Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 1104

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Suresh Chandra Tiwari & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1902 of 2013
Decided On : 28-11-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Nidhi, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Anubha Dhulia, Adv. Ms. Suveni Bhagat, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Appeal by Special Leave – If finding of guilt is returned without properly evaluating and testing evidence by applying requisite legal principles, it can always be corrected by Supreme Court in exercise of its powers under Article 136 of Constitution of India.
(2) Murder – Before recording conviction, court must be satisfied that accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ guilty – Even if prosecution evidence generates strong suspicion against accused, it cannot be a substitute for proof – Motive on its own cannot make or break prosecution case.

Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appeal by Special Leave – If finding of guilt is returned without properly evaluating and testing evidence by applying requisite legal principles, it can always be corrected by Supreme Court in exercise of its powers under Article 136 of Constitution of India. (Para 18)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304 Part I – [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 105] – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Conviction and sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established – Before recording conviction, court must be satisfied that accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ guilty – Even if prosecution evidence generates strong suspicion against accused, it cannot be a substitute for proof – Motive on its own cannot make or break prosecution case – Motive proved is not such as may have a material bearing on prosecution case – Circumstance of deceased being last seen alive in company of deceased is a vital link in chain of other circumstances but on its own strength it is insufficient to sustain conviction unless time-gap between deceased being last seen alive with accused and recovery of dead body of deceased is so small that possibility of any other person being author of crime is just about impossible – Where time-gap is large, intervening circumstances including act by some third person cannot be ruled out – In such a case, adverse inference cannot be drawn against accused merely because he has failed to prove as to when he parted company of deceased. (Paras 19, 21, 25 and 26)
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304 Part I – [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 105] – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Conviction and sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Last seen circumstance as canvassed by prosecution is not of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of accused-appellants – There is no evidence that accused appellants were heard conspiring against deceased or expressing their animosity towards him – This circumstance runs contrary to last seen circumstance – Disclosure statement was recorded at police station whereas recovery was made from place pointed out by accused enroute to police station – It was a case of recovery from place allegedly pointed out by accused and not based on a disclosure statement – Prosecution had failed to establish chain of incriminating circumstances and accused appellants are entitled to be acquitted – Impugned order set aside and appellants acquitted of charges for which they have been tried and convicted. (Paras 27, 28, 37, 39, 40 and 41)
Facts of the case:
Aggrieved by judgment and order of the trial court, appellants filed appeal before High Court. High Court, upon finding that accused had no previous criminal record and except injuries 1 and 2 none were dangerous to life and those two could be a result of a solitary blow, thought fit to alter conviction from offence of murder, punishable under Section 302 of IPC, to offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC, and thereby reduced the sentence, accordingly.
Findings of Court:
Prosecution had failed to establish chain of incriminating circumstances and accused appellants are entitled to be acquitted of charges for which they have been tried and convicted.
Result : Appeal allowed. Accused acquitted.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

The Supreme Court emphasized that if a guilt finding is made without properly evaluating and testing the evidence according to legal principles, it can be corrected by the Court exercising its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India (!) .
For a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established, point unerringly towards the guilt of the accused, form a complete chain that leaves no reasonable doubt, be consistent only with guilt, and exclude all other hypotheses (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Before recording a conviction, the court must be convinced that the accused 'must be' guilty, not merely 'may be' guilty, ensuring certainty in the guilt assessment (!) .
The court examined whether the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were proved beyond reasonable doubt, whether they had a definite tendency to prove guilt, and whether they formed a complete chain excluding other possibilities (!) .
The circumstances cited by the prosecution included the accused and the deceased supporting rival candidates, the last seen evidence, the accused looking for the deceased, their presence in the night hours near the crime scene, recovery of a meat bag, and recovery of blood-stained stones. However, the Court found that these circumstances were not conclusively proved beyond reasonable doubt or of a definite tendency to prove guilt (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Court noted that the motive proved (supporting rival candidates and threats) was not material enough to establish guilt directly, and the 'last seen' evidence lacked proximity and certainty, especially given the large time gap and possibility of intervening circumstances (!) (!) (!) .
The evidence regarding recovery of articles, such as the polythene bag containing meat and blood-stained stones, was deemed inconclusive and not sufficiently connected to the crime, especially considering environmental factors like rain washing away blood and the absence of forensic linkage (!) (!) (!) .
The admissibility of the disclosure statement and recovery was questioned because the recovery was not made pursuant to the statement, and the presence of witnesses at the time of recovery was doubtful (!) (!) (!) .
The Court highlighted procedural lapses, such as the recovery being made before recording the disclosure statement and inconsistencies in witness testimonies, which cast doubt on the reliability of the evidence (!) .
Ultimately, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, and the evidence did not unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. Therefore, the appellants were entitled to acquittal (!) (!) .
The Court also noted that the High Court erred in reducing the charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder solely based on the number of injuries, without sufficient evidence of intent or a complete chain of proof (!) .
As a result, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the accused appellants were acquitted of all charges. They were on bail, and their bail bonds were discharged (!) .

