Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(HP) 17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, SATYEN VAIDYA, JJ.
Sunil Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 472 of 2022.
Decided on : 02-01-2024

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Navlesh Verma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocates General and Mr. J.S. Guleria

The judgment established the principle that in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be conclusive and exclude every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. The absence of a motive was also considered a significant factor in evaluating circumstantial evidence.

Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 302 IPC - [Last Seen Theory, Circumstantial Evidence, DNA Matching, Recovery of Items] - The court discussed the legal principles of circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof on the prosecution. It emphasized the need for the circumstances to be conclusive and exclude every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. The court also highlighted the importance of motive in cases of circumstantial evidence. The judgment focused on the lack of conclusive evidence and the absence of a complete chain of circumstances, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:

The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to convict the appellant for the murder of the deceased. The appellant was last seen with the deceased, and items belonging to the deceased were allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant. However, there was no direct evidence or motive presented by the prosecution.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing only to the guilt of the appellant. It also noted the absence of a motive and the lack of conclusive evidence regarding the recovered items. As a result, the court acquitted the appellant, extending the benefit of doubt.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the absence of a motive, and the failure to establish a complete chain of circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for circumstantial evidence to be conclusive and exclude every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. It also highlighted the importance of motive in cases of circumstantial evidence.
Final Decision: The appellant was acquitted of all charges due to the lack of conclusive evidence and the absence of a complete chain of circumstances pointing only to the guilt of the appellant.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

By way of instant appeal, the appellant has assailed judgment dated 11.01.2018 and sentence order dated 16.01.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Solan, District Solan, H.P. in Sessions Trial No.14NL/7 of 2013, whereby the appellant has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/. In case of failure to pay fine amount, the appellant has further been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.

2. The prosecution case in brief was that on 20.04. 2013 at about 1.30 P.M., Madho Ram Mehta (PW1), President Gram Panchayat Madhala, noticed a human dead body lying in a rivulet at place Sansiwala within the jurisdiction of Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P. PW1 was also accompanied by another person named Ram Niranjan at the relevant time. He telephonically informed Police Station Baddi. Police arrived at the spot and found an unidentified dead body between the stones/boulders in the bed of rivulet. Injuries were found on the back and front side of the head of the body, which appeared to have been caused with stone/boulder. Blood stained boulder and pieces of stones were also found near the spot. On search of the body one handkerchief, an iron nut, a bundle of biddies and black coloured ‘chappals’ (slippers) were found besides the clothes worn by the deceased.

3. Police took into possession handkerchief, iron nut, bundle of biddies and black coloured chappals sealed them in cloth parcel. Seizure Memo Ex.PW1/B was prepared. Blood stained soil, was collected from the spot besides the controlled sample of soil. Both were sealed in a cloth parcel vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/D. Two blood stained boulders were also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/F and sealed in a cloth parcel. Photographs Ex.PW1/G1 to Ex.PW1/G5 of the spot were clicked on the spot. Inquest papers Ex.PW25/A were prepared and body was sent for postmortem examination.

4. The police also recovered a black coloured Cap from a distance of about 150 meters from the place where the body was lying. On inspection, some hair were found stuck inside the cap. The cap and hair were also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/H after placing the same in a sealed packet.

5. On 23.04.2013, the police detained the appellant. On 25.04.2013, the father of the appellant produced before the Police those clothes of appellant which he had worn on 20.04.2013. As per the father of the appellant, the appellant had changed the said clothes at home, which were subsequently washed by the mother of the appellant. The clothes were having some stains. Kamlesh Sahu, the son of the deceased identified the same clothes to have been worn by the appellant on 19.04.2013. According to Kamlesh Sahu, he had seen the appellant and the deceased together on 19.04.2013 and at that time the appellant was wearing the same clothes. The clothes so produced were taken into possession by police vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/K after placing them in a sealed cloth parcel.

6. On 25.04.2013, the police recorded the statement of appellant to the effect that he could get recovered wallet of the deceased which he had thrown while leaving the spot. Statement Ex.PW1/M was recorded in presence of PW1 Madho Ram and Kamlesh Kumar Sahu. Thereafter the accused/appellant led the police party to a place in the rivulet and got recovered the wallet of the deceased in presence of witnesses PW1 Madho Ram, Kamlesh Sahu and Rajesh Sahu. The recovery proceedings were recorded and the wallet was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/P.

7. On 26.04.2013, another statement was suffered by the appellant, whereby he had disclosed to get recovered the broken mobile phone of deceased. Statement Ex.PW21/A was recorded by the police in presence of witnesses Kamal Kumar (PW21), Kamlesh Sahu and Rajesh Sahu. On the same day, the broken mobile phone got rec