Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302/34 and 364/34 – Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder – Abduction and murder of woman over a property dispute – Factum of her death discovered in furtherance of written report lodged by informant and brotherin-law of the victim – Conviction and sentence of accused nos. 1-5 of the commission of offences u/ss. 302/34 and 364/34, however acquittal of accused nos. 6 and 7 of all the charges – High Court upheld the conviction of accused nos. 1-5, as also convicted accused nos. 6 and 7 of the commission of offences u/ss. 364/34 and 302/34 – Sustainability:
Held: Offence of murder is entirely dependent on circumstantial evidence and in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of evidence must be complete and must give out an inescapable conclusion of guilt – Prosecution case is far from meeting that standard – Mere presence of certain make-up articles cannot be a conclusive proof of the fact that the victim was residing in the said house, especially when another woman was admittedly residing there – No material whatsoever could be found at the house to directly indicate that the deceased as also the informant were residing there – Prosecution failed to examine even one cohabitant to prove the said fact – Evidence of the eye witnesses declared as wholly unreliable including on the aspect of time of death – Thus, no reason to doubt the post mortem report and the findings therein – Prosecution case full of glaring doubts as regards abduction – Although, the post mortem report indicates that the death of the deceased was unnatural and the commission of murder cannot be ruled out, however no direct evidence to prove the commission of murder by the accused persons – Link of causation between the accused persons and the alleged offence conspicuously missing – Circumstantial evidence emanating from the facts surrounding the offence of abduction, such as the testimonies of eye witnesses, failed to meet the test of proof and cannot be termed as proved in the eyes of law – No inference could be drawn from it to infer the commission of the offence u/s. 302 by the accused persons – Also motive has a bearing only when the evidence on record is sufficient to prove the ingredients of the offences under consideration – Without the proof of foundational facts, the case of the prosecution cannot succeed on the presence of motive alone – Thus, the prosecution failed to discharge its burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt – Reasonable doubts are irreconcilable and strike at the foundation of the prosecution’s case – Furthermore, approach of the High Court in reversing the acquittal of A-6 and A-7 not in line with the settled law pertaining to reversal of acquittals – High Court took a cursory view of the matter and reversed the acquittal without arriving at any finding of illegality or perversity or impossibility of the trial court’s view or non-appreciation of evidence by the trial tourt – Thus, the appellants to be acquitted of all the charges – Findings of conviction arrived at by the courts below not sustainable and set aside. [Paras 2832, 34-37] Judicial deprecation – High Court’s observation that the makeup articles found in the house could not have belonged to the widow lady as there was no need for her to put on make-up being a widow:
Held: Said observation not only legally untenable but also highly objectionable – Sweeping observation of this nature not commensurate with the sensitivity and neutrality expected from a court of law, specifically when the same is not made out from any evidence on record. [Para 27]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. 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.