# PREM SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

- **Citation:** [2023] 5 S.C.R. 800
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2023-01-02
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2023
- **Bench:** Dinesh Maheshwari, Sudhanshu Dhulia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/prem-singh-v-state-of-nct-of-delhi-37132
- **Pages:** 61

## 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
801
to alcohol and was admitted to the rehabilitation centre for deaddiction - 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.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:
Chain of circumstances, last seen theory, s.106 Indian
Evidence Act
1.1. When the

## Text

_Characters 0–39,956 of 142,901. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39956 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
800
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
 [2023] 5 S.C.R. 800
800
PREM SINGH
v.
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
(Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2023)
JANUARY 02, 2023
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.]
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
801
to alcohol and was admitted to the rehabilitation centre for deaddiction - 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.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:
Chain of circumstances, last seen theory, s.106 Indian
Evidence Act
1.1. When the facts established by the evidence on record
and the surrounding factors are put together, the chain of
PREM SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
802
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
circumstances had unfailingly been that the deceased children
were lastly seen alive in the company of the appellant; they died
because of manual strangulation and obviously, their death was
homicidal in nature; their dead bodies were recovered from the
canal; and the appellant attempted to project that they had
accidentally fallen into the canal. In the given set of circumstances,
when the deceased children were 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. Thus, the principles of Section 106 of the Evidence
Act operate heavily against the appellant. [Para 16.4][850-G-H;
851-A-B]
1.2. It is, of course, the duty of prosecution to lead the
primary evidence of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt
but, when necessary evidence had indeed been led, the
corresponding burden was heavy on the appellant in terms of
Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain as to what had
happened at the time of incident and as to how the death of the
deceased occurred. There had not been any explanation on the
part of the appellant and immediately after the incident, he
attempted to create a false narrative of accidental drowning of
the children. There had not been any specific response from the
appellant in his statement under Section 313 CrPC either. [Para
16.4.1.][851-C-D]
Question of Motive
2.1. 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. [Para 17.1][851-FG]
2.2. The question of motive in the present case cannot be
examined only with reference to the testimony of the wife of the
appellant who has, even while admitting that she left the children
in the company of the appellant and thereafter heard only about
their demise, chosen not to support the accusations against the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
803
appellant. However, her testimony is contradicted by at least three
prosecution witnesses with two of them, PW7 and PW-8 being
her uncles, who maintained that there were strained relations of
the appellant and his wife and that the appellant doubted the
character of his wife as also the paternity of the children. Even
PW-5, brother of the appellant, though attempted to depose against
the prosecution case but indeed testified to the fact that there
had been strains in the relationship of the appellant and his wife.
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. [Para 17.2][851-G-H; 852-A-C]
2.3. 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. Moreover, the present case cannot be said to be
of want of motive altogether. Differently put, when all the facts
and circumstances are taken together, the present one is not a
case where there had been any missing link in the chain of
circumstances, leading only to the conclusion of the guilt of the
appellant. [Para 17.3][852-D]
Plea of Mental Incapacity
3.1. The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt
that the accused has committed the offences of murdering the
children and causing disappearance of evidence. The other
surrounding factors also show that prosecution has proved the
requisite mens rea with reference to the manner of commission
of crimes and projecting false narratives by the appellant. In the
given set of facts and circumstances, on the submission as made
as regards unsoundness of mind, the question in the present case
is as to whether the accused-appellant has been able to establish
that he was insane at the time of committing the offence or anything
has been projected on record for which even a reasonable doubt
could be entertained as regards mens rea? The answer to this
question could only be in the negative. [Para 22][856-D-E]
PREM SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
804
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
3.2. 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, there is
absolutely nothing on record to show that the appellant was
medically treated as a person of unsound mind or was legally
required to be taken as a person of unsound mind. Contrary to
the suggestions made on behalf of the appellant, the testimony of
PW-3, manager of rehabilitation centre, had been clear and specific
that during his stay in the centre, no mental illness was observed
in the appellant nor was he treated for any mental illness. PW-3
stated in categorical terms that the behaviour of the appellant
'was normal during his said stay and he was never given any
medicine for mental illness because neither any mental illness was
observed in him nor his family members gave us any previous history
of his suffering from any mental illness.' In his cross-examination,
this witness further removed any doubt in regard to the mental
status of the appellant while maintaining that the appellant 'was
mentally fit and sound during his stay at our centre and he was
admitted only for de-addiction of his habit of consuming liquor.'
