2023 Supreme(SC) 699

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.
Krishan Kumar & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Haryana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1076-1077 of 2015
Decided on : 08-08-2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Murder and disappearance of evidence – Application of theory of ‘last seen’ in absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that accused and deceased were last seen together would be hazardous.
(2) Motive – In a case of circumstantial evidence motive does have significance, but that is no reason to say that in absence of motive, conviction, based on circumstantial evidence, cannot be made.
(3) Extra-judicial confession cannot always be taken as a weak piece of evidence.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 201, 300 and 302 read with Section 34 – Murder and disappearance of evidence – Common intention – Life imprisonment – Circumstantial evidence – When categoric finding of courts below, on appreciation of oral testimonies of prosecution witnesses is that none of witnesses had spoken of having lastly seen deceased in company of accused alive and together, there cannot be any reason to hold that ‘last seen evidence’ is available in t instant case as a link in chain of circumstantial evidence against appellants – Application of theory of ‘last seen’ in absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that accused and deceased were last seen together would be hazardous – When prosecution comes out with a motive and motive is either not proved or held to be insufficient, evidence of witnesses of said fact has to be scrutinized with great care and caution – Place of recovery is an open place and is accessible to all – Appellants acquitted granting benefit of doubt. (Paras 12, 21, 31, 41 and 42)

(B) Criminal Law – Motive – ‘Motive’ is something which makes a man to do any particular act and it must, in all probability, exist behind every voluntary act – In a case of circumstantial evidence motive does have significance, but that is no reason to say that in absence of motive, conviction, based on circumstantial evidence, cannot be made. (Para 33)

(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 25 – Extra-judicial confession – Extra-judicial confession cannot always be taken as a weak piece of evidence – Question whether it is worthy to be taken as admissible and to form basis for conviction in a criminal trial would depend upon veracity of witness to whom confession was allegedly made. (Para 34)

Facts of the case:

Appellants who stand convicted under Section 300 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of one Devinder @ Kala, S/o Sukhbir Singh and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment therefor, under Section 302, IPC and also stand convicted under Section 201, IPC read with Section 34, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with default fine, filed the captioned appeals.

Findings of Court:

Trial Court as also High Court have appreciated evidence in an utterly perverse manner viz., against weight of evidence. In view of our findings on each of the links in chain of circumstances no conviction can be entered against appellants under Sections 201, 300 and 302, IPC read with Section 34, IPC. They are individually or even collectively not sufficient to connect appellants with crime.

Result : Appeals allowed.