Back
2013 Supreme(MP) 352
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
SUNIL KUMAR SINHA and RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, JJ.
Ashok
Vs
State of M.P. (Now State of Chhattisgarh)
Criminal Appeal No. 1237 of 1998
Decided On : 03/07/2013
The importance of conclusive and reliable evidence in establishing circumstantial evidence.
Headnote:
Circumstantial Evidence - Murder - IPC 302/34 - [IPC 302/34] - The court discussed the importance of conclusive and reliable evidence in establishing circumstantial evidence. It highlighted the need for a complete chain of circumstantial evidence and the requirement for the circumstances to be of conclusive nature and tendency. The court analyzed the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution and found them to be not fully established, capable of being explained, and not of conclusive nature and tendency.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was found dead in his hutment with multiple serious injuries. The appellants were convicted based on circumstantial evidence, including being seen near the hutment, statements made by the appellants, and the discovery of a lathi and cash. The defense argued that the circumstances were not conclusive and reliable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were not fully established, capable of being explained, and not of conclusive nature and tendency. The court also discredited the reliability of the witnesses and the incriminating nature of the discovered items. As a result, the court acquitted the appellants of the charges.
Issues: Reliability of circumstantial evidence, credibility of witnesses, incriminating nature of discovered items
Ratio Decidendi: The importance of conclusive and reliable evidence in establishing circumstantial evidence, the need for a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, and the requirement for circumstances to be of conclusive nature and tendency.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants under Section 302/34, IPC were set aside. The appellants were acquitted of the charges.
SUNIL KIMAR SINHA, J.
These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 15th of May, 1998 passed in Sessions Trial No. 267/1997 by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur. By the impugned judgment, the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default sentence for R.I. for two months.
2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under :
2.1 In the intervening night of 5th-6th of May, 1997, Deceased-Jeevrakhan was sleeping in his hutment, constructed in his field which was situated in the outskirts of Village-Narra. In the morning, his dead body was found in the hutment. He had sustained multiple serious injuries, Girdharilal (P.W. 3), son of the Deceased lodged Merg Intimation (Ex.P-6) and First Information Report (Ex. P.5). The Investigating Officer reached to the place of occurrence, gave notice (Ex.P-1) to the Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex.P-2) on the dead body of the Deceased. The dead body was sent for postmortem. The post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Ulaas Gonnade (P.W. 14) who found multiple serious injuries on the dead body of the Deceased and opined that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of strangulation and the death was homicidal in nature. The post-mortem report is (Ex. P-11.
2.2 Till 14-5-1997, it could not be detected by the police as to who were the culprits, however, on the said date, statement of Hemlal (P.W. 8) was recorded, who stated that he had seen the Appellants near the hutment in the fateful night. Thereafter, statement of other witnesses were also recorded.
2.3 In further investigation, Appellant-Sundar was taken into custody on 18-5-1997 and his memorandum statement (Ex. P-15) was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and a Lathi and Rs. 4,000/- cash was seized at his instance vide seizure memo (Ex. P-16).
2.4 The prosecution came with the case that the Deceased had illicit relation with the mother of Appellant-Ashok, therefore, Ashok and Appellant-Sundar (both accused) had committed murder of the Deceased in the intervening night of 5th-6th of May, 1997, when he was sleeping in his hutment.
2.5 Admittedly, there was no eye-witness to the incident and the case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence. Following are the circumstances on which the learned Sessions Judge has relied and convicted the Appellants as above.
i. The Appellants were seen near the hutment of the Deceased in the fateful night;
ii. Appellant-Sundar had stated to Nand-kumar (P.W. 10) and Bhola (P.W. 11) that they should help him because he wanted to commit murder of the Deceased on the instruction of co-accused-Ashok Kumar;
iii. A Lathi and Rs. 4,000/- was seized at the instance of discovery statement given by Appellant-Sundar under Section 27 of the Evidence Act; and
iv. The Deceased had illicit relation with the mother of Appellant-Ashok, therefore, it was a motive for Appellant-Ashