SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Malti Sahu - Appellant
Versus
Rahul & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 471 of 2022
With
State of U.T., Chandigarh - Appellant
Versus
Rahul - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2022
Decided On : 11-07-2022
Circumstantial Evidence - Murder - Section 302 IPC - [Motive, Recovery of Weapon and Loi, Accused's Injury] - The court discussed the evidence of motive, recovery of the weapon and Loi, and the accused's unexplained injury. It highlighted the prosecution's success in proving the motive and establishing the link evidence, leading to the restoration of the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was acquitted by the High Court based on circumstantial evidence, as the prosecution failed to prove the complete chain of circumstances. The original complainant and the State appealed against the acquittal.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court's acquittal was quashed and set aside, and the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC, as the prosecution successfully proved the motive and established the link evidence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution had proved the necessary link in the evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had successfully proved the motive and established the link evidence, including the recovery of the weapon and Loi, and the accused's unexplained injury, leading to the restoration of the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court acquitting the accused was quashed and set aside, and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court convicting the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC was restored. The respondent - accused was directed to surrender to undergo the sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRAD No. 635 of 2014 by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent – accused – Rahul and has quashed and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court convicting the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC for committing the murder of one Kavita Sahu and Gaurang Sahu, the State as well as the original complainant/informant – mother of the deceased have preferred the present appeals.
2. On the statement of one Malti Devi, which got recorded on 16.12.2011, in which she stated that she and her husband were Teachers by profession. That her husband was posted at Mewat, Haryana and she was posted in Sector-17, Panchkula. They had two children, i.e., elder daughter Kavita, about 17 years of age, who was the student of Guru Nanak Public School, Sector-36, Chandigarh, whereas her younger son Gaurang Sahu was the student of Govt. Model Senior Secondary School, Sector-37, Chandigarh. On that day, she had left the home at 8.30 A.M. for duty and both the children were at home, it being their holiday. On her return at about 3.00 P.M., she found her daughter in a pool of blood with a cut on her neck and when she went upstairs, she found her son also in a pool of blood and his neck also had a cut. All the articles in the room were lying scattered.
2.1 On the said statement / complaint, the case was registered and initially the investigation was carried out by the local police station. Special reports were sent and investigation was commenced. The Investigating Officer collected the incriminating material from the spot. They were converted into parcels and sealed with seal of “CS”. The dead bodies were sent to the General Hospital, Sector – 16, Chandigarh for post-mortem examination. During the course of the investigation, the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded including the statement of PW–8, Sidharth Vashisht, who, at the relevant time, disclosed that he had seen the accused Rahul alongwith Kavita and Gaurang coming from the side of Shivalik Public School on foot going towards their locality wearing a blue colour sweater and while returning, he (Rahul) was not wearing the said blue colour sweater and rather, he had covered himself with a brown coloured shawl or Loi.
2.2 On the basis of the statement made by PW–8, Sidharth Vashisht, the police started to search for the culprit-Rahul. Later the case was transferred to the Crime Branch (SIT), Chandigarh and the investigation was commenced by Inspector Amanjot Singh. During the investigation, the sealed parcels were sent to CFSL, Sector 36, Chandigarh. As noted hereinabove, Rahul was suspected of commission of offence on the basis of statement of PW–8, Sidharth Vashisht and therefore, a search was launched for him. He was found missing from his house. He was later arrested on 17.01.2012 from Village Saha, District Ambala and produced in the Court.
2.3 On the basis of his disclosure statement, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a bag containing blood-stained clothes was recovered. That during the course of the investigation, one sweater was recovered from the crime scene and the said sweater was sent to CFSL. One blood-stained Loi and the clothes were recovered from the black bag, which was recovered on the basis of disclosure statement made by the accused. The Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of other witnesses and during the course of investigation on the basis of the disclosure statement, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of PW-20, Dr. Davinder Kapil from whom the accused took the first aid in respect of the injury sustained by him on the ring finger of his left hand. On the basis of the di
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of proving motive and establishing link evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence, which influenced the court's decision ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that conviction cannot be based solely on unreliable witness testimony, and previous enmity can be a ground for false implication. Additionally, la....
(1) Conviction – Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take place of proof beyond reasonable doubt – There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be....
The judgment establishes the importance of circumstantial evidence, burden of proof, and absence of motive in cases of murder.
It is also well settled that if other evidence on record clearly establishes that the deceased was murdered by a person, then the factum of motive loses its importance.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.