SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 453

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, MANOJ MISRA, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
Santosh @ Bhure - Appellant
Versus
State (G.N.C.T.) Of Delhi – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.575 of 2011
With
State - Appellant
Versus
Neeraj - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.576 of 2011
Decided on : 28-04-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR, Ms. Nidhi, AOR, Mr. Sarthak Arora, Adv., Mr. Mohit Girdhar, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Pramod Dayal, Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR

In circumstantial evidence cases, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence for a conviction.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 34, and 120-B - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 293 - The case involves two appeals against the Delhi High Court's judgment regarding the conviction of Santosh @ Bhure and acquittal of Neeraj for murder. The Trial Court found them guilty under Section 302 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment, while the High Court acquitted Neeraj, citing lack of admissible evidence regarding handwriting on a suicide letter. The Supreme Court examined the circumstantial evidence, including tenancy, recovery of blood-stained clothes, and confessional statements, ultimately ruling that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence against Santosh. (Paras 1-88)

(B) Circumstantial Evidence - The court reiterated that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove a complete chain of circumstances that unerringly point to the guilt of the accused, excluding all reasonable hypotheses of innocence. (Paras 23-26)

Facts of the case:
Santosh @ Bhure and Neeraj were accused of murdering Hari Shankar in an apartment rented by Santosh. The body was discovered with evidence suggesting foul play, but the prosecution lacked direct evidence linking the accused to the crime. The High Court acquitted Neeraj, leading to the State's appeal, while Santosh appealed against his conviction.

Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the presence of the accused at the crime scene or establish a motive, leading to the conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to uphold the conviction.

Issues: The main issues included the admissibility of handwriting evidence, the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, and whether the prosecution established a complete chain of evidence against the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that mere tenancy and absence of a plausible explanation from the accused do not suffice for conviction; the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence.

Result: The appeal by Santosh @ Bhure is allowed, and he is acquitted of all charges, while the State's appeal against Neeraj is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. these two appeals preferred against (Para 1)
2. two persons, namely, santosh (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. the trial court found— (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. the high court by placing reliance (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. in criminal appeal no.575 of 2011 (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
6. we have considered the rival submissions (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
7. in the instant case, the key circumstances (Para 27 , 28)
8. insofar as tenancy of the apartment (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
9. in light of the discussion above (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86)
10. consequently, criminal appeal no.575 (Para 87 , 88)

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ MISRA, J.

1. These two appeals preferred against the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court (for short “the High Court”) dated March 5, 2009 in two connected appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos.682 of 2008 and 316 of 2008 are being decided by a common judgment.

2. Two persons, namely, Santosh @ Bhure (appellant in Criminal Appeal No.575 of 2011) and Neeraj (respondent in Criminal Appeal No.576 of 2011) were tried for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”). The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi (for short “the Trial Court”) vide order dated 27.02.2008 found them guilty for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and, vide order dated 29.02.2008, sentenced them to imprisonment for life. They were, however, found not guilty for offence of criminal conspiracy. Aggrieved therewith, two separate appeals, namely, Criminal Appeal Nos.316 of 2008 and 682 of 2008, were filed before the High Court. The Criminal Appeal No.316 of 2008 filed by Neeraj was allowed thereby acquitting him of the charge of murder whereas Criminal Appeal No.682 of 2008 filed by Santosh @ Bhure was dismissed.

3. Aggrieved by acquittal of Neeraj, State of Delhi has preferred Criminal Appeal No.576 of 2011 whereas, aggrieved by dismissal of his appeal, Santosh @ Bhure has filed Criminal Appeal No.575 of 2011.

Introductory Facts

4. (i) The prosecution story in brief is that Santosh @ Bhure was tenant of an apartment on the second floor of a building owned by Ramesh Chand (PW3). On 12.09.2000, at about 10.40 a.m., an information was given to the police that a dead body is lying in that apartment. On receiving the information police team visited the spot, found a person lying dead on a folding cot and blood scattered all over the floor as also the cot/ bed linen. The bed linen, blood, burnt cigarette pieces, match box, empty packets of salted snacks mixture, whisky bottle, plate etc. found there were lifted and seized by the police. Besides that a suicide letter was found in a pocket of the trouser which the deceased was wearing. The same was also seized. The body could not be identified at the spot. However, later, Bhagwan Dass (PW26) identified it to be of Hari Shankar. On 13.09.2000, Shiv Shankar (PW23), brother of the deceased, Smt. Vandana (PW9), wife of the deceased, and Ajay Kumar (PW18), brother-in-law of the deceased, on information, arrived and confirmed that the body is of Hari Shankar. During investigation Ramesh Chand (PW3), owner of the building, disclosed that Santosh @ Bhure was his tenant and occupant of that apartment and at about 4.00 p.m., on 11.09.2000, Santosh was seen leaving the premises with a Gathri (a bag made of cloth) in his hand. Raj Kumar (PW4), a tenant of the first floor, during investigation, stated that Santosh @ Bhure resided in that apartment with one Hari Om who had left a week prior to the incident, and on 11.09.2000, at about 9.00 p.m., he saw the deceased playing cards and having liquor with Santosh and Neeraj in that apartment.

(ii) On 20.09.2000 police


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top