that of Ajaib Singh for determining whether from the remaining evidence it can be taken to be established that the deceased had come along with the appellant to Amritsar and then remained with him for whole of the day on April 1, 1976." 6. We see no reason to depart from the above conclusion arrived at by the High Court. In the hospital the appellant has given his name as the person who brought the deceased in a drunken condition. Barring the above circumstances, there is no other evidence connecting the appellant with the crime or at least for drawing an illation as to whether he gave alcohol or whether he purchased any poison from any shop or whether he mixed any poison with alcohol and administered it to him. In other words, the main link in the chain of circumstances is completely broken and there is no connecting evidence whatsoever worth mentioning incriminating the appellant with the crime in question. 7. It appears that both the Courts below by overlooking the fact that the chain of circumstances is completely broken have recorded the conviction evidently on strong suspicion based on the evidence that there was a strong motive for the appellant to snap the life thread of the deceased. 8. It is no doubt true as we have pointed out earlier that there is a strong suspicion against the appellant, but as pointed out by this Court in Pabitar Singh v. State of Bihar, 1972(3) SCC 354 : AIR 1972 SC 1899 although there may be grave suspicion against an accused person, still the prosecution is bound to establish facts from which the Court can reasonably arrive at a conclusion that the offence was committed by the accused. It may be recalled that this Court repeatedly observed that the suspicion however grave cannot take the place of legal proof. 9. For all the reasons stated above, we are enable to subscribe to the conclusion of the Courts below that the appellant is guilty of the offence with which he now stands convicted, since in our opinion such a conclusion is perverse and improper.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 1

Reasoning from the judgment:
1[ds]5. It is true that the evidence discloses strong motive for the appellant against theexplanation given by the appellant is that he was a close friend of the deceased, that on the date of occurrence, he met the deceased near the Railway Station of Amritsar in a drunken condition; that at the request of the deceased he took him to SGTB Hospital where the deceased ultimately died and that thereafter, he informed PW 5 about the death of the deceased at about midnight onSo far as the evidence regarding the movement of the deceased in the company of the appellant on the fateful day, the prosecution has rested its case on the evidence of PWs 6 and 7.We see no reason to depart from the above conclusion arrived at by the High Court. In the hospital the appellant has given his name as the person who brought the deceased in a drunken condition. Barring the above circumstances, there is no other evidence connecting the appellant with the crime or at least for drawing an illation as to whether he gave alcohol or whether he purchased any poison from any shop or whether he mixed any poison with alcohol and administered it to him. In other words, the main link in the chain of circumstances is completely broken and there is no connecting evidence whatsoever worth mentioning incriminating the appellant with the crime in question.It appears that both the Courts below by overlooking the fact that the chain of circumstances is completely broken have recorded the conviction evidently on strong suspicion based on the evidence that there was a strong motive for the appellant to snap the life thread of the deceased.For all the reasons stated above, we are enable to subscribe to the conclusion of the Courts below that the appellant is guilty of the offence with which he now stands convicted, since in our opinion such a conclusion is perverse and improper.