The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India opined that it is only after the prosecution discharges its duty of proving the case beyond all reasonable doubt that the false explanation or non-explanation of the accused could be taken into consideration. It was further held that the non- explanation or false explanation of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be used as an additional link to complete the chain of circumstances. It can only be used to fortify the conclusion of guilt already arrived at on the basis of other proven circumstances.
Brief Facts:
The case of the Prosecution was that the husband of Accused No. 2 and brother of the Appellant was killed by the deceased; and as its offshoot, the Appellant committed the murder of the deceased by causing 24 stab wounds on his body.
At the conclusion of the trial, the Trial Judge found that the prosecution had succeeded in proving that the Appellant had committed the murder of the deceased. Thus, the Trial Judge convicted the Appellant for offenses punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and was awarded a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Being aggrieved thereby, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court which was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellants:
It was argued that there was no evidence at all which established the guilt of the Appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The finding of guilt of the Appellant was based on conjectures and surmises and, therefore, not sustainable in law.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was argued that the recoveries made on the basis of the Memorandum under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 established the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the main circumstance on which the High Court and the Trial Judge found the appellant guilty of the crime was the recovery of various articles at his instance. It was found that the pieces of blanket recovered from the place of incident and the place where the dead body was subsequently taken for being burnt, were found to be identical/similar.
On the issue of the High Court’s finding that the appellant failed to give any explanation in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C., the Court observed that the High Court failed to appreciate the basic principle that it is only after the prosecution discharges its duty of proving the case beyond all reasonable doubt that the false explanation or non-explanation of the accused could be taken into consideration. In a case based on circumstantial evidence,non- explanation or false explanation of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be used as an additional link to complete the chain of circumstances.
The Bench opined that the non-explanation or false explanation of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. can only be used to fortify the conclusion of guilt already arrived at based on other proven circumstances.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the aforementioned reasons, the Apex Court, accordingly allowed the appeal.
Case Title: Raja Naykar v State of Chhattisgarh
Coram: Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai and Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Mehta
Citation: 2024 Latest Caselaw 49 SC
Advocate for the Appellant: Adv. Mr. Sameer Shrivastava
Advocate for the Respondents: Adv. Ms. Bina Madhavan
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
