Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302 and 201 – Murder – Prosecution case that a shepherd took his sheeps for grazing and did not return home – On basis of confessional statement of appellant, recovery of the dead body of the shepherd and sheeps – Conviction of appellant u/ss. 302/201 and imposition of life imprisonment by the courts below – Sustainability of – Held: Prosecution case needs to be examined whether the circumstances are established and that they form a complete chain in establishing the guilt of the accused – On facts, death of the shepherd was homicidal – No evidence to show that the sheep recovered from the witness carried any distinct mark so as to identify the same as which belonged to the deceased –Circumstance of recovery of the dead body allegedly based on the alleged confessional statement may raise a suspicion against the appellant that he might be involved in the incident but mere suspicion itself cannot take itself the place of proof – There is a wide gap between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ – Thus, the conviction u/s.302/201 not sustainable more so, when the motive attributed for the murder has been theft of the sheep, and appellant has been acquitted of the same – Thus, the order passed by the High Court set aside. S.D. Soni v. State of Gujarat (1992) Supp 1 SCC 567; Venkatesan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2008) 8 SCC 456; Raj Kumar Singh alias Raju Alias Batya v. State of Rajasthan (2013) 5 SCC 722 – referred to.
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.