Penal Code, 1860: s.302 r/w s.34 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Political rivalry – Incident on election day – Prosecution case was that victim-deceased was election agent of the losing candidate – Accused A-1 and A-2, both supporters of losing candidate came to the house of deceased and asked him to accompany them on the pretext that the losing candidate was falsely implicated in a criminal case and, so they would also falsely involve the winning candidate in a counter case – On the way, A-3 also joined them – At 4 a.m., PW-14 while waiting for conveyance saw A-1 to A-3 and the deceased going in auto rickshaw – The deceased was taken to abandoned house where he was shot by A-1 and A-2 – Thereafter A-1 and A-2 took the deceased to hospital where he died – A-2 lodged FIR narrating that while they were going on foot, the members of the winning party fired a shot at them which hit the victim – Ten days after the incident, all the accused-appellants confessed their guilt before PW-16 – Trial court convicted the accused persons – High Court upheld the order of trial court – On appeal, held: It is well settled that motive is an important aspect in circumstantial evidence case – In this case, it is not convincing that accused would kill their own person with a motive to foist a false case on the son of the winning candidate – There were material improvements in the statements of the wife of the deceased, which made her statement unreliable and doubtful – The conduct of the wife of deceased in keeping quiet and not stopping her husband from accompanying the accused even though knowing well that her husband was being taken for shooting somebody, does not fit with the natural human behavior to inspire any confidence – There was no direct evidence which led the prosecution to clearly prove that deceased was shot at the abandoned house as alleged – Thus, prosecution could not establish its case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside.
Witnesses: Chance witness – Evidentiary value of – Held: Generally, the chance witness, who reasonably explains his presence in the named location at the relevant time, may be taken into consideration and should be given due regard, if his version inspires confidence and the same is supported by surrounding circumstances – The evidence of a chance witness requires a very cautious and close scrutiny – A chance witness must adequately explain his presence at the place of occurrence – Deposition of a chance witness whose presence at the place of incident remains doubtful should be discarded.
Witnesses: Interested witness – Although it is well settled that mere relationship with the deceased will not be sufficient to discredit a witness, however, in the instant case, the wife of the deceased was an interested witness due to earlier enmity with the accused – Therefore, her evidence did not inspire confidence to rely on the same – Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w s.34.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. In cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidences, which may lead to the accused’s guilt. In majority of cases, the inference of guilt is usually drawn by establishing the case from its initiation to the point of commission wherein each factual link is ultimately based on evidence of a fact or an inference thereof. Therefore, the courts have to identify the facts in the first place so as to fit the case within the parameters of ‘chain link theory’ and then see whether the case is made out beyond reasonable doubt. It is well settled that motive is an important aspect in circumstantial evidence case. In this case, the motive has an important role as this case is based on circumstantial evidence, motive herein forms one of the intermediate fact/circumstances. The motive of killing deceased was to foist a false case on the son of the winning candidate. If the motive was to foist a false case, then it is quite strange to believe that the accused went to the extent of killing their own person who was supporter of losing candidate to avenge the loss in the elections. Even if the motive is taken to be proved, then this too only forms one of the circumstances for adducing the guilt of the accused. [Paras 39, 40] [979-D-F, G; 980-C-D]
Prakash v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2013 SC
1474:[2013] 2 SCR 458; Hanumant and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343: [1952] SCR 1091; Shivaji Genu Mohite v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1973 SC 55; Anant Chintaman Lagu v. State of Bombay AIR 1960 SC 500:[1960] SCR 460; Deonandan
Mishra v. State of Bihar AIR 1955 SC 801:[1955] SCR 570; Govinda Reddy v. State of Mysore AIR 1960 SC 29; Charan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1967 SC 520; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622:[1985] 1 SCR 88 – relied on
Peacock v. The King 13 CLR 619 – referred to. A Practical treatise on the law of evidence, and digest of proofs, in civil and criminal proceedings (vol. I, 4th Eds., 1876) by Thomas Starkie; Introduction to Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Wharton’s Criminal Evidence (1955) – referred to.
2. The evidence of PW-13 (wife of the deceased) portrays that there were material improvements in her statements, which makes her statement unreliable and doubtful. The vindictive statements which were made during the cross examination, clearly bars from taking her testimony into consideration. There is no dispute that there was prior enmity between the wife and the accused appellants, which makes her statements unreliable. It is revealed from her evidence that, even though she knew that her husband was taken for shooting somebody, she kept quiet and did not stop her husband from accompanying the accused. Such behavior would be suspicious as it does not fit with the natural human behavior to inspire any confidence. Although it is well settled that mere relationship with the deceased will not be sufficient to discredit a witness, in the present circumstances, it is apparent that the wife was an interested witness due to earlier enmity between the accused. Hence, this witness does not inspire confidence to rely on the same. [Paras 41, 42] [980-E-H; 981-A]
3. Generally, the chance witness, who reasonably explains his presence in the named location at the relevant time, may be taken into consideration and should be given due regard, if his version inspires confidence and the same is supported by surrounding circumstances. The evidence of a chance witness requires a very cautious and close scrutiny. PW-14 has not explained as to why he was standing near the Bristol Prison so early at 4:00 AM in the morning of a peak winter day, when the first bus to the village was at 7:00 AM. Moreover, it is doubtful that A-3 would have brandished a gun, while travelling in the auto-rickshaw. It is suspicious that even after getting to know that victim-deceased was killed at Hisar, PW-14 did not reveal to anybody that he saw the deceased in the company of the accusedappellant in the morning travelling towards Hisar. Indeed, it is quite unbelievable that a man, during peak of north Indian winter, would wait at 4 A.M for a bus, which is scheduled to leave at 7:00 AM morning. These suspicious circumstances impugn the general trustworthiness of PW-14. Therefore, this Court cannot accept the evidence of this witness as being credible. [Paras 44, 45] [981-C-D, F-H]
Satbir v. Surat Singh (1997) 4 SCC 192: [1997] 2 SCR 1; Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2004) 11 SCC 253; Shankarlal v. State of Rajasthan (2004) 10 SCC 632; Thangaiya v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005) 9 SCC
650 : [2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 786 – relied on.
Re Periyaswami Moopan, AIR 1931 Mad. 177 –
approved
4. PW-16 narrated that the three accused met him in the bus stop when they confessed to their crime individually. The said extra-judicial confession against the co-accused needs to be taken into consideration if at all it is one, only if other independent evidence on record have established the basic premise of the prosecution. The confession of the co-accused cannot be solely utilized to convict a person, when the surrounding circumstances are improbable and creates suspicion.[Paras 46, 47][982-A, E-F] Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar AIR 1964 SC 1184 : [1964] SCR 623 – relied on
5. The FSL report forms part of the evidence, which is shown to point out that the crime had taken place in the house at Adarsh Nagar, Hisar and gun of 0.15 bore belonging to A-3 was used for the same. The prosecution was expected to examine the author of the report, and non-examination of the same is a fatal error in the case at hand. Moreover, at the scene of occurrence, there was no blood or foot marks found, which is apparent from the evidence of PW-8. There was no direct evidence which led the prosecution to clearly prove that deceased was shot at Adarsh Nagar in Hisar. Even the circumstantial evidence which is led, has gaps in between. There was a big hiatus between the time the accused left the village and the accused-appellants were seen in the Hospital, at Hisar. Neither the intermediate facts are established with certainty, nor the case as a whole is established beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 48, 51] [982-H; 983-A-B; 984D-E]
Latesh v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2018 SC 659 : [2018] 1 SCR 709 – relied on
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.