Hence, the appellant's had only been a case of addiction to alcohol.
The manager, PW-3, of course, suggested the opinion that the
appellant ought to have undergone the course for a period of 7-9
months and that the family members got him discharged against
advice but, this statement cannot be read to mean that the
appellant was to be treated as a person of unsound mind. In fact,
the appellant remained admitted to the rehabilitation centre from
20.11.2008 to 29.04.2009, i.e., for a period of over 5 months and,
as noticed above, he was never found suffering from any mental
illness so as to be regarded as a person of unsound mind. [Para
23][856-F-H; 857-A-C]
3.3. Also the plea of unsoundness of mind and, therefore,
the benefit of Section 84 IPC, was never taken in the trial nor
any evidence was led in this regard. Significantly, not even a
remote suggestion was made to any witness examined for the
prosecution about the alleged mental incapacity of the appellant.
In his examination under Section 313 CrPC, the response of the
appellant to the questions relating to his admission to the
rehabilitation centre and the related facts had been that those
aspects were 'a matter of record'. In the given set of facts and
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
805
circumstances, one is unable to find anything on record for which
the benefit of Section 84 IPC could even be remotely extended
to the appellant. [Para 24][857-D-E]
3.4. There was no fault on the part of the Trial Court or the
investigating agency. Also, contrary to even a trace of want of
mental capacity of the appellant at the time of commission of the
crimes in question, the manner of commission, with strangulation
of the children one by one; throwing of their dead bodies into the
canal; appellant himself swimming in the canal and coming out;
and immediately thereafter, stating before several persons that
the children had accidentally slipped into the canal so as to project
it as a case of accidental drowning, if at all, show an alert and
calculative mind, which had worked with specific intent to cause
the death of the children and to cause disappearance of evidence
by throwing dead bodies into the canal and thereafter, to mislead
by giving a false narrative. By no logic and by no measure of
assessment, the appellant, who is found to have carried all the
aforesaid misdeeds, could be said to be a person of unsound mind.
[Para 26][859-D-E]
3.5. The 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 Section 84 IPC
applies to the present case nor Section 329 CrPC would come to
the rescue of the appellant. [Para 27][859-F]
3.6. The suggestions about treatment of the appellant for
his abnormal behaviour in jail also does not take his case any
further. There is nothing on record to find that the appellant was
a person of unsound mind at the time of commission of crime or
was a person of unsound mind when tried in this case. Postconviction behaviour is hardly of any relevance so far as present
appeal is concerned. In fact, his post-conviction abnormalities,
as dealt with in year 2013 i.e., nearly two years after the impugned
judgment of the Trial Court, cannot even remotely be correlated
with the relevant questions arising for the purpose of present
appeal. Even in that regard, the report of the Medical Officer (I/
C) Central Jail No. 5, Tihar New Delhi dated 22.07.2013 states
that the appellant was admitted to psychiatry ward from 07.01.2013
to 04.03.2013 for complaints of abnormal behaviour but, he
PREM SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
806
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
improved following treatment and at time of issuance of certificate,
his general condition was satisfactory; and his mental status
examination did not reveal any gross psychopathology. [Para
28][859-G-H; 860-A-B]
3.7. Hence, viewed from any angle, the contention urged
on behalf of appellant, as to be given the benefit of the provisions
meant for a person of unsound mind, cannot be accepted. The
said provisions do not enure to the benefit of the appellant from
any standpoint. [Para 29][860-C]
3.8. In the given set of facts and circumstances, even when
the appellant was shown to be a person taken to excessive
consumption of alcohol, there is nothing on record to show if he
did the offending acts in a state of intoxication so as to give rise
to a doubt about intention with reference to the principles
underlying Section 86 IPC. There is no need to elaborate on this
aspect for the same having not been projected in evidence at all.
