2022 (12) TMI 1455 - SC - Indian Laws

Murder - acquittal of the accused - prove beyond reasonable doubt - circumstantial evidence - HELD THAT - Undisputedly, the present case is a case based on circumstantial evidence - It has been held by this Court in a catena of cases including SHARAD BIRDHI CHAND SARDA VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 1984 (7) TMI 401 - SUPREME COURT , that suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, if the evidence of Jagdish Chander (PW - 4) is to be appreciated wherein he has stated that the Accused came to his house and informed him that he has killed the deceased-Om Prakash, such statement does not find any mention in the oral report. Apart from this, the delay of 14 hours in lodging the oral report has not been sufficiently explained. The only witness of the last seen theory, i.e. PW-5, has turned hostile and has thus been disbelieved. Apart from that, the trial court disbelieved the very same evidence in so far as the other four Accused were concerned. The said acquittal has also been found to be valid by the High Court. The High Court as well as the trial court were not justified in convicting the Appellant. The appeal is allowed

Summary

Issues:
Conviction under Section 120-B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code based on circumstantial evidence.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal arising from a High Court decision that set aside the conviction under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code while maintaining the conviction for the offense under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, along with confirming the sentence of life imprisonment. The prosecution's case revolved around the events leading to the death of the deceased, where the accused visited the deceased's house and later arrived with the deceased's body at the deceased's brother's house. The key witness, Jagdish Chander (PW-4), expressed suspicion against the appellant, leading to the registration of an FIR after a delay of 14 hours. The trial court convicted the present appellant based on the evidence of PW-4, PW-7, and PW-8, while acquitting the other accused, a decision upheld by the High Court.

The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant primarily relying on the evidence of PW-4, noting the hostility of another witness, PW-5, who did not support the prosecution's case. The case was based on circumstantial evidence, and the defense argued that there was a lack of substantial evidence to convict the appellant. The Supreme Court referred to established legal principles, emphasizing the need for proof beyond reasonable doubt in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The court highlighted the importance of establishing a complete chain of evidence to exclude any reasonable doubt regarding the accused's guilt.

Upon analyzing the evidence presented, the Supreme Court found discrepancies in the statements and actions of the witnesses, particularly the delay in reporting the incident and the turning hostile of a crucial witness. The court noted that the trial court had already disbelieved the same evidence concerning the other accused individuals, whose acquittal was upheld. Consequently, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court and the trial court erred in convicting the appellant based on the available evidence. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges, with the cancellation of the bail bonds. Any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.