Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 201 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Last seen theory – Victim-deceased along with PW-1, PW-2 and appellant-accused went to a river to take bath – From there, the appellant/accused and the deceased went to cashew field – The appellant and the deceased did not return for long time, however, PW-1 and PW-2 returned to the village – On the next day, PW-3 (father of deceased) went to the riverside in search of his son and found his dead body floating in the river – PW-3 lodged FIR alleging that the appellant killed his son – Trial Court based on ‘last seen together’ and recovery of weapon together with motive held that chain of circumstantial evidence is completed and convicted the appellant – High court affirmed – Correctness: Held: The present is a case where except for the evidence of ‘last seen together’ there is no other incriminating material against the appellant – The evidence of motive does not satisfy this court to be an adverse circumstance against the appellant inasmuch as if the appellant has any doubt about his wife’s chastity, he would have caused injury or harm to his wife rather than to wife’s cousin with whom he had no animosity – Moreover, the so-called weapon of the offence i.e. the stone has not been recovered at his instance nor there is any memorandum statement of the appellant – The nature of circumstantial evidence available against the appellant though raises doubt that he may have committed murder but the same is not so conclusive that he can be convicted only on the basis of evidence on ‘last seen together’ – Thus, impugned judgment is set aside – Appellant acquitted. [Paras 19, 22, 23, 25] Circumstantial Evidence – Prosecution is obliged to prove each circumstance, taken cumulatively to form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities, crime was committed by the accused and none else – Discussed. [Paras 10-12] Circumstantial Evidence – ‘Last seen together’ – A weak piece of evidence – Without any other corroborative evidence – Not sufficient to convict u/s.302 – Discussed. [Paras 20, 21] Criminal Trial – Suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot substitute the proof – Conviction is not permissible only on the basis of the suspicion – Discussed. [Para 24]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. 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.