These points collectively reflect the Court's reasoning that the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and highlight procedural and evidentiary issues that led to the acquittal of the appellants.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ MISRA, J.

1. This criminal appeal impugns the judgment and order of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital¹[The High Court] dated 24.5.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2003, whereby the appeal of the appellants against the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh passed in Session Trial No. 36 of 1997 was partly allowed and the conviction of the appellants was altered from Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 to Section 304 Part I of IPC, and the sentence, inter alia, was reduced from imprisonment for life to 7 years R.I³[Rigorous Imprisonment].

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. On 3.2.1997, at about 10 AM, PW-7, a cousin of the deceased, lodged a first information report⁴[FIR] (Exb. Ka-2) at PS⁵[Police Station] Lohaghat, District Pithoragarh, inter alia, alleging that on 3.2.1997, at about 9.30 AM, he came to know that dead body of the deceased was lying in the verandah of Mohan Singh’s shop. Pursuant to the aforesaid report, the police proceeded to the spot, carried out inquest and prepared an inquest report (Exb. Ka-8). It also lifted blood-stained and plain earth/floor from the spot and prepared a seizure memo (Exb. Ka-4) thereof. Belongings of the deceased lying near the spot were also seized and a seizure memo (Exb. Ka-5) was prepared. Besides that, a black polythene bag containing goat meat was also recovered from near the spot and another seizure memo (Exb. Ka-3) was prepared.

3. Autopsy of the cadaver was conducted by PW-1 on 3.2.1997 at about 2.45 PM. Autopsy report (Exb. Ka-1) indicated that the deceased died due to shock because of head injury. The estimated time of death, as per autopsy report, was about a day before autopsy. Ante-mortem injuries noticed at the time of autopsy were:

2. Incised wound 2-1/2 x 1 cm x bone deep in occipital area, 6 cm back of the right ear, direction of wound was slanting and clear-cut margins. Bleeding from wound.

3. Contusion on left region of the forehead, 1-1/2 cm x 1 cm, size of wound was unclear. Colour of the wound brown and was above 1 cm from left eyelashes.

4. Contusion with abrasion, from right shoulder to elbow, in about 15 x 3 cm area, colour of the wound was brown.

5. Contusion on the joints of both the wrists.

6. Contusion 4 cm x 1-1/2 cm at right knee, colour of the wound was brown.

7. Contusion 3 cm x 1 cm on the left knee, colour of the wound was brown.

8. Contusion 2 cm x 1 cm below 10 cm from the knee on left leg.

9. Abrasion on the right hip 3 cm x 2 cm.

10. Abrasion 4 cm x 1-1/2 cm on the left hip.

Internal examination disclosed fracture of occipital bone”

4. On 6.2.1997, the police arrested the appellants on suspicion and, according to the police, at the pointing out of the appellants, the place where the deceased was allegedly assaulted was discovered. From that place, allegedly, some bloodstained stones and mud were lifted and a seizure memo (Exb. Ka-6) was prepared.

5. During investigation, inter alia, statements of witnesses who had seen the deceased in the company of the accused on 2.2.1997 during daytime and who had seen the two accused in the company of each other, late in the night of 2.2.1997, on the pathway, near the place from where the dead body of the deceased was recovered were recorded. Based on that, a charge sheet was submitted against the appellants.

6. After taking cognizance on the charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Session. The Sessions Court framed charges against the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 302/201 read with Section 34 IPC. The accused appellants denied the charges and claimed for trial.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

7. As the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence, to test the correctness of the findings, a scrutiny of the evidence would be apposite. We would, therefore, notice the prosecution evidence in some detail.

8. Prosecution h