The division judge bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Raju @ Rajendra Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan held that in case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else and the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the brother of the complainant was married to his sister-in-law and there were some differences between his brother and his wife. Further, it was alleged that the accused was having illicit relations with the co-accused Raju @Rajendra Prasad. After that, due to the differences in their relationship, the accused (Sunita Devi) started living in her parental home, and when the deceased went to his in-law’s house to bring back his wife and children. Thereafter, on the next day, the complainant got to know that this brother had committed suicide and his body was found hanging from a tree. It was further alleged that he was murdered by Sunita Devi in conspiracy with her other family members. The charges were framed against the appellant for the offenses under section 302 IPC or in the alternative under Section 302/34 IPC.
The trial court convicted the appellant for the offenses under section 302 IPC. Further, being aggrieved by the said decision, the accused preferred the appeal before the high court and the learned high court supported the decision of the trial court.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that both the trial court and the high court have committed a grave error in convicting the appellant for the offenses under section 302 IPC. It is also submitted that the case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is absolutely no direct evidence. It is argued that there is not a shred of evidence against the appellants to support the claim that they killed and/or committed the murder of the deceased. Further, it was submitted that the daughter of the deceased and the accused Sunita Devi can be mentioned as the ‘Star Witness’ who, in her deposition, has categorically stated that she has not seen the appellants having killed her father.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant relied upon the judgments titled Mohd. Younus Ali Tarafdar Vs. State of West Bengal and Anwar Ali and Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that the prosecution has proved the differences between the accused and the complainant’s brother. Further, it was also proved that on the earlier night, there were quarrels and that the accused Raju and others gave a threat to the deceased. It is argued that, in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, when the prosecution established the motive and circumstances that led to the conclusion that the accused committed the murder of the deceased, both the learned Trial Court and the High Court correctly convicted the accused under Section 302/34 IPC. The medical evidence - postmortem report - is claimed to prove that the deceased was murdered/killed.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble apex court stated that at the outset, it is required to be noted that the case rests on circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence by which it can be said that the appellants killed or committed the murder of the deceased. There is no direct evidence recorded indicating the involvement of the appellants in the crime and as observed hereinabove, the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. As held by this Court in a catena of decisions, in case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else and the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
The top court also relied upon the judgment titled Babu v. State of Kerala, and G. Parshwanath Vs. State of Karnataka.
The hon’ble court held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt and complete chain of events, which may lead to the only conclusion that the appellants - accused alone committed murder and/or killed the deceased. Under the circumstances and applying the law laid down by this Court in the decisions on circumstantial evidence, the Trial Court, as well as the High Court, have committed a very serious error in convicting the appellants – accused of the offense under Section 302/34 IPC based on such circumstantial evidence. The conviction of the appellants - accused of the offense under Section 302/34 IPC is not sustainable.
CASE NAME- Raju @ Rajendra Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan
CITATION- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1559 OF 2022
CORUM- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari
DATED-19.09.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :