Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 930

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Chetan – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1568 of 2013
Decided on : 30-04-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mrs. Rajani K. Prasad, Adv. Mr. B. K. Prasad, Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Muhammad Ali Khan, A.A.G. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Omar Hoda, Adv. Ms. Eesha Bakshi, Adv. Mr. Kamran Khan, Adv. Mr. Arjun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Jayanti Singh, Adv. Ms. Gurbani Bhatia, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Murder - Act of abscondence is a relevant piece of evidence to be considered along with other evidence.
(2) Examination of accused under Section 313 CrPC is an important component of process of judicial scrutiny of evidence sought to be relied upon by prosecution against accused.
(3) Law does not require that a fact requires to be proved on absolute terms bereft of all doubts - What law contemplates is that for a fact to be considered proven, it must eliminate any reasonable doubt.
(4) Motive - While proof of motive certainly strengthens prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence, failure to prove the same cannot be fatal.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 404 - Arms Act,1959 - Sections 25 and 27 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 - Murder and misappropriation of valuables belonging to deceased - Conviction and sentence - Circumstantial evidence - Last-seen theory - Forensic evidence is consistent with prosecution story - Fact that deceased died an unnatural death due to gunshot injuries cannot be doubted in light of post-mortem and forensic evidence - It was a clear case of homicide - Evidence of chance witness appearing to be credible - Non-informing family members of deceased at an earlier point of time by prosecution witnesses who saw appellant going in a motorcycle or seeing appellant and deceased going together on a motorcycle cannot be a ground for disbelieving their testimony - Dead body of deceased was recovered in a decomposed state three days after deceased was last seen together with appellant - Forensic and ballistic opinion along with subsequent recovery of gun, pellets and wads and other object like gold chain from appellant literally obliterates doubtful element which can be attributed to gap in time and space of last seen together aspect of circumstantial evidence - Gun recovered at instance of appellant was used in causing bullet injury to deceased which led to his death - These materials or "facts" recovered would come within scope of Section 27 of Evidence Act - Silence and failure to explain any of incriminatory circumstances, would strengthen prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence against appellant as proved by Prosecution - Prosecution's case is not mere conjecture, but rather based on established circumstances and facts - Conviction and sentence upheld. (Paras 10.2, 10.3, 10.5.6, 10.5.9, 10.6.1, 10.6.10, 10.7, 10.7.4, 10.7.6, 10.15 and 11.4)
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 8 - Abscondence - Mere absconding by itself does not constitute guilty mind as even an innocent man may feel panicky and may seek to evade police when wrongly suspected of being involvement as an instinct of self-preservation - But act of abscondence is certainly a relevant piece of evidence to be considered along with other evidence and is a conduct under Section 8 of Evidence Act, which points to his guilty mind - Needle of suspicion gets strengthened by the act. (Para 10.9.2)
(C) Criminal Law - Motive - While proof of motive certainly strengthens prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence, failure to prove the same cannot be fatal - Motive is something that is very difficult to prove as it remains hidden in deep recess of mind of person concerned - In absence of any open declaration by person concerned himself, motive has to be inferred from activities and conduct of person. (Paras 10.11.2 and 10.11.3)
(D) Criminal Law - Appreciation of evidence - Based on lived human experiences and human behaviour, if any supposition of fact is clearly inferable from an established fact, inferred position of fact should be adopted as correct - Law does not require that a fact requires to be proved on absolute terms bereft of all doubts - What law contemplates is that for a fact to be considered proven, it must eliminate any reasonable doubt - Reasonable doubt does not mean any trivial, fanciful or imaginary doubt, but doubt based on reason and common sense growing out of evidence in the case - A fact is considered proved if court, after reviewing evidence, either believes it exists or deems its existence probable enough that a prudent person would act on assumption that it exists - Where evidence is circumstantial in nature, circumstances from which inference of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully established. (Paras 10.12. and 10.12.1)
(E) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Examination of accused - Examination of accused under Section 313 CrPC is an important component of process of judicial scrutiny of evidence sought to be relied upon by prosecution against accused - At the time of indictment and framing of charges against accused, untested evidence marshalled by Investigating Authority in course of investigation is laid bare before accused, who would have idea as to nature of evidence and case being built up against him by prosecution - This is to enable accused to prepare and strategize his defence - He will have all opportunities to discredit any prosecution witness or question any evidence through tool of cross examination - He will thereafter have opportunity to lead his defence evidence - It is in this context that answers given by accused assume great significance in assessing evidence by court - While accused is not obligated to answer questions put to him and still can maintain his silence or deny evidence, yet silence or evasive or wrong answers to questions put by court provides a perspective to court in properly evaluating incriminating materials which have been brought forth by prosecution by drawing necessary inference including an adverse one. (Paras 10.16 and 10.16.1)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 06.12.2010 passed by Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad in Criminal Appeal No. 666 of 2007, whereby High Court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed upon present appellant under Sections 302 and 304 of IPC and for offences under Sections 3 and 5 punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act,1959 by judgment dated 28/29.03.2007 passed by F.T.C.-II & Addl. Sessions Judge, Belgaum in Sessions Trial No 267 of 2006.
Findings of Court:
Bail bonds furnished by appellant stand cancelled and the appellant who had been released on bail is directed to surrender before Trial Court forthwith to undergo the remaining period of sentence awarded by the Trial Court as affirmed by the High Court.
Result : Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The appeal challenges the conviction and sentence for murder and offenses under the Arms Act, upheld by the High Court (!) . - The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, including the last-seen theory, recovery of the weapon, forensic evidence, and the appellant's abscondence (!) . - The Supreme Court must tread cautiously when reviewing concurrent findings of lower courts, interfering only in cases of manifest illegality or grave miscarriage of justice (!) (!) . - The prosecution's case alleged that the appellant murdered the deceased due to a financial dispute and insulted him, then misappropriated the deceased's valuables (!) (!) (!) . - The deceased's body was found in a decomposed state three days after he was last seen with the appellant (!) (!) . - The recovery of the gun used in the crime, pellets, wads, and the deceased's gold chain at the appellant's instance linked him to the murder (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The ballistic expert confirmed that the recovered gun was functional, had been discharged, and the pellets and wads found in the deceased's skull could have been fired from that gun (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The appellant's abscondence from July 11, 2006, to July 22, 2006, and his attempts to mislead relatives and friends about his whereabouts indicated a guilty mind (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - While the motive was not definitively proven, the argument between the appellant and deceased over money and the deceased's insulting words heard by a witness (PW-4) established a grudge, which, even if not fully proven, is not fatal to the prosecution's case (!) (!) (!) . - The Court upheld the conviction for murder and offenses under the Arms Act, but gave the benefit of doubt regarding the recovery of the Nokia mobile phone for the Section 404 IPC charge (!) .

What is the evidentiary value of abscondence in a criminal case?

What is the standard of proof required to establish a fact in law?

How is circumstantial evidence evaluated in a murder trial?

JUDGMENT :

NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 06.12.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad in the Criminal Appeal No. 666 of 2007, whereby the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed upon the present appellant under Sections 302 and 304 of the IPC and for offences under Sections 3 and 5 punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act,1959 by judgment dated 28/29.03.2007 passed by the F.T.C.-II & Addl. Sessions Judge, Belgaum in Sessions Trial No 267 of 2006.

2. The conviction is based on circumstantial evidence relying on the last seen theory supported by the recovery of articles including the weapon of crime and forensic evidence and the act of abscondence by the appellant.

3. As the appellant is seeking reversal of the concurrent findings by the two courts below, the Sessions Court and the High Court, this Court has to tread very cautiously, as observed by this Court on numerous occasions including in Mekala Sivaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2022) 8 SCC 253, wherein it has been held that unless the findings are perverse and rendered in ignorance of material evidence, this Court should be slow in interfering with concurring findings. It was thus observed by this Court in Mekala Sivaiah (supra) in the following words:

16. It is not the practice of this Court to re-appreciate the evidence for the purpose of examining whether the findings of fact concurrently arrived at by the trial court and the High Court are correct or not. It is only in rare and exceptional cases where there is some manifest illegality or grave and serious miscarriage of justice on account of misreading or ignoring material evidence, that this Court would interfere with such finding of fact.”

4. Keeping the aforesaid cautionary approach in mind, this Court would proceed to examine the appeal at hand by considering whether there is manifest error or illegality in the impugned judgment and whether any grave and serious miscarriage of justice on account of misreading or ignoring material evidence has occurred in the present case. This would invariably require a proper examination of the facts and context of the case, for which we must revisit the background facts of the case and the evidence adduced, considered by the Trial Court as well as the High Court.

5. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

5.1 The Prosecution case in brief is that the appellant and the deceased Vikram Sinde were friends. About eight months prior to the incident which occurred on 10.07.2006, the appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 4000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only) from one Ravindra Chavan (PW19), in order to lend the same in turn to the deceased, which however, was not returned by the deceased to the appellant even after a lapse of about 7-8 months, despite repeated demands to return the same. In that connection, there was an argument between the appellant and the deceased in which the deceased had apparently insulted the appellant, because of which the appellant bore a grudge against the deceased.

5.2 It is further the case of the Prosecution that the appellant on 10.07.2006 at about 20.30 hours after taking a 12 Bore D.B.B.L Gun with cartridges belonging to his grandfather on the pretext of going for hunting, took the deceased along with him on his Hero Honda motorcycle to the sugarcane grove located in S