In other words, the present one is not a case where intent could
be ruled out so as to reduce the offence of murder to that of
culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The suggestions
about altering the conviction to Section 304 IPC are also required
to be rejected. [Para 30][860-C-E]
Conclusion
4. There is no infirmity in the findings concurrently recorded
by the Trial Court and the High Court that the prosecution case
is 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. The submissions evolved for the
purpose of the present appeal that the appellant be extended the
benefit of alleged want of mental capacity also remain baseless
and could only be rejected. Therefore, no case for interference
is made out. [Para 31][860-F-G]
Pappu v. The State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 SCC OnLine
SC 176; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88;
Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC
343 : [1952] SCR 1091; Sabitri Samantaray v. State of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
807
Odisha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 673; Trimukh Maroti
Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681 :
[2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 156; Sudru v. State of Chhattisgarh
(2019) 8 SCC 333; Anwar Ali and Anr. v. State of
Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC 166 : [2020]
9 SCR 878 and Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v.
State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563 : [1964] 7 SCR
361 - relied on.
State of Gujarat v. Manjuben, 2019 SCC OnLine Guj
6937 - held inapplicable.
Ajay Ram Pandit v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC
OnLine Bom 3920 - distinguished.
A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602: [1988]
1 Suppl. SCR 1; Rahul v. State of Delhi, Ministry of
Home Affairs and Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1532;
Bapu alias Gujraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2007)
8 SCC 66 : [2007] 7 SCR 917 and Shrikant Anandrao
Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 748 :
[2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 612 - referred to.
Eric Dolby v. State of Delaware [Decision dated
02.03.2012 of the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware]
- referred to.
King-Emperor v. Tincouri Dhopi [Decision of Calcutta
High Court], 1922 SCC OnLine Cal 90 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1988] 1 Suppl. SCR 1
referred to
Para 10.3.2
[2007] 7 SCR 917
referred to
Para 11.4
[2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 612
referred to
Para 11.5
[1964] 7 SCR 361
relied on
Para 11.5
[1985] 1 SCR 88
relied on
Para 13
[1952] SCR 1091
relied on
Para 13
[2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 156
relied on
Para 14.2
PREM SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
808
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
(2019) 8 SCC 333
relied on
Para 14.3
[2020] 9 SCR 878
relied on
Para 15
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No.01 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.02.2016 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.879 of 2013.
Shikil Suri, Mrs. Madhu Suri, Ms. Jyoti Suri, Ms. Mahima
Aggarwal, Ms. Komal Gupta, Ms. Nidhi, Advs. for the Appellant.
Shubhranshu Padhi, Vishal Bansal, Ms. Rajeshwari Shankar,
Niroop Sukrithu, Mohd. Ovias, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
Table of Contents*
Preliminary and brief outline .............................................. 2
Relevant factual and background aspects ........................ 5
Prosecution Evidence ............................................... 7
Stand of the appellant...............................................21
Trial Court found the appellant guilty and awarded life
imprisonment ......................................................................22
High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant26
Rival Submissions ..............................................................29
The scope and width of this appeal ..................................38
The principles relating to circumstantial evidence; burden
of explanation; hostile witness; and motive ...................39
Application of the relevant principles to the facts
of this case ................................................................. 46
Plea of mental incapacity of the appellant.......................52
Conclusion ...........................................................................62
Preliminary and brief outline
*Pagination in the Table is as per the original judgement.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
809
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
29.02.2016, as passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal
Appeal No. 879 of 2013, whereby the High Court has dismissed the
appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence,
respectively dated 03.09.2011 and 08.09.2011, as passed by the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Rohini (Outer), Delhi in Sessions Case
No. 238 of 2009, whereby the appellant was held guilty of offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601
and was awarded varying punishments, including that of imprisonment
for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
3. Before dealing with the matter in necessary details, we may
draw a brief outline to indicate the contours of the forthcoming discussion.
3.1. The allegations against the appellant had been that on
03.05.2009, he took his two sons, aged about 9 years and 6 years, to
Haiderpur Canal, strangulated them, and threw the dead bodies into the
canal; and thereafter, attempted to project as if it were a case of
accidental drowning.It was also alleged that the appellant was a drunkard,
who doubted the chastity of his wife and suspected that the children
were not his sons.
