2001 (3) TMI 1037 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Reconsideration of the ratio laid down in State of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammad Omar & ors.
2. Presence of PW-3 and PW-4 at the scene of the crime.
3. Applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
4. Presumption of guilt under Section 34 IPC.

Summary:

1. Reconsideration of the Ratio Laid Down in State of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammad Omar & ors.:
Shri U.R. Lalit, learned senior counsel, argued for reconsideration of the ratio in State of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammad Omar & ors., which allows the court to presume that abductors could be the killers unless they explain otherwise. He contended that this ratio is discordant with established criminal jurisprudence, which places the burden entirely on the prosecution to prove the case.

2. Presence of PW-3 and PW-4 at the Scene of the Crime:
The defense argued that PW-3 Diwan Singh and PW-4 Dalbir Kaur were living with their elder sons in Amritsar City and were not present at the scene. However, the court found the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-4 credible, noting that they were indeed at their house in Rupawali on the night of the incident. The court dismissed the defense witnesses' claims that the parents were living elsewhere, as these claims did not convincingly prove that PW-3 and PW-4 were not present at the scene.

3. Applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act:
The court reiterated the principle from State of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammad Omar, stating that Section 106 of the Evidence Act can be utilized in situations where the abductors have special knowledge about the fate of the abducted victims. The court emphasized that this does not relieve the prosecution of its burden but allows for reasonable inferences to be drawn when the abductors fail to provide an explanation.

4. Presumption of Guilt under Section 34 IPC:
The court held that when more than one person abducts a victim who is later murdered, it is within the court's legal province to draw a presumption that all abductors are responsible for the murder, invoking Section 34 IPC. The court dismissed the appellant's contention that a finding beyond abduction cannot be fastened on him, affirming that the circumstances justified the presumption of guilt.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for the appellant, Sucha Singh, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, dismissing the appeal. The court upheld the legal principles from the State of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammad Omar case, emphasizing the need for reasonable inferences in the absence of explanations from the accused.