Circumstantial evidence – Suspicion howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof – Appellant was convicted u/s.302, IPC based on inter alia the ‘last-seen’ testimony of PW-4; recovery of a blood-stained axe and clothes pursuant to disclosure u/s.27; and recovery of the driving licence of the appellant from the spot – Interference with:
Held: The ‘last-seen’ testimony of PW-4 does not inspire confidence – The major distinction between the case of the present appellant and that of accused No. 2 (who was acquitted) is the ‘last-seen’ testimony of PW-4 – If that circumstance is excluded from consideration, the position of the present appellant is similar enough to that of accused No. 2 and it would be unsafe to sustain the conviction of the former, at least preponderantly on the basis of this circumstance – Witnesses have either turned hostile or not corroborated the case of prosecution on any material particulars in relation to the recoveries beyond just admitting their signatures – FSL report confirmed that it was human blood that was present on the axes and clothes; however, the blood group of either the deceased or of the blood present on the weapons or clothes was not determined; though it was observed the hair present on the axes was similar in morphological and microscopical characteristics to the hair recovered from the spot, no conclusive opinion was given if it belonged to the deceased; and there was no definitive link made between the recovered axes and the deceased’s injuries – The recovery circumstance remains legally tenuous – Remaining circumstances are also weak and inconclusive – As regards motive, it is a supporting factor which strengthens an otherwise complete chain of evidence but, it cannot replace such a chain where other circumstances are missing or weak – Prosecution’s case fails at the threshold itself, as each circumstance from which guilt is to be inferred is not firmly and fully established – Evidence on record may raise suspicion, but, suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof – Appellant, like accused No.2 deserves the benefit of doubt – Judgment passed by the High Court affirming the judgment of the Sessions Judge, is set aside insofar as it relates to the appellant – Appellant acquitted – Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.25,
27. [Paras 22, 24-26, 30, 31 ]
Constitution of India – Arts.134, 136 – Distinction between criminal appeals as a matter of right u/Art.134 and the broader, discretionary jurisdiction exercised by this Court u/Art.136: Held: u/Art.134, this Court sits as a regular court of appeal, but u/Art.136, ordinarily limits itself to correcting manifest illegality and/or grave miscarriage of justice – This is particularly apposite in a case like the present Appeal, where the Courts below have returned concurrent findings of guilt – However, restrictions are not absolute – In fact, both provisions underline that this Court has the final, Constitutional responsibility to ensure that justice is done, and hence, the nature and scope of Court’s powers u/Art.136 are not curtailed where the interests of justice so require. [Paras 12, 13] Evidence – ‘related’ witness; ‘interested’ witness – Testimony of interested witness without corroboration cannot sustain conviction:
Held: A ‘related’ witness is not necessarily an ‘interested’ witness, and an ‘interested’ witness need not be a ‘related’ one – Based on the evidence on record, it is plausible that a witness such as PW-4 had the requisite direct or indirect interest in seeing the appellant punished – His examination-in-chief and cross-examination disclose circumstances suggesting that he himself, or at least his ‘group’ or the persons closely associated with him, harboured longstanding hostility towards the appellant – Therefore, the finding of the Trial Court that it was “not established that the witness had any animosity with the accused”, or of the High Court that there is “no reason to disbelieve his statement”, is not sound – The possibility of PW-4 being an interested witness cannot be ruled out, and his testimony, at least without independent corroboration, cannot sustain the conviction. [Para 19]
Circumstantial evidence – Circumstance of motive – Absence of – Appellant was convicted u/s.302, IPC:
Held: Though not expressly considered by Trial Court, it is possible accused No. 2’s family relationship with the deceased weighed in his favour – In contrast, with respect to the appellant, there is some material on the record that points to a specific dispute with the deceased – However, the evidence does not establish the immediacy or gravity of animosity; if anything, it seems the appellant and the deceased continued to be friends and visit one another, and may even have been consuming liquor together the evening before the deceased died – Motive is a supporting factor which strengthens an otherwise complete chain of evidence – It cannot replace such a chain where other circumstances are missing or weak – Appellant also given the benefit of doubt, acquitted. [Para 30]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. 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.