1. Appellant claims conviction is based on conjectures and lack of evidence; State relies on FSL reports and recoveries made under Section 27, Evidence Act. (Para 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 71
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Raja Naykar - Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 902 of 2023
Decided On : 24-01-2024
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(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 or should be proved’.
(2) In a case based on circumstantial evidence, non-explanation or false explanation of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be used as an additional link to complete chain of circumstances.
(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 or should be proved’.
(2) In a case based on circumstantial evidence, non-explanation or false explanation of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be used as an additional link to complete chain of circumstances.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 235 – Conviction – It is a primary principle that accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ proved guilty before a court can convict accused – 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 or should be proved’ – 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. (Paras 8 and 9)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 201 read with 120B – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Murder and disappearance of evidence and conspiracy – Life sentence – Circumstantial evidence – It is necessary for prosecution that circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established – Motive attributed to appellant by prosecution is that appellant was under impression that deceased Shiva had caused murder of his elder brother – Only such statement which leads to recovery of incriminating material from a place solely and exclusively within knowledge of maker thereof would be admissible in evidence – Dead body was found much prior to recording of Memorandum of appellant under Section 27 of Evidence Act – Only that part of statement which leads to recovery of dagger and rickshaw would be relevant – FSL report does not show that blood found on dagger was of the blood group of deceased – Even serological report is not available – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, non-explanation or false explanation of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be used as an additional link to complete chain of circumstances – It can only be used to fortify conclusion of guilt already arrived at on the basis of other proven circumstances – It is duty of prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that it is only accused and accused alone who has committed crime – Prosecution has utterly failed to do so – Appellant acquitted. (Paras 8, 12, 13, 14, 16, 20, 21 and 22)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal challenges judgment and order dated 22nd July, 2015, passed by Division Bench of High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in CRA No. 223 of 2012, thereby dismissing appeal filed by Appellant and confirming Judgment and order of conviction and sentence awarded to him by Trial Judge.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgment and order dated 22nd July, 2015, passed by Division Bench of High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in CRA No. 223 of 2012 is quashed and set aside. Appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sameer Shrivastava, AOR Ms. Yashika Varshney, Adv. Mr. Niteen Sinha, Adv. Mr. Satvic Mathur, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR Ms. Shreya Singh, Adv. Ms. Bhawana Mapwal, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sameer Shrivastava, AOR Ms. Yashika Varshney, Adv. Mr. Niteen Sinha, Adv. Mr. Satvic Mathur, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR Ms. Shreya Singh, Adv. Ms. Bhawana Mapwal, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances as recoveries were from open places and blood on the weapon did not match the deceased. (Para 11 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
3. Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain excluding all other hypotheses; sole recovery of a weapon is insufficient without a direct link to the murder. (Para 7 , 8 , 19 )
4. Appeal allowed, impugned judgment quashed, and appellant directed to be released. (Para 22 )
5. What are the essential requirements for conviction based on circumstantial evidence?
The circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, conclusive in nature, exclude every other possible hypothesis, and form a complete chain of evidence leaving no reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. (Para 7 , 8 )
6. What part of a statement made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is admissible?
Only such statements which lead to the recovery of incriminating material from a place solely and exclusively within the knowledge of the maker thereof are admissible in evidence. (Para 13 , 14 )
7. Can the sole recovery of a blood-stained weapon sustain a conviction for murder?
No, the sole circumstance of recovery of a blood-stained weapon cannot form the basis of conviction unless the same is connected with the murder of the deceased by the accused. (Para 19 )
8. How does a failure to explain circumstances under Section 313 CrPC affect a case based on circumstantial evidence?
Non-explanation or a false explanation cannot be used as an additional link to complete the chain of circumstances; it can only be used to fortify a conclusion of guilt already arrived at on the basis of other proven circumstances. (Para 21 )
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. This appeal challenges the judgement and order dated 22nd July, 2015, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in CRA No. 223 of 2012, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant, namely, Raja Naykar (Accused No. 1) and confirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence awarded to him by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (Chhattisgarh) (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Judge”) in Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2010 on 23rd November, 2011.
2. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeal are as under:
2.1 On 21st October, 2009, the half-burnt body of Shiva alias Sanwar (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was found behind Baba Balak Nath temple near Shastri Nagar ground. Based on the information given by one, Pramod Kumar (P.W.3), merg intimation Ex. P-33 was registered against unknown persons.
2.2 The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that Mohan – the husband of Accused No. 2 and brother of the Appellant was killed by the deceased; and as its offshoot, on 21st October, 2009 at about 12.00 a.m., the Appellant committed the murder of the deceased by causing 24 stab wounds on his body. He then wrapped the body in a blanket with the help of other accused persons, took it behind the Baba Balak Nath temple near Shastri Nagar ground where the halfburnt body of the deceased was found in the following afternoon. Postmortem examination of the body of the deceased was conducted on 23rd October, 2009 by Dr. Ullhas Gonnade (P.W.11) who observed as many as 24 injuries on the deceased. According to P.W.11, after commission of murder, the body of the deceased was burnt and his death was homicidal in nature. It was further the case of the prosecution that an electricity bill in the name of one, Alakh Verma was found from the body of the deceased, on the basis of which the police proceeded with further investigation. In pursuance of the disclosure statements of the accused persons, seizure was effected and the police concluded that the deceased was murdered by the Appellant and that the body was then taken to the Baba Balak Nath temple with the help of the other accused persons where an attempt was made to burn the body.
2.3 At the conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same came to be committed to the Sessions Judge.
2.4 The accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C”) wherein they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused.
2.5 At the conclusion of trial, the Trial Judge found that the prosecution had succeeded in proving that the Appellant had committed the murder of the deceased. The prosecution further proved that the accused persons committed criminal conspiracy to destroy the evidence, and threw the body of the deceased after burning the same behind the Baba Balak Nath temple. The prosecution also proved that accused no. 2 helped in throwing the body of the deceased and destroying evidence by way of cleaning the blood stains etc. of the deceased. Thus, the Trial Judge convicted the Appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short) and was awarded a maximum sentence of life imprisonment; whereas Accused Nos. 2 to 4 were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 201 read with 120B of IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.1,000/-.
2.6 Being aggrieved thereby, the Appellant and other accused persons preferred appeals before the High Court through CRA No. 223 of 2012 and CRA No. 38 of 2012 respectively. The High Court by the common impugned judgement, although allowed the appeal filed by the accused nos. 2 to 4; however, it dismissed the appeal file
