Penal Code, 1860:
ss. 364A, 201 and 302/34 – Prosecution under – Reliance on circumstantial evidence – Conviction by courts below – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: In a case based on circumstantial evidence, every circumstance must be fully proved and all the circumstances must form a chain of evidence so complete as to exclude every hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused – The circumstances relied on in the present case do not form a chain so complete as not to leave any reasonable doubt or exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved – The circumstances are also not sufficient and adequate to hold that the prosecution had established its case beyond any reasonable doubt – Thus, the prosecution failed to establish its case against the accused – Therefore, the accused are acquitted – Evidence – Circumstantial Evidence.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, every circumstance must be fully proved and all the circumstances must form a chain of evidence so complete as to exclude every hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused.[Para 14] [1116-E] Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88; Nizam and Another v. State of Rajasthan (2016) 1 SCC 550 : [2015] 10 SCR 786 – relied on.
2. From the facts and circumstances it is evident: that a) Though PW7 stated that two calls were made from his STD Booth on 12.01.2006 at about 1327 Hours and 1338 Hours to specified mobile numbers, nothing has been brought on record that those two mobile numbers either belonged to PW4 and PW10 or were in any way under their control. In order to establish as a circumstance that on the relevant day threatening calls were received by the said PWs 4 and 10 from the appellants, the important fact which ought to have been established was that those two mobile numbers either belonged to or were under the control of said PWs 4 and 10. Even if it is accepted that said PW7 had identified the appellants to be the ones who had made two calls, that does not lead to infer that the calls must have been made to PWs4 and 10. This circumstance has not been fully established which could be read against the appellants.b) Though drawing book had been received from the house of appellant No.1 and it was the case of the prosecution that the threatening letter (Exhibit-II) was written on a piece of paper from said drawing book, no attempts were made either to have any forensic analysis or examine handwriting expert to establish that the writing in the threatening letter was either of the appellants or could be associated with them. [Para 16] [1119-B-F]
3. The dead body was found ten days later on 18.01.2006. The post mortem, conducted thereafter, indicated time of death to be between 3 to 7 days. Even if the outer margin is considered to be the limit, the circumstance by itself does not fit in, assuming it to be completely against the appellants. [Para 17] [1119-G-H]
4. The circumstances viz. recovery of scarf and chocolate wrappers and biscuits and recovery of dead body in the rexin bag, do not form a chain so complete as not to leave any reasonable doubt or exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, nor are the circumstances sufficient and adequate to hold that the prosecution had established its case beyond any reasonable doubt. [Para 18] [1119-G; 1120-A-B]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.