IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, SUSHIL KUKREJA, JJ.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
Sher Singh - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 325 of 2015
Decided On : 15-05-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(3) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Appeal against acquittal - The appellant/State challenged the acquittal of the accused for murder, asserting misapprehension of evidence by the trial court. The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof on the prosecution, noting that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1, 8, 17, 35)
(B) Acquittal - The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and should not disturb acquittals unless the trial court's findings are perverse or illegal. (Paras 8, 36)
Facts of the case:
The accused was acquitted of murdering Ramu Paledar, with the prosecution's case relying on witness testimonies that ultimately turned hostile, failing to support the prosecution's claims. (Paras 2, 18)
Findings of Court:
The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the evidence was unreliable and did not establish a clear connection between the accused and the crime. (Paras 17, 38)
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of witness testimonies and whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish the accused's guilt. (Paras 18, 22)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that suspicion cannot replace proof and emphasized the necessity for the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases of circumstantial evidence. (Paras 35, 36)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Sushil Kukreja, J.
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned judgment dated 24.12.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 43 of 2014, whereby the respondent/accused (hereinafter referred to as the “accused”) was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story are that on 10.12.2013 at about 7:30 P.M., at Ward No. 4, Nagar Panchayat Banjar, District Kullu, when Layak Ram was taking dinner in his house, mother of the accused, Smt. Hima Devi came there and told him that her son, i.e. the accused, had severely beaten Ramu Paledar inside the Gharat (water mill) owned by one Chuni Lal and blood was oozing out from the mouth of Ramu. Accordingly, Layak Ram telephonically informed the police authorities of Police Station Banjar about the occurrence having been disclosed to him by the mother of the accused, on the basis of which, rapat was entered in Police Station Banjar. Immediately thereafter the police party, headed by Sub-Inspector Chint Ram, Station House Officer, Police Station Banjar, rushed to the spot, where he associated Layak Ram and Smt. Hima Devi from their houses and with the help of torch light, he inspected the body and found Ramu lying on the threshold of the water mill and when they touched the body of Ramu, he was found dead and blood had oozed out from his wound. The Investigating Officer also found blood stains on the bed, pillow and bed sheet, where deceased was staying. Besides that some chicken pieces alongside stove etc. were also found scattered inside the quarter of the deceased. SI/SHO Chint Ram recorded the statement of complainant Layak Ram under Section 154 Cr. PC and sent the rukka to Police Station, Banjar for registration of case through Constable Jamal Deen, pursuant to which, FIR was registered against the accused. The Investigating Officer Chint Ram deputed the police officials to guard the body of the deceased, as it was late night. Thereafter, the police party went in search of the accused and during search, police came to know that the accused with his mother was residing in the house of one Arjun. However, his mother informed the police about the absence of the accused. On 11.12.2013, the police officials went to the place of occurrence with complainant Layak Ram and Hima Devi and minutely inspected the spot. The spot was photographed, spot map was prepared and statements of the witnesses were recorded. Blood stained stone was found inside the water mill with fresh blood, which was seized and taken into possession. Forms 25-35 were filed by the Investigating Officer in the presence of the witnesses and application seeking opinion about the cause of death was moved before the Medical Officer. The dead body of the deceased was removed from the water mill for postmortem and after conducting the postmortem, the report was obtained. The police party again went to the house of the accused, where mother of the accused disclosed that the accused had come to the house and had changed his blood stained clothes and then left for the market. The accused was apprehended near bridge in Ward No. 4 and was arrested. The accused was medically examined and his MLR was obtained. In postmortem report, the Doctor opined that the cause of death was head injury leading to cardio respiratory failure. The accused while in custody made disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in presence of witnesses and got recovered the blood stained clothes and shoes worn by him at the time of commission of offence kept in his residence and also got the place identified. During investigation, the demarcation of the water mill was carried out and report alongwith tatima and copy of jamabandi was obtained. The samples were
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere suspicion cannot substitute for evidence in criminal cases.
In murder cases based on circumstantial evidence, all circumstances must be conclusively proven, leaving no gaps in the evidence chain for a conviction.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for conclusive evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence must create a complete chain of circumstances leading unerringly to the accused's guilt to uphold a conviction; mere suspicion is insufficient.
The court held that conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete, unbroken chain of circumstances that unerringly point to guilt, which was not established in this case.
In circumstantial evidence appeals against acquittal, interference only if perverse; prosecution must prove complete chain excluding other hypotheses, with double presumption favouring accused.
Convictions based on circumstantial evidence must establish a reliable chain linking the accused to the crime beyond reasonable doubt.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.