SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Kamal – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 465 of 2017, Criminal Appeal No. 2295 of 2023, SLP (Crl.) No. 6213 of 2021
Decided On : 07-08-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 34 – Murder – Common intention – Life sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should exclude every possible hypothesis except one sought to be proved – If accused are already shown to witnesses in Police Station, then sanctity of TIP before court is doubtful – No evidence is placed on record to show as to how SIM came to be in possession of accused – Apart from that, if at the time of incident both of them were at same place and according to prosecution inside house of deceased and they were talking to each other on telephone, this itself creates doubt on prosecution version – However strong suspicion may be, it cannot take place of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Prosecution has utterly failed to prove case as they need to prove incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt – Evidence with regard to last seen theory is totally unreliable – Evidence regarding CDRs also is one which does not inspire any confidence – Appellants acquitted of all charges levelled against them. (Paras 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals challenge judgment and order dated 5th August 2014 passed by High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1242, 936 and 1136 of 2013, thereby affirming judgment and order dated 17th May 2013 passed by trial court, vide which trial court convicted original three accused for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life.
Findings of Court:
Judgment and order dated 5th August 2014 passed by High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1242, 936 and 1136 of 2013, and judgment and order dated 17th May 2013 passed by trial court quashed and set aside.
Result : Appeals allowed. Appellants acquitted.
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted in appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6213 of 2021.
2. The appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 5th August 2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1242, 936 and 1136 of 2013, thereby affirming the judgment and order dated 17th May 2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II (North-West), Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial court’) vide which the trial court convicted the original three accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life.
3. The prosecution story, shorn of details, is as under:
3.2 The First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) came to be lodged expressing suspicion on Prem Singh, son of the deceased, since he had a property dispute with the deceased. It is the prosecution case that on earlier occasions, the accused had given beatings to the deceased and had also threatened to kill him.
3.3 It is the prosecution case that Prem Singh fled away from the scene of incident and was apprehended on 12th September 2009. During interrogation, he revealed the names of his associates Kamal Kishore and Manoj, the present appellants. Thereafter, the appellants were also apprehended. At the instance of accused Kamal Kishore, one rusted iron rod was recovered. At the instance of accused Manoj, a sweater was recovered which was used to strangulate the deceased.
3.4 Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against all the three accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First class. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge, the case was committed to the Sessions Judge. The trial court, vide judgment and order dated 17th May 2013, convicted all the three accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each.
3.5 All the three accused preferred appeals before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order dated 5th August 2014, the High Court dismissed all their appeals. Hence, the present appeals.
4. We have heard Mr. R.K. Kapoor and Ms. K. Sarada Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Ms. Sonia Mathur and Mr. A.K. Panda, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
5. Mr. Kapoor submitted that the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence. It is submitted that unless the prosecution establishes an unbroken link of circumstances, conviction based upon circumstantial evidence is not permissible.
6. Mr. Kapoor submitted that the prosecution mainly relies on the testimony of Jai Singh (PW-20) and Naresh Kumar (PW-21).
7. Ms. Mathur and Mr. Panda, on the contrary, submitted that the High Court and the trial court have concurrently, on proper appreciation of evidence, convicted the appellants. It is submitted that no interference is warranted in the present appeals.
8. Insofar as Naresh Kumar (PW-21) is concerned, he states that on the date of incident, at around 03.15 pm, he saw that the accused Prem Singh was present in his vehicle Toyota Qualis in front of the room of deceased Hoshiyar Singh, and was pressing the accelerator of his vehicle continuously and making the sound of the vehicle loud. Upon being asked about the reason for the same, accused Prem Singh replied that the vehicle was not starting. PW-21 further states that meanwhile, he saw two boys coming out of the room of deceased Hoshiyar Singh. When PW-21 asked the accused Prem Singh about those boys, he replied that th
(1) If accused are already shown to witnesses in Police Station, then sanctity of TIP before court is doubtful.(2) However strong suspicion may be, it cannot take place of proof beyond reasonable dou....
Accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is – Accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for circumstantial evidence to be fully established, conclusive, and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, excluding every ....
Conviction cannot be based only on the basis of recovery.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a complete chain of evidence and the exclusion of every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused in cases relying on....
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
(1) Section 106 of Evidence Act does not directly operate against either a husband or wife staying under same roof and being last person seen with deceased.(2) In a case of circumstantial evidence, m....
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.