Penal Code, 1860:
s.302 r/w. s. 120B – Murder – Prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence – Conviction by the trial court – High Court affirmed the conviction in appeal – On appeal, held: There was inconsistency in the statement of the complainant (PW1) – There was delay in filing private complaint – The private complaint which was filed four years later was contrary to the first complaint which was filed immediately after the incident – Evidence of PW1 and PW5 cannot be relied on as they did not come to the court with clean hands – The circumstances relied on by the prosecution cannot lead to the inference that it is the accused alone who committed the offence – In view of inconsistencies in medical evidence, prosecution has even failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the death was homicidal – Thus prosecution miserably failed to link the accused with the death of the deceased – The appellants-accused are entitled to be acquitted.
Evidence:
Circumstantial evidence – Appreciation of – Held: In the case of circumstantial evidence it should be observed that (1) circumstances leading to inference of guilt must be proved beyond doubt; (2) circumstances should unerringly point to the guilt of the accused (3) circumstances should be so linked to form a chain leading to only one conclusion i.e. guilt of accused and (4) There is probability of the crime having been committed by a person other than the accused.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: There are no eye-witnesses to the case and this is a case based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution which lead to an inference to the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond doubt. The circumstances should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be linked together in such a manner that the cumulative effect of the chain formed by joining the links is so complete that it leads to only one conclusion i.e. the guilt of the accused. That there should be no probability of the crime having been committed by a person other than the accused. [Paras 9 and 11][112-C, 113-D-F]
Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC
343 : [1952] SCR 1091 – relied on.
Wills on Circumstantial Evidence (Chapter VI) by Sir Alfred Wills Butterworths, Seventh Edition, Pp 296329 – referred to.
2.1 In a case based on circumstantial evidence it is always better for the courts to deal with each circumstance separately and then link the circumstances which have been proved to arrive at a conclusion. In the present case, though a reference has been made to some circumstances, the circumstances have not been discussed separately. [Para 13][113-G]
2.2 Though the circumstance of last seen together is proved, the manner in which the accused reached Chennai and the guest house in question suggests a total different story. It was not the accused, who had organised the trip but it was the deceased, who had organised the trip and, therefore, it cannot be said that the accused had taken the deceased to the guest house with the intention of killing him. This assumption by both the courts below is based on no evidence. [Para 13] [114-B, C, 115-B-C]
2.3 Medical evidence led in this case clearly indicates that the deceased died due to overdose of Tidijesic. It is not disputed that 4 ml of Tidijesic was injected into the wrist of the deceased. The medical evidence clearly shows that after chemical analysis it was found that the amount of the offending substance found in the blood of the deceased would be equal to injecting 40 ml of Tidijesic. Therefore, there is no manner of doubt that the deceased died due to overdosing of drug. The prosecution, by means of the medical evidence, has failed to link the accused with the death of the deceased. The prosecution has failed to SUPDT. OF POLICE CB CID AND ANR.
prove the exact time of death of the deceased. The deceased was first injected an injection between 9.30 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. As per doctor, the effect of this could end in about six hours. Therefore, the possibility of the deceased getting up himself in the middle of the night to inject himself cannot be ruled out. There is also the possibility of his calling some other person to inject him with the drug. Even more importantly, the prosecution has failed to prove where the balance 36 ml of drug came from. Who got this drug and when? There is no evidence that the accused purchased this drug. No recovery has been made from them and, therefore, though it stands proved that the deceased died due to overdose of drug, the prosecution has miserably failed to link the accused with the death of the deceased. [Para 13][115-E, 116-E-G]
2.4 The motive put forth by prosecution is that PW-10 was close to accused No.1, who introduced her to the deceased. According to the case set up by the prosecution, the two had developed a close relationship and were regularly chatting with each other on phone and through SMS-es. This was not liked by Accused No.1, who thereafter conspired with accused No. 2 to kill the deceased by overdosing him. PW-10 in her statement has not at all supported the prosecution case. No other evidence has been led to prove that PW-10 had any special relationship with accused No.1 or that she had developed any special relationship with deceased. In the first complaint filed by PW-1, there is no mention of PW-10, much less of her having any affair with either the accused or the deceased. This was brought out for the first time only in the complaint filed four years after the death of the deceased. There is no explanation for this long silence of four years. Therefore, the motive has not been proved. [Para 13][117-A-B, D, E-F]
2.5 Both the courts below have come to the conclusion that accused No.2 was asked by accused No. 1 to commit the crime because accused No.2 was a medical student and he alone knew how to inject the substance into the body of the deceased. Such inference drawn by the courts below was totally ill founded. From the evidence on record it stands established that the deceased was a drug addict and had been taking injectible drugs for a long time. It is well known that such drug addicts can easily inject themselves. What has happened in the present is not clear but it cannot be said with certainty that accused No.2 had injected the poisonous substance into the body of the deceased. There is no evidence in this regard. Even as per the prosecution, accused No.2 had no motive to kill the deceased. Therefore, the inference drawn by the High Court as well as the trial court that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had conspired or had the common intention of murdering the deceased is not based on any cogent or reliable evidence. [Para 13][117-G-H, 118-A-C, E]
2.6 There is inconsistency in the statement of PW-1. The private complaint filed by him four years later is contrary to the first complaint filed by him immediately after the occurrence. His explanation is that he was asked to sign on two blank papers by the police. In case the version of PW-1 that his signatures were taken on blank papers was correct, then he would have definitely said so, much earlier. He would have reported the matter to the higher authorities or made mention of this in the petitions filed in the High Court. Despite a pointed query to the counsel for the original complainant and the informant and the State, they failed to point out whether any such complaint had been made by PW-1 or PW-5. Therefore, the version of PW-1 that his signatures were obtained on blank sheets of papers is not acceptable. This also casts a doubt on the veracity of the statement of PW-1. [Para 14][118-F-H, 119-B-C]
2.7 There is delay in filing the private complaint. After the charge-sheet was filed against ‘V’ by the Investigating Officer (DW-4), neither PW-1 nor PW-5 filed any protest petition to the effect that the accused should also be arraigned as accused. They let the matter go on and it was only after ‘V’died that the private complaint was filed. There is no explanation why no protest petition was filed when the police had only made out a case against accused ‘V’ and that too under Section 304 IPC and not murder. [Para 14][119-D-E]
2.8 PW-1 and PW-5 are not coming to the Court with clean hands. The motive has been introduced after four years. The father and the maternal uncle of the deceased never brought up the issue of the deceased having conversations with PW-10 at any earlier stage. Therefore, PW-1 and PW-5 are not coming to the court with clean hands. They have cooked up the story of signing on blank papers and also cooked up the story relating to the motive. Therefore, their evidence is not reliable and a person cannot be convicted on the basis of such evidence. [Para 14][119-F-G]
SUPDT. OF POLICE CB CID AND ANR.
2.9 The circumstances proved cannot lead to the inference that it is the accused alone who committed the offence. In fact, the prosecution has even failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the death is homicidal in view of the inconsistencies in the medical evidence. Even otherwise, it is not proved that it was the accused who injected the deceased and the possibility of the accused injecting himself or some other person doing so cannot be ruled out. [Para 15][120-C]
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.