The Supreme Court of India expounded that the chain of circumstances must be so complete that it leads to no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused persons.
The Division Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta acquitted murder convicts being appellants in the instant case, since the circumstances were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Brief Facts
A person went missing whose investigation led the appellants to reveal about having strangulated the deceased to death and thrown his body in a pond. The appellants were purportedly paid for the said murder.
The appellants were charged for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34, Sections 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The instant appeals challenge judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court upholding the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for appellants by the Trial Court.
Contentions of the Appellants
It was claimed that the instant case rests on circumstantial evidence, and that the prosecution failed to prove any incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt or establish the chain of proven circumstances which may lead to no other conclusion but guilt of the accused persons.
Observations of the Court
While acknowledging that the prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence, the Court referred to Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1984 Latest Caselaw 118 SC for law regarding conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence wherein it was clarified that “the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ proved guilty before a court can convict the accused.”
Apex Court reiterated that “suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The Apex Court stated that the prosecution case relied on the circumstances of the memorandum of the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and subsequent recovery of the dead body. The Court added that “for bringing the case under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it will be necessary for the prosecution to establish that, based on the information given by the accused while in police custody, it had led to the discovery of the fact, which was distinctly within the knowledge of the maker of the said statement…..The prosecution will have to establish that, before the information given by the accused persons on the basis of which the dead body was recovered, nobody had the knowledge about the existence of the dead body at the place from where it was recovered.”
The Bench perused the evidence and said that the prosecution ‘utterly failed’ to prove that discovery of the dead body was only on the basis of disclosure statements made by the accused persons under Section 27 of 1872 Act, and that nobody knew about the same before that. While noting a witness’ evidence that his statement was taken at the police station at one place and signed at another place, the Bench remarked that “the possibility of these documents being created to rope in the accused persons cannot be ruled out.”
Apex Court relied on its decisions in Asar Mohammad and Ors. Vs. The State of U.P., 2018 Latest Caselaw 780 SC and Boby @ Aji vs State Of Kerala, 2022 Latest Caselaw 4925 Ker and further highlighted that the evidence was completely silent on how the dead body was discovered and thereby recovered.
SC Bench concluded that “the chain of circumstances must be so complete that it leads to no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused persons, which is not so in the present case.”
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court allowed the instant appeals, quashed and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and thereby acquitted the appellants.
Case Title: Ravishankar Tandon vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 3869 of 2023
Citation: 2024 Latest Caselaw SC
Coram: Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Advocates for the Appellants: Mr. Manish Kumar Saran, AOR; Ms. Ananya Tyagi, Adv.; Mr. Chandrika Prasad Mishra, Adv.; Ms. Nishi Prabha Singh, Adv.; Mr. U.N. Mishra, Adv.; Ms. Swati Surbhi, Adv.; Ms. Prashasti Singh, Adv.; Ms. Neha Ahlawat, Adv.; Ms. Aswathi M.K., AOR; Mr. Chandrika Prasad Mishra, Adv.; Mr. Prashant Kumar Umrao, AOR; Ms. Nishi Prabha Singh, Adv.; Ms. Prashasti Singh, Adv.; Ms. Swati Surbhi, Adv.; Mr. V. Ramasubbu, Adv.; Mr. Mahesh Kumar Tiwari, Adv.
Advocates for the Respondent: Mr. Praneet Pranav, Dy. A.G.; Mr. Prashant Singh, AOR; Mrs. Prerna Dhall, Adv.; Mr. Piyush Yadav, Adv.; Mr. Harshvardhan Mall Vishen, Adv.
Picture Source :