3.2. In trial, two of the prosecution witnesses, PW-5 Bishan Singh
(brother of the appellant) and PW-9 Sunita Yadav (wife of the appellant)
did not support the prosecution case as regards conduct and behaviour
of the appellant. However, the Trial Court held that all the essential and
material facts were duly established in the evidence adduced by the
prosecution, including that the deceased children were last seen in the
company of the appellant, who took them to canal and later on informed
the staff at the Haiderpur Water Plant and at the Petrol Pump as also to
the police that they accidentally fell into the canal; that the cause of
death of both the children had been asphyxia as a result of manual
strangulation; and that the appellant was a drunkard who doubted the
chastity of his wife and thought that he was not the father of the deceased
children. The Trial Court, therefore, convicted the appellant of the
offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and awarded the punishments
accordingly.
3.3. In appeal, it was essentially contended on behalf of the
appellant that there were missing links in the chain of events, particularly
1'IPC', for short.
PREM SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
810
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
when the allegations of the appellant doubting the chastity of his wife
were not proved and hence, there was no reason for which the appellant
would have killed his own sons. Per contra, it was submitted on behalf
of the respondent-State that the children were lastly seen in the company
of the appellant and it was clearly established that they died due to manual
strangulation and not on account of drowning, as falsely suggested by
the appellant, who otherwise failed to discharge the burden,in terms of
Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 18722, of explaining the
circumstances leading to the death of the children by strangulation. The
High Court again minutely analysed the evidence on record and, while
rejecting the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant, dismissed the
appeal and affirmed the findings and conclusions of the Trial Court.
3.4. In challenge to the concurrent findings leading to conviction
and sentencing of the appellant, it has essentially been contended on his
behalf that when the story of strained relationship between the appellant
and his wife has not been supported by the material witnesses including
the wife of the appellant, there was no reason or motive for the appellant
to kill his own sons; and the alleged want of explanation on the part of
the accused-appellant cannot be a ground for conviction in the present
case. It has also been contended that there had been a fundamental
defect in the trial when the Trial Court omitted to examine the capacity
of the appellant in terms of Section 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
19733 while ignoring the material evidence on record to the effect that
the appellant was not a person of sound mental disposition, for he was
admitted toa rehabilitation centre for de-addiction and was discharged
against the advice of the centre. The facts regarding treatment of the
appellant for mental illness post-conviction have also been referred to in
this regard. On the other hand, it has been contended on behalf of the
respondent-State that when the deceased were lastly seen in the company
of the appellant, the burden was heavy upon him to explain the cause of
their unnatural death, which he had failed to discharge; rather he gave
false information about accidental drowning of the children. It has also
been submitted that the plea of unsoundness of mind, as taken before
this Court, remains untenable for the same having not been raised in
trialor even in appeal before the High Court. It is submitted that even if
the appellant had been admitted to and treated in the psychiatry ward
after conviction, it would not take his case of such unsoundness of mind
2 Hereinafter also referred to as 'the Evidence Act'.
3 'CrPC', for short.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
811
at the time of commission of the crime that he could be absolved or
exonerated.
Relevant factual and background aspects
4. With reference to the outline as above and looking to the
questions arising for determination in this appeal, the relevant factual
and background aspects could be noticed, in brief, as follows:
4.1. The prosecution case, based on circumstantial evidence, had
been that the appellant took his two sons Jitesh and Sunny, aged about 9
years and 6 years respectively, to Haiderpur Canal at Haiderpur Water
Plant, Paschim Vihar, Delhi under the pretext of having fun and after
reaching the said place and getting opportunity, he strangulated them
one by one and threw the dead bodies into the canal. The prosecution
case further had been that the appellant attempted to project as if the
children accidentally fell into the canal and in that effort, he jumped into
the canal and, after swimming for some distance, came out and then,
went to the nearby office of Water Treatment Plant to inform the staff
present there about his sons having accidentally fallen into the canal;
and thereafter, he also went to a nearby Petrol Pump and narrated the
same story to one of the employees and made a call at 100 number to
the police. According to the prosecution, after reaching of the police,the
appellant narrated the same version.
4.2. However, after recovery of the dead bodies and their postmortem examination, it was revealed that the children did not die because
of drowning but the cause of death had been asphyxia as a result of
manual strangulation. In the given circumstances, suspicion turned
towards the appellant, for he was the person lastly in the company of the
deceased children. It was alleged that during interrogation, the appellant
confessed to the crime while stating that he doubted the chastity of his
wife and suspected that the children were not his sons.
4.3. After conducting investigation in the First Information Report4
registered in this matter bearing No. 253 of 2009, Police Station Prashant
Vihar, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for the offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. After the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions and the necessary charges were
framed, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4'FIR', for short.
PREM SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
812
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
Prosecution Evidence
5. In trial, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses.
The peculiar feature of the case had been that while two of the witnesses,
PW-7 Mahender Kumar Yadav, uncle of the wife of the appellant,and
PW-8 Rajender Yadav, another uncle of the wife of the appellant,attempted
to suggest that the appellant was a drunkard who used to give beating to
his wife and suspected her character but, PW-5 Bishan Singh, brother
of appellant,as also PW-9 Sunita Yadav, wife of the appellant, did not
support this version. On the contrary, wife of the appellant specifically
maintained that she had always been having good and cordial relations
with her husband. Another set of evidence in this case had been in relation
to the addiction of the appellant to alcohol and his admission to, and
discharge from, rehabilitation centre. In this regard, the testimonies of
PW-2 Puran Singh, cousin of the appellant, and of PW-3 Jagbir, manager
of rehabilitation centreassume relevance in view of emphasis laid in this
appeal on mental disposition of the appellant. Yet another set of evidence
had been of three witnesses, PW-1 Naresh Kaushik, delivery boy at the
Petrol Pump, PW-4 Mahesh Kumar Sharma and PW-6 Komal Ram, the
personnel in-charge at the Water Treatment Plant,who testified to the
facts about the appellant visiting them immediately after the incident
while suggesting that his sons had accidentally fallen into the canal. PW14 Dr. V.K. Jha had been the medical officer who conducted post-mortem
over the dead bodies and maintained his opinion that the cause of death
in relation to each of the children was asphyxia as a result of manual
strangulation.The other witnesses had been the personnel who conducted
the investigation or carried out the tasks related thereto.
6. Though elaboration on the entire prosecution evidence is not
necessary for the purpose of thepresent appeal but, having regard to the
contentions urged, we may take note of the relevant depositions
concerning material factors namely, the appellant's addiction to alcohol
and his admission to, and discharge from, the rehabilitation centre; the
appellant's conduct towards his wife; the appellant's version immediately
after the event leading to the demise of his two sons; and the medical
opinion after post-mortem of the dead bodies of the victim children.
6.1. As regards addiction of the appellant and the matters related
with his admission to, and discharge from, the rehabilitation centre, the
relevant part of the testimonies of PW-2 Puran Singh, cousin of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
813
appellant and PW-3 Jagbir, the manager of rehabilitation centrewould
read as under5: -
"PW 2 Sh. Puran Singh Yadav S/o Sh. Bharat Singh Yadav, aged
about 63 years, R/o DU 72 Vishakha Enclave, Pitampura Delhi.
On S.A.
.....About 15/20 days prior to the present incident I came to know
that Prem Sing is admitted at Chetna Deaddiction Centre in
Auchandi Village due to his habit of consume liquor. I visited the
said deaddiction centre and found him admitted over there. I tried
to contact the doctor over there but the officials of said centre
informed me that the doctor will come on Wednesday but on
wednesday the said doctor did not arrive and they informed me
on telephonethat doctor will come on Friday. When I made a
telephonic call at the said deaddiction centre on friday then I came
to know that my uncle had got accused Prem Singh discharged
from the said centre. I raised an objection to the officials of said
deaddiction centre as to why they had discharged Prem Singh as
his condition was not normal.
After 2 or 3 days of his discharge the present incident took
place as far as I remember it was Sunday night. Had Prem Singh
not been discharged from the said deaddiction centre the present
incident could have been avoided.
