Back
2012 (1) Supreme 342
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Asok Kumar Ganguly and Jagdish Singh Khehar, JJ.
Madhu — Appellant
versus
State of Kerala — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.522 of 2006
Decided on : 13-1-2012
Circumstantial Evidence-Only circumstantial evidence of a very high order can satisfy the test of proof in a criminal prosecution- In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete unbroken chain of events leading to the determination that inference being drawn from the evidence is the only inescapable conclusion- In the absence of convincing circumstantial evidence, an accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt (Para 5)
Facts of the Case :
Appellant along with one another was prosecuted herein in the instant case for having robbed deceased of her gold ornaments and thereafter having murdered her at her residence. Trial Court relying upon circumstantial evidence convicted accused persons. On appeal, High Court maintained the conviction of two accused persons.
B. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
A.Evidence produced by prosecution failed , in any way, to establish the guilt of accused. The prosecution had endeavoured to prove allegations levelled against the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The mainstay of prosecution evidence was recovery of gold ornaments belonging to deceased at instance of accused persons. However statements made by accused persons vide Exhibits P-10 and P-9 could not be proved against accused, or to their detriment. This by itself removed the most vital link in the chain of events sought to be established by prosecution against the accused.
B. Evidence produced to establish the presence of accused near the place of occurrence, at or about the time of the commission of the crime was found to be irrelevant. This was because, accused were in any case neighbours of the deceased . Theft of golden ornaments worn by deceased was also doubtful. The explanation tendered by the prosecution of earrings worn by the deceased when her body was recovered, was far from satisfactory.
C. From the statement of Dr. PW20, and surrounding facts, it could not be positively inferred that deceased was first smothered and then drowned as had been alleged by prosecution. Apart from that there were serious contradictions in the deposition of prosecution witnesses. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of events leading to determination, that inference being drawn from evidence was the only inescapable conclusion. Prosecution failed to connect accused with alleged crime in any manner whatsoever.
D. Impugned judgments rendered by Trial Court, as also, by High Court convicting appellant-accused were set aside. Appellant was held liable to be acquitted of charges levelled against him. Accused no.2 also held liable to be acquitted for very same reasons even though he had not preferred an appeal so as to assail impugned judgment whereby he stood convicted. Appeal was allowed
JUDGMENT
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.
1. The appellant herein, Madhu Kalikutty Panicker (hereinafter referred to as “Madhu”) was charged along with Sibi Bhaskaran (hereinafter referred to as “Sibi”) for offences punishable under Section 302 and 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for having robbed Padmini Devi alias Omana of her gold ornaments and thereafter having murdered her on 8.5.1998 at her residence, i.e., Kalathil House situated in Ward No.IV of Veliyanad Village. Both Madhu (accused no.1) and Sibi (accused no.2) were also residing in the neighbourhood of the deceased in the same ward and village.
2. The Sessions Judge, Alappuzha convicted the accused and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused were sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge directed that the aforesaid sentences would be suffered successively, i.e., one after the other. In case of default of payment of fine, the accused were to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. The Sessions Judge also directed that the accused would be entitled to set off equivalent to the period of their detention during the course of trial, under Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. On appeal, the High Court of Kerala maintained the conviction of the two accused. On the question of sentence, the High Court modified the order passed by the Sessions Judge to the extent that the sentences would run concurrently. Subject to the aforesaid modification, even the sentences awarded by the Sessions Court were maintained.
4. The conviction of the accused at the hands of the Sessions Judge as also the High Court was based on circumstantial evidence. Principally, the conviction was ordered as a consequence of recovery of ornaments worn by the deceased, pursuant to the information furnished by the accused. Based on the aforesaid recovery, the High Court, relying on Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act inferred that the accused had committed the murder of Padmini Devi, and thereupon, robbed her off the ornaments worn by her. The only other material evidence taken into consideration by the courts below, to return the conviction of the appellant herein (as also his co-accused Sibi) was the factum of their having been sighted close to the place of occurrence at or around the time of occurrence.
5. The care and caution with which circumstantial evidence has to be evaluated stands recognized by judicial precedent. Only circumstantial evidence of a very high order can satisfy the test of proof in a criminal prosecution. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete unbroken chain of events leading to the determination that the inference being drawn from the evidence is the only inescapable conclusion. In the absence of convincing circumstantial evidence, an accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt. During the course of deliberations of the present controversy, we shall endeavour to evaluate the worthiness of circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. But more importantly, our endeavour would be to evaluate the admissibility of the statements made by the accused to the police, during the course of their detention by the police, resulting in the discovery of the gold ornaments, belonging to Padmini Devi, after having committed her murder. This piece of evidence has been relied upon to connect the accused with the crime.
6. The prosecution case as is revealed from the charge-sheet, notices that the accused with the deliberate intention of committing the murder of Padmini Devi with the motive of robbing her of the ornaments worn by her, proceeded to Kalathil House where the deceased was residing. Padmini Devi was found alone, sitting on the ghat (place leading into water) steps leading to the p
Only circumstantial evidence of a very high order can satisfy the test of proof in a criminal prosecution. In the absence of convincing circumstantial evidence, an accused would be entitled to the be....
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence for conviction; failure to prove the last seen theory and inconsistencies in witness testimonies led to the acquittal.
The court emphasized the necessity of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, finding insufficient evidence to uphold convictions for murder and robbery.
Murder Charge - When a murder charge is to be proved solely on circumstantial evidence, as in this case, presumption of innocence of the accused must have a dominant role.
Circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain pointing solely to the guilt of the accused; confessions made in police custody are inadmissible unless they lead to the discovery of facts.
(1) All matters relating to crime and whether a particular thing happens to be a conclusive piece of evidence must be dealt with by a Court of Law and not through a TV channel.(2) Appreciation of evi....
Conviction set aside - Prosecution failed to prove the circumstances relied upon by them to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime; mere recoveries and extrajudicial confessions without independent corroboration are insuff....
The prosecution failed to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the reversal of the death penalty.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
