Penal Code, 1860, s.120B, 302, 201; Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998, s.4A – Appellants acquitted by Trial Court – High Court in impugned judgment reversed the finding of acquittal and convicted the Appellants – Held, High Court has demonstrated perversity and non-appreciation of the materials on record by Trial Court – Appeals dismissed: Held: The Trial Court acquitted the Appellants as it concluded that the prosecution had not proven the case beyond reasonable doubt; in the absence of ocular evidence, the Trial Court did not consider it appropriate to award due to the medical evidence; and held the motive to be highly artificial and unbelievable – Findings reversed by the High Court after thorough re-appreciation of the evidence on record – Post mortem report supported the case of homicide on account of clear motive and presence of Appellants at the time the incident occurred – Appellate Court must not ordinarily reverse the finding of acquittal, unless perversity and non-appreciation of the materials on record is demonstrated – Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and established chain of circumstances – Conclusion of guilt can be drawn. [Para 28]
Circumstantial Evidence – Five golden principles – Panchsheel of proof – Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt:
Held: That the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, established the complete chain of circumstances including the – (i) motive (ii) presence of the Appellants at the time of incident
(iii) false explanation in the statement under Section 313 of the CrPC (iv) the conduct of the Appellants before and after the incident & most pertinently (v) the medical evidence which in all human probability only correspond to the guilt of the Appellants. [Para 21] Circumstantial Evidence – When offence is committed in the privacy of a house, where accused is said to have been present – Two important consequences play out – Section
106 of Indian Evidence Act – Appellants have not discharged their burden:
Held: Two important consequences that play out when an offence is said to have taken place in the privacy of a house, where the accused is said to have been present – Firstly, the standard of proof expected to prove such a case based on circumstantial evidence is lesser than other cases of circumstantial evidence, and secondly, the accused would be under a duty to explain as to the circumstances that led to the death of the deceased – limited shifting of the onus of proof – If accused remains quiet or offers a false explanation, then such a response would become an additional link in the chain of circumstances – Appellants have not discharged their burden that the injuries sustained by the deceased were not homicidal and not inflicted by them. [Para 24] Reliance on medical evidence:
Observation of the Trial Court that in absence of a direct occurrence witness, motive to commit the crime and the evidence being purely circumstantial in nature, the medical evidence becomes of less consequences – Not a fairly plausible view. [Para 27]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Prastut Mahesh Dalvi, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Shibani Ghosh, Adv.). 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.