Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Case of the prosecution based only on circumstantial evidence – Conviction of the appellant u/s.302 read with s.34, IPC – Propriety: Held: Versions of the three witnesses (PW-10, PW-11 and 12) are improbable and contradictory – The weapons recovered by the IO and the ones seen by the witnesses are only sticks – However, the deceased had suffered an incise wound which according to the doctor, PW-14 who conducted the post-mortem, was caused by a sharp-edged weapon – Prosecution did not recover any sharp-edged weapon – In fact, there is no mention about a sharp-edged weapon at all – FSL report states that the “pant” sent to them for examination was one dirty blue “terikot pant” – However, as per the recovery memo a “jeans pant” was recovered from the Appellant – Additionally, the FSL report states that the blood on the sticks, blood-stained pants and the blood group of the deceased is the same “O+” – This is not an indication of the guilt – Moreover, nothing of these recoveries took place in the presence of an independent witness – Thus, there is a yawning gap between the charge against the Appellant and the evidence adduced – The circumstances do not establish the guilt of the Appellant at all – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, in the present case the evidence adduced gives rise to doubts, improbabilities and inconsistencies – Prosecution did not establish its case beyond reasonable doubt – Judgment of the High Court and the Trial Court set aside – Appellant acquitted. [Paras 25, 26, 29-32]
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.