The division-judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that solely on the basis of last-seen evidence being not corroborated with any evidence, the conviction cannot be said to be just and proper.
It was furthermore observed that in chain of the circumstantial evidence, no link should be missing. From the chain of circumstantial evidence, there should be only one conclusion in regard to the commission of the crime by the accused person. The circumstantial evidence should be conclusive in nature excluding every possibility of the hypothesis except the one to be proved.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that it was alleged by the informant that her mother was in the house and the appellant came and told her that bull died and he took his mother from the house, thereafter, and committed her murder by throttling her. Furthermore, upon hearing the screening of her mother, the informant reached the place of occurrence and saw the appellant fleeing away. It was also alleged that there was a land dispute between the appellant and his mother, on account of the same, the murder was committed. The case was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court holds the accused guilty of the offense. The present criminal appeal is filed in order to challenge the judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court.
Contentions of the Appellant
The Appellant submitted that it was not possible to see the occurrence as the place was surrounded by a bush. Therefore, the testimony of PW-1 (informant), PW-4, and PW-6 cannot be relied upon.
Contentions of the State
The state submitted that the testimony was corroborated with the medical evidence wherein the cause of death is shown as throttling, therefore, the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court requires no interference.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence, however, he is the witness of the last seen of the deceased with the appellant-convict. Also, the case is based only on the basis of the last-seen evidence and not corroborated by any other evidence, therefore, the conviction cannot be justified and legitimate based merely on the last-seen evidence. For this, the court relied upon the judgment titled Jabir & Ors. Vs. The State of Uttarakhand.
It was furthermore observed that the motive of the incident isn't shown in the FIR or in the evidence that the prosecution adduced. When there is circumstantial evidence, the motive for the evidence becomes significant and crucial; in the absence of such evidence, the prosecution's case becomes doubtful.
The court noted that no link in the chain of circumstantial evidence should be absent. There should be only one conclusion regarding the accused person's commission of crime based on the chain of circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence needs to be definitive, ruling out all other hypotheses except the one that has to be proven.
The court also relied upon the judgments titled Nandu Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh), Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, and Indrajit Das Vs. The State of Tripura.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the prosecution was unable to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the criminal appeal.
Case title: Sur Singh Sidhu Vs The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Chand, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen
Case No: Cr. Appeal (DB) No.474 of 2017
Advocate for the Appellant: Ms. Varsha Ramsisaria, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, Spl.PP
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
