CASE COMMENT: DR.
RAJESH TALWAR
AND ANR V. STATE OF U.P. AND ANR
(2017) 5 RCR (Cri) 327, ALLAHABAD HC
FACTS OF THE CASE
Victims: Aarushi Talwar and Hemraj Banjade
Prime Suspects
Investigation
Conviction
Appeal- Acquittal
ANALYSIS
S.204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (cognizance)
Sufficient reasons to bring charges
last seen theory or as under the Indian Evidence Act: “Doctrine of Inductive Logic”
S.106 of IEA puts the “burden of proof on the individual who has knowledge of the
fact”.
S.114: the Court may presume the existence of any fact that it believes is likely to
have occurred, taking into account the natural course of events, human behaviour,
and public and private business in connection to the circumstances of the case.
Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana (2018)
Hemraj Laxman Gondane v. The state of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No.
737 of 2004
Prakash and Anr v. State of Haryana, (2002) 8 SCC 426
The constitutional legitimacy of the narco test was debated in Selvi v. State of
Karnataka 2010(7) SCC 263; Sections 53 and 54 of the Criminal Procedure
Code allow a person who has been arrested to be medically examined
CASES CITED
The principles how the circumstances be considered and weighed are well settled and summed up by
the Apex Court in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116. as under:
“153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a
case against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may
be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not
“may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved”
and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 where the observations were made
(2) (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused,
that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
(3) (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,
(4) (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
(5) (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability
the act must have been done by the accused.”
In Dhan Raj @ Dhand v. State of Haryana (2014) 6 SCC 745, (Hon. Ghose,
J.) while dwelling on the imperatives of circumstantial evidence ruled that
the same has to be of highest order to satisfy the test of proof in a criminal
prosecution. It was underlined that such circumstantial evidence should
establish a complete unbroken chain of events so that only one inference of
guilt of the accused would ensue by excluding all possible hypothesis of his
innocence. It was held further that in case of circumstantial evidence, each
circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by independent
evidence excluding any chance of surmise or conjecture.
CONCLUSION
the extent to which circumstantial evidence can be
used
the admissibility of self-incriminating medical
examinations as substitute for third degree methods
of extracting information
THANK YOU
