9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1681 - SC - Indian LawsMurder - Criminal conspiracy - burden to prove the guilt of the Accused persons beyond reasonable doubt - missing links in the circumstances put forward by the Prosecution - failure to complete the chain of circumstances by conclusively establishing that each and every circumstance unerringly pointed to the guilt of the Accused - HELD THAT - The evidence of the hand writing expert (PW-34) establishes at the highest, that one of the Accused that is A-8, who had no enmity with the deceased, had made entries in and signed the admission register of the Malar Lodge Hotel. The evidence of PW-34, at best proves that A8 may have checked into Malar Lodge Hotel, Karaikudi on 21.6.1990, six months before the incident and nothing more. There could be numerous reasons for A8 to go to Karaikudi. The Prosecution has not been able to satisfactorily explain the gap of over six months between the incident and the date on which the alleged meeting took place at the Malar Lodge. It is well settled that under the criminal jurisprudence prevalent in this country an Accused is presumed innocent, unless proved guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. As held by this Court in SHIVAJI SAHEBRAO BOBADE VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 1973 (8) TMI 160 - SUPREME COURT , Certainly, it is a primary principle that the Accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. For conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should fully be established. The circumstances should be conclusive. The circumstances established should definitely point to the guilt of the Accused, and not be explainable on any other hypothesis. The circumstances should exclude any other possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. In SHARAD BIRDHI CHAND SARDA VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 1984 (7) TMI 401 - SUPREME COURT the Supreme Court held that where there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the entire case is based upon circumstantial evidence, the normal principal is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; these circumstances should be of a definite tendency, unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the Accused; the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that in all human probability the crime was committed by the Accused and they should be incapable of any explanation or of any hypothesis other than or inconsistent with the guilt of the Accused. It is well settled, suspicion however strong cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. Enmity as a result of property related disputes may give rise to suspicion. However, conviction can never be based on suspicion unless the prosecution clearly proves circumstances conclusively and all circumstances proved should only point to the guilt of the Accused. Possibility of any conclusion other than the conclusion of guilt of the Accused would vitiate a conviction. The burden of proving an Accused guilty beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution. If upon analysis of evidence two views are possible, one which points to the guilt of the Accused and the other which is inconsistent with the guilt of the Accused, the latter must be preferred. Reversal of a judgment and order of conviction and acquittal of the Accused should not ordinarily be interfered with unless such reversal/acquittal is vitiated by perversity. In other words, the Court might reverse an order of acquittal if the Court finds that no person properly instructed in law could have upon analysis of the evidence on record found the Accused to be 'not guilty'. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the Accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. There is a strong possibility that the motorcycle which the deceased were riding, might have been hit by an unknown vehicle, killing the deceased. The death may have been accidental. The High Court has rightly set aside the judgment and order of conviction of the Trial Court and acquitted the Accused. There are no merit in the appeals - appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 120B IPC for criminal conspiracy. 2. Conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC for murder. 3. Acquittal by the High Court. 4. Evidence evaluation and admissibility. 5. Motive and circumstantial evidence. Detailed Analysis: 1. Conviction under Section 120B IPC for Criminal Conspiracy: The prosecution alleged that the accused conspired to kill D2. The alleged conspiracy took place at Malar Lodge Hotel, Karaikudi, on 21.6.1990. However, the evidence presented, including the testimony of PW-44 and the denied statements of PW-10 and PW-39, was deemed inadmissible and unreliable. Both PW-10 and PW-39 denied knowledge of the conspiracy and their presence at Karaikudi. The court found no credible evidence to prove the conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC for Murder: The prosecution claimed that A1, A2, and A7 were involved in the murder of D2 and D1. The post-mortem reports by PW-22 and PW-23 indicated that the deaths could have resulted from a collision with a vehicle and subsequent injuries, rather than being beaten to death with iron rods. The evidence suggested the possibility of a 'hit and run' accident. The court found the prosecution failed to conclusively prove that the accused beat the deceased to death. 3. Acquittal by the High Court: The High Court acquitted the accused, citing serious infirmities, inconsistencies, and missing links in the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the prosecution did not establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that the evidence did not conclusively point to the accused's involvement in the crime. 4. Evidence Evaluation and Admissibility: The court scrutinized the evidence, including the testimonies of various witnesses (PWs 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 34, 35, 40, 42, 43, 44, and 45). Many witnesses were declared hostile, and their testimonies did not support the prosecution's case. The court found that the circumstantial evidence, such as the broken glass pieces and paint scrapings, did not conclusively link the lorry to the incident. The expert opinion of PW-34, a handwriting expert, was also deemed inconclusive. 5. Motive and Circumstantial Evidence: The prosecution attempted to establish a motive based on property disputes between D2 and A3, A4, and A1. However, the court found the evidence of motive speculative and unsubstantiated. The court reiterated that conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused, which was lacking in this case. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's acquittal of the accused, emphasizing the prosecution's failure to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The court highlighted the importance of credible and conclusive evidence in criminal cases and dismissed the appeals.
|
