2015 (1) TMI 1307 - SC - Indian Laws

Conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment and fine of ₹ 25,000/- imposed on each of them - Held that - In the present case, the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence and the gap in the chain of circumstances sought to be established by the prosecution. The courts below have ignored the importance of best evidence i.e. CCTV camera in the instant case and also have not noticed the absence of symptoms of strangulation in the medical reports. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the circumstances and the evidence adduced by the prosecution do not form a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the accused and the benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused and the conviction of the appellants is liable to be set aside. In the result, conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
2. Circumstantial evidence and its evaluation.
3. Non-production of CCTV footage.
4. Medical evidence and cause of death.
5. Defense plea of alibi.
6. Motive for the crime.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC:
The appeal challenges the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- imposed by the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and examined the judgment confirming the conviction and sentence.

2. Circumstantial evidence and its evaluation:
The case is based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution relied on the following circumstances:
- The accused had the opportunity to commit the offense as they were with the deceased in the hotel room.
- The accused had no plausible explanation for the injuries and death of the deceased.
- The defense plea of alibi was not proved.
- The intimacy between the accused and the deceased led to a motive for the crime.
- Medical evidence supported the prosecution's version of homicidal death by strangulation.

The Supreme Court emphasized that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must form a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Court referred to established legal principles, including those from C. Chenga Reddy & Ors. vs. State of A.P. and Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors., which require that the circumstances must be fully proved, conclusive, and consistent only with the guilt of the accused.

3. Non-production of CCTV footage:
The prosecution's failure to produce CCTV footage, which was crucial evidence, raised serious doubts about the case. The CCTV footage could have shown whether the accused remained inside the hotel or went out, which was essential to prove the accused's presence at the crime scene. The Supreme Court noted that the trial court and High Court erred in relying on the oral testimony of witnesses who claimed to have seen the footage without producing it in court. The Court drew an adverse inference against the prosecution under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act for withholding the best evidence.

4. Medical evidence and cause of death:
The medical evidence indicated that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. However, the absence of prominent symptoms of strangulation, such as petechiae, swollen face, and external marks of struggle, raised doubts about the prosecution's version. The Supreme Court found that the conspicuous absence of these symptoms, coupled with other circumstances, militated against the prosecution's case. The Court also noted the non-recovery of the alleged object used for strangulation and the lack of external injuries on the deceased's body, which weakened the prosecution's case.

5. Defense plea of alibi:
The accused claimed that they had gone out to see 'Subahe Banaras' in the early hours of 4.2.2010 and returned to find the deceased in a serious condition. The Supreme Court observed that the burden was on the prosecution to establish that the accused remained inside the hotel room during the relevant period. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove this crucial fact, and the defense plea of alibi could not be disproved.

6. Motive for the crime:
The prosecution suggested that the intimacy between the accused and the deceased led to a motive for the crime. However, the Supreme Court found that the evidence suggesting motive was based on improvements made during the trial and did not inspire confidence. The Court emphasized that proof of motive is an important corroborative piece of evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence, and the prosecution failed to establish it convincingly.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found that the evidence was not properly appreciated, material aspects were ignored, and the findings were perverse. The Court set aside the conviction under Section 302/34 IPC and allowed the appeal, directing the release of the appellants.