At this stage Ld. APP seeks permission to put some leading
question to the witness. Heard. Allowed.
Q I put it to you that Prem Singh used to quarrel with his wife
Sunita and used to regularly beat and abuse his wife Sunita and
his both the deceased sons. Prem Singh is a man of violent nature?
A. I am unaware about the said facts as I was not a regular
visiter in the house of Prem Singh. I never stated so in my statement
recorded by the police and the IO had mentioned the said facts in
my statement on his own.
xxxxx by Ms. Sadhna Bhatia, Amicus Curie Ld. Counsel for
the accused.
5 Most of the extractions herein are verbatim from the copies placed on the record of
this appeal.
PREM SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
814
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
IO never recorded my statement. IO never made any inquiry
from me regarding this case. What ever I have deposed before
the court today is true. I had never seen accused beating his wife
or abusing his children as I reside separatly from their family and
do not interfere in their house. It is wrong to suggest that I am
deposing falsely."
***
***
***
"PW3 Statement of Sh. Jagbir S/o Sh. Sukhbir Singh, aged 40
years, R/o H. No. 205, village - Auchandi, Delhi - 39.
On S.A.
I am working as manager of Chetna Foundation (Regd.) Drugh
De-addiction and Rehabilitation Centre, Village Auchandi, Delhi39 for last five years.
In our said centre accused Prem Singh present in the court
today (correctly identified) was admitted on 20.11.08 for deaddiction of his habit of consuming ahlcohol. He was got admitted
by his father Girdhari Singh and his wife Sunita. He remained
admitted at our said centre till 29.04.09. During the said period his
counseling was done and after that he used to behave like an
ordinary prudent man. During his said stay of about of 5 months
at our centre he never went to his home. His wife Sunita, Sister
Baladevi, father Girdhari Lal and Cousin Puran Singh came at
our centre to meet him. He used to talk telephonically with his
wife Sunita, father Girdhari and other persons from the telephone
no. installed at our centre i.e, 27742360 and 27741540. The
behaviour of the Prem Singh was normal during his said stay and
he was never given any medicine for mental illness because neither
any mental illness was observed in him nor his family members
gave us any previous history of his suffering from any mental
illness. He was only having addiction to liquor as told to us by his
family members.
.....
.......
..........
On 29.04.2009 Girdhari Singh along with one other person got
Prem Singh discharge from our centre against our advice as I had
advised him to complete the course of 7-9 months. IO recorded
my statement. Documents which I had handed over to the IO i.e.,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
815
certificate is Ex. PW3/B and the photocopy of his complete file
of 8 pages is collectively Ex. PW 3/C all the documents signed by
me at point A. Original documents produced by the witness seen
and returned.
xxxxx by Ms. Sadhna Bhatia, Amicus Curie,Ld. Counsel for the
accused.
Accused was mentally fit and sound during his stay at our
centre and he was admitted only for de-addiction of his habit of
consuming liquor."
6.2. As noticed, PW-7 Mahender Kumar Yadav and PW-8
Rajender Yadav, both uncles of the wife of the appellant, asserted that
the appellant was not having good relations with his wife, was taken to
the habit of consuming liquor excessively, and was suspecting the
character of his wife. However, PW-5 Bishan Singh, brother of the
appellant and PW-9 Sunita Yadav, wife of the appellant did not support
the version of PW-7 and PW-8. We may take note of the relevant parts
of the statements of PW-7, PW-8, PW-5 and PW-9, in that order, as
under: -
"PW7- Statement of Mahender Kumar Yadav, Aged-52 years S/
O Late Sh. Ram Kishan Yadav R/O WZ-350 Village Shakurpur Delhi.
On S.A.
My niece Sunita Yadav had been married to accused Prem
Singh in the year 1996 and after marriage she starts residing at
H.NO-225 Haider Pur Delhi. Accused Prem Singh present in the
court today used to comment on the chastity of my niece Sunita
Yadav. Accused used to taking liquor and giving beating to Sunita.
Accused used to blame on my niece that she was not having good
character. Two male issues were borned after the wed-lock. She
was also told by his father in an effort to rectify accused Prem
Singh to join Nasha Mukti Kendr, Auchandi Gav. On advise of
her father accused was admitted to the above centre for his
treatment by my niece but on 29.04.2004 accused's father has
relieved his son from the Nasha Mukti Kendr Centre.
Regarding both the issue accused Prem Singh used to
comment that they were not belongs to me and used to quarreled
with my niece and stated that they belongs to someone else. Once
PREM SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
816
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
accused Prem Singh attempted to kill both the child by giving
them electric shock but with the pursuation of my niece and showing
her humbleness she was able to save both the child. Thereafter,
Sunita came to our house and remained in our house for about 56 months and thereafter Prem Singh has taken my daughter to his
house. Accused Prem Singh after coming from the Nasha Mukti
Kendr remains quiet for 2-3 days but later on he continued his
same behavior i.e, blaming on my niece and talk vulger with her.
He also stated that your calling some persons in your house and
indulging in bad activities (galat kaam) like sexual assault. He
also used to quarrel with my daughter.
On 03.05.2009 Sunita came to my house and stated that
accused Prem Singh quarreling with her. I went to his house and
tried to consolidate their matter but could not succeed, ultimately
I returned to my house. On the same day at about 11:00 am I
received a phone call by the police that both the children of my
niece Sunita were died by drowning in the canal near Haider Pur
Water treatment plant. I suspect that both the children have not
been drowned as their own but they were killed by their father
accused Prem Singh....... At the time of recovery of the dead
body accused Prem Singh was claiming that both the children
have been drowned in the canal on their own but later on after his
arrest he admitted that he has committed murder of his both the
children. Police recorded the disclosure statement of accused Prem
Singh in my presence same is EXPW-7/D signed by me at pt A.
xxxxxx advocate by Ms. Sadhna Bhatia (Amicus Curie) for the
accused.
We have not made any complaint regarding the above said
behavior to the police. My statement was recorded at the PP
Prashant Vihar. We have not called Panchayat in regard to the
quarrel between my niece and Prem Singh. Vol. We had gone to
the house of accused for number of times for reconsider the matter
but accused could not give any heed. My niece Sunita told me
about the attempt of accused to kill his both the children by way
of electric shock but I had not seen personally. We have not made
any complaint for the above incident to the police. I had not seen
personally any beating by accused to his wife. The house of
accused is about 5 km from my house. On 03.05.2009 I went to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
817
canal at about 07:00 pm. When I saw accused near the canal and
also seen his children's body. I did not report the matter to the
police regarding conduct of accused qua my niece and the children.
I had not seen the occurance. It is incorrect to suggest that I am
deposing falsely being the maternal uncle of Sunita or that accused
used to love Sunita and the children or that he did not commit the
alleged offence or that being relative of Sunita I had deposed
falsely in the court."
***
***
***
"PW8- Statement of Rajender Yadav, aged 43 years S/O Sh.
Jawahar Singh R/O WZ-342 Village Shakur Pur Delhi.
On SA
I am running a shop in the name of M/s. Astha Enterprises at
Sector-7 Rohini Delhi. Sunita W/O accused Prem Singh is my
niece who has been married with accused for about 12-13 years
before. Initially, accused Prem Singh was working as a transporter
but later on he left this work and become unemployed and he
used to take liquor often. My niece used to tell whenever she
visited our house that accused used to abusing her and also
demanding money and also gave beating her. We sometime help
her in cash. 2-3 years after the marriage Sunita's both son Jitesh
and Sunny live with us in our house for about 2 years. Because of
the habit of acute drinking of accused he was once sent to Nasha
Mukti Kendr by his wife Sunita but later on the family members
of accused released him against the wishes of Sunita. On the day
of release accused Prem Singh has given severe beatings to his
wife Sunita and both his children and in turn Sunita came to our
house leaving children at the house of accused at Haider Pur. We
received a phone call for PS Prashant Vihar on 03.05.2009 that
they have informed by Prem Singh that his 2 children has drown
in the Haider Pur Canal while they were playing near the canal in
front of him. We went to the PS, I and Mahender Singh son of my
uncle late Sh.