2025 Supreme(SC) 937

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. Nagarathna, Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.
Vaibhav - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1643 of 2012
Decided On : 04-06-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Murder and disappearance of evidence – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, facts indicating subsequent conduct are relevant facts under Section 8 of Evidence Act – When Court is faced with a situation wherein two different views appear to be reasonably possible, matter is to be decided in favour of accused.
(2) Burden of Proof – In law, there is significant difference in evidentiary burden to be discharged by prosecution and accused.
(3) Motive – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive is relevant – However, it is not conclusive of the matter – Motiveless crimes are not unknown to society.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 and Section 5 read with 25(1)(a) of Arms Act, 1959 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 8 – Murder and disappearance of evidence – Common intention – Conviction and sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Deceased was shot by service pistol belonging to father of appellant – Appellant had indeed removed dead body of deceased and had cleaned up scene of crime – Discoveries made under Section 27 of Evidence Act were not challenged by appellant as appellant had admitted that various articles belonging to himself and deceased and connected with alleged incident, were discovered in furtherance of his disclosures – High Court merely brushed aside defence of appellant by referring to subsequent conduct of appellant and by raising adverse inference on that basis – More often than not, in accidental gunshot cases, injury is found to be singular and inflicted from a close range – Present case ticks boxes of accidental gunshot injury, both in theory and in fact – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, facts indicating subsequent conduct are relevant facts under Section 8 of Evidence Act – Version of prosecution suffers from inherent inconsistencies and doubts – Inability of accused to offer plausible explanation on certain aspects would not automatically absolve prosecution of its evidentiary burden, which must be discharged first and beyond doubt – When Court is faced with a situation wherein two different views appear to be reasonably possible, matter is to be decided in favour of accused – High Court has erred in arriving at finding of guilt and in upholding verdict of Trial Court – Circumstantial evidence on record is not consistent and leaves a reasonable possibility of an alternate outcome of innocence of appellant on charges of murder and illegal usage of fire arm – Appellant acquitted for offences under Section 302 of IPC and Section 5 read with 25(1)(a) of Arms Act – His conviction under Section 201 IPC sustained and sentenced to period already undergone by him. (Paras 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 28 and 29)

(B) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – In gunshot cases wherein nature of death – suicidal, accidental or homicidal, is not ascertainable from direct evidence, multiple factors are taken into account for arriving at a conclusion – Such factors include but are not limited to point of entrance, size of wound, direction of wound, position of wound, possible distance of gunshot, number of wounds, position of weapon, trajectory of bullet after entering into human body, position of exit wound (if bullet has exited), direction of exit wound, direction of bullet after exit, distance travelled by bullet after exit, nature of final impact on surface (if any) etc. – All such factors, to the extent of their applicability to facts of the case, need to be examined by Court before arriving at a judicial finding of fact – No such analysis could be found in impugned judgment. (Para 19)

(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 101 – Burden of Proof – In law, there is significant difference in evidentiary burden to be discharged by prosecution and accused – Whereas, former is expected to discharge its burden beyond reasonable doubt, latter is only required to prove a defence on anvil of preponderance of probabilities – If accused leads defence evidence in course of criminal trial, same ought to be tested as probable or improbable in facts and circumstances of case – It was incumbent upon Courts below to have examined whether defence taken by appellant was a probable defence or not – Failure to do so has certainly resulted into failure of justice. (Para 22)

(D) Criminal Law – Motive – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive is relevant – However, it is not conclusive of the matter – There is no rule of law that absence of motive would ipso facto dismember chain of evidence and would lead to automatic acquittal of accused – Weight of other evidence needs to be seen and if remaining evidence is sufficient to prove guilt, motive may not hold relevance – But complete absence of motive is certainly a circumstance which may weigh in favour of accused – During appreciation of evidence wherein favourable and unfavourable circumstances are sifted and weighed against each other, this circumstance ought to be incorporated as one leaning in favour of accused – Ordinarily, in cases involving direct evidence of commission of crime, motive has little role to play as presence or absence of motive is immaterial if commission of crime stands proved through other evidence – Motiveless crimes are not unknown to society. (Paras 23 and 25)

Facts of the case:

Appellant was found guilty for commission of the offences under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5 read with 25(1)(a) of Arms Act, 1959. His friend Vishal was also found guilty for the commission of the offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. Both convicts had preferred separate appeals before Bombay High Court and both appeals came to be disposed of by impugned judgment, wherein conviction of the appellant was upheld and Vishal was acquitted for want of evidence.

Findings of Court:

Rigid principles underlying an examination based on circumstantial evidence are based on the premise that the very act of arriving at a finding of guilt on the basis of inferences must be performed with great caution and margin of error must be kept at a minimum.

Result : Appeal disposed of.