Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 214

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Pradeep Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1304 of 2018
Decided On : 16-03-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Kulshreshtha, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gautam Narayan, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Accused cannot be convicted on principles of preponderance of probability – It is duty of this Court to ensure avoidance of miscarriage of justice at all costs and benefit of doubt, if any, given to accused.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 and 201/34 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Murder and disappearance of evidence – Common intention – Conviction and sentence – None of Courts below have returned finding to the effect that guilt of accused stands proven by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt – Suspicion, howsoever grave or probable it may be, cannot substitute evidence, be it circumstantial or direct in nature, in establishing guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt, onus of which, at first instance, is to be discharged by prosecution – Distance between “may be” and “must be” is quite large and it divides vague conjectures from solid conclusions – Accused cannot be convicted on principles of preponderance of probability – It is duty of this Court to ensure avoidance of miscarriage of justice at all costs and benefit of doubt, if any, given to accused – Extra-judicial confessional statement of Appellant, apart from being hit by Section 27 of Evidence Act, 1872, it is not supported by PWs – Investigation conducted is absolutely shady and has been done in a casual manner – Where two views are possible, one pointing to guilt of accused and other towards his innocence, one which is favourable to accused must be adopted – Neither chain of circumstances to have been completely established nor guilt of accused alone, having committed crime to be proven, much less beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant stands acquitted of all charges framed against him. (Paras 6, 9, 21, 23, 24, 26 and 29)
Facts of the case:
Trial Court convicted both the accused in relation to offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC and 201/34 IPC and sentenced them to serve imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.500/- in relation to the offence under Section 302/34 as also suffer imprisonment for seven years and pay fine of Rs.500/- in respect of the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. However in an appeal preferred by both the accused, High Court upheld the conviction of accused Pradeep Kumar in relation to all the offences and the sentences in terms thereunder, but acquitted accused Bhainsa alias Nandlal on all counts.
Findings of Court:
Both the courts below, erred in finding the Appellant guilty of having committed crime, charged for, under Section 302/34 IPC read with 201/34, IPC.
Result : Appeal allowed. Appellant acquitted.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. On 01.10.2003, Umesh Chowdhary, a resident of village Chitarpur falling within the territorial limits of Police Station Dhaurpur District was allegedly murdered by accused Pradeep Kumar (Appellant No. 2 in CRA No. 940 of 2004) before the High Court Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur and Bhainsa alias Nandlal (Appellant No. 1. before the High Court in the very same appeal) in relation to which FIR No. 126/03 (Ex.P-6) was registered at Police Station Dhaurpur.

2. On 02.10.2003, Investigation Officer, I. Tirkey (PW-19) commenced investigation and after verifying the place of occurrence sent the dead body for post-mortem analysis which was conducted by Dr. Kamlesh Kumar (PW-14) in terms of his report (Ex.P-10). Investigation revealed that the crime was committed on account of animosity which the Appellant was harbouring against the deceased. The motive being the former’s desire to use the shop in possession of the deceased in village Chitarpur.

3. The Trial Court, based on the extra judicial confessional statement (Ex.P-11) of accused Pradeep Kumar made in the presence of Ramkripal Soni (PW-1) and Gopal Yadav (PW-7), the depositions of Gajadhar Chowdhary (PW-10) father of the deceased, co-villagers Sirodh (PW-6), Radhika (PW-13) wife of (PW-7), all establishing the factum of prior animosity/“tension” inter se the parties and with the addition of the police recovered keys of the shop of the deceased and his currency notes amounting to Rs. 300/- from the possession of the Appellant. The Court convicted both the accused in relation to offences punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and 201/34 IPC and sentenced them to serve imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 500/- in relation to the offence under Section 302/34 as also suffer imprisonment for seven years and pay fine of Rs. 500/- in respect of the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.

4. The Trial Court found the testimonies of both PW-1 and PW-7 reliable (despite PW-1 not supporting the prosecution) and the prosecution to have established the factum of accused Pradeep Kumar having confessed his guilt before the Investigation Officer (PW-19). The Ld. Trial Court also found the recovery of articles seized as a result of the disclosure of statement, to be an additional link, as a chain of events, in support of the case set up by the prosecution.

5. However in an appeal preferred by both the accused, the High Court upheld the conviction of accused Pradeep Kumar in relation to all the offences and the sentences in terms thereunder, but acquitted accused Bhainsa alias Nandlal on all counts.

6. Hence, the present appeal filed by the Appellant – accused Pradeep Kumar. Significantly, none of the Courts below have returned finding to the effect that the guilt of the accused stands proven by the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt. Suspicion, howsoever grave or probable it may be, cannot substitute the evidence, be it circumstantial or direct in nature, in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the onus of which, at the first instance, is to be discharged by the prosecution. The distance between “may be” and “must be” is quite large and it divides vague conjectures from solid conclusions. [Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Another vs. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793]

7. The High Court, by relying upon the principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court in Hari Charan Kurmi vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1184, to the effect that confession of a co-accused being inculpatory in nature, cannot be used against the accused, acquitted Bhainsa alias Nandlal.

8. However, in so far as accused Pradeep Kumar is concerned the Court found testimonies of (PW-1) and (PW-7) to be absolutely inspiring in confidence and that the witnesses “being independent and disinterested”, having no reason to “manufacture evidence” “falsely implicating” the accused. Further, the High Court held that the defence was not able to show that the extra-judicial confession made by Pradeep