9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (3) TMI 750 - SC - Indian LawsMurder of newly married couple - Challenged the Order Of Acquittal for the offences charged u/s 120-B, 364, 302 and 392 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - circumstantial evidence - recovery of the incriminating materials - benefit of doubt - sufficient time gap between the instances when the persons last seen together - HELD THAT - It is a settled rule of criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, however grave, cannot be substituted for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of circumstantial evidence. This Court has applied the above-mentioned general principle with reference to the principle of last seen together in Bodh Raj alias Bodha Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir 2002 (9) TMI 858 - SUPREME COURT . We have also not found any other link in the chain of circumstances to conclusively establish that A-1 murdered D-1 or A-2 played any role in assisting him to murder D-1. Even if we believe the evidence of P.W.-11 that he saw D-1 in the company of A- 1 walking towards the beach and thereafter saw A-1 returning alone after 30 to 45 minutes, there has been a time gap of about 2 hours when A-1 and D-1 were last seen together and when the dead body of D-1 was found at around 00.30 a.m. at the Benaulim Beach. No evidence was led by the prosecution to prove the fact that there was no possibility of any other person approaching D-1 on the beach which is a public place, during the intervening period when A-1 was last seen with the deceased and when the crime was detected. In the absence of any other supporting material on record, it will not be possible to believe the statement of P.W.-6 that he had seen A-2 sitting in the car on the night of 27.02.1999 to establish the fact that when D-2 left the hotel she accompanied A-2. Similarly, with respect to A-1, P.W.-6 who had an opportunity to see A-1 for the first time for a very short duration to recognize him to be a person who accompanied D-2 to Hotel Seema on the night of 27.2.1999, he had only a fleeting glance of male person who came with D-2 as he was busy in settling the account with her. That apart, the dead body of D-2 was found at around 7.30 a.m. on 28.02.1999 at Vagator Beach, around 60 kms. from the beach where the dead body of D-1 was recovered and quite a long distance from Hotel Seema. Hence, there has been a considerable time gap of approximately 8 hours when D-2 was last seen alive with the accused couple. There being a considerable time gap between the persons seen together and the proximate time of crime, the circumstance of last seen together, even if proved, cannot clinchingly fasten the guilt on the accused. In the light of the factors that evidence regarding the recovery of the incriminating materials from the accused persons has been discarded; that there has been sufficient time gap between the instances when the accused persons were last seen together with the deceased persons; and in the absence of any other corroborative piece of evidence to complete the chain of circumstances to fasten the guilt on the accused couple, we are of the opinion that the accused have been rightly given the benefit of doubt by the courts below. We have found that the finding of the High Court that the chain of circumstances is not complete to conclusively establish that either A-1 or A-2 alone or with the common intention of each other have committed the dreadful crime of murder of newly married couple, is correct and merely suspicion, however grave, cannot replace the weight attached to the evidence. Accordingly, we order for dismissal of the appeals.
Issues Involved:
1. Acquittal of the accused by the High Court and Sessions Court. 2. Circumstantial evidence and its sufficiency. 3. Recovery of incriminating materials. 4. Identification of accused persons. 5. Application of the "last seen together" doctrine. 6. Statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Acquittal of the Accused by the High Court and Sessions Court: The appellants challenged the acquittal of the accused by the High Court of Bombay at Goa and the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji. The accused were acquitted of charges under Sections 120-B, 364, 302, and 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The lower courts concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the involvement of the accused in the crime beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Circumstantial Evidence and its Sufficiency: The prosecution's case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence. The court reiterated that circumstantial evidence must meet specific criteria: - The circumstances must be firmly established. - They should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. - The chain of circumstances should be complete and exclude any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. - The evidence must be consistent with the guilt and inconsistent with innocence. 3. Recovery of Incriminating Materials: The prosecution relied on the recovery of various items, including jewelry and clothes, from the accused's flat and their house in Agra. However, the courts found discrepancies and contradictions in the recovery process: - The first search on 17.12.1999 did not list any jewelry or clothes. - The second search on 11.02.2000, after the accused's alleged confession, yielded items not found in the first search. - The flat was easily accessible, raising doubts about the integrity of the recovered items. 4. Identification of Accused Persons: The identification parade conducted on 07.02.2000 was found to have irregularities: - The accused were placed in the same parade with dummies, contrary to the Criminal Manual's guidelines. - The fairness of the identification was questioned due to the age difference between the accused and the dummies. 5. Application of the "Last Seen Together" Doctrine: The court examined the "last seen together" evidence, which requires a small time gap between when the accused and deceased were last seen together and when the deceased was found dead. The court found: - There was a significant time gap between when the accused were last seen with the deceased and when the bodies were found. - No evidence ruled out the possibility of other persons being involved during the intervening period. 6. Statements Under Section 313 Cr.P.C.: The prosecution argued that the accused's failure to explain the circumstances of the victims' deaths in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. indicated their involvement. However, the court held that the absence of an explanation alone could not establish guilt, especially when the evidence was not conclusive. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court reiterated that suspicion, however grave, cannot replace concrete evidence. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the lower courts' decisions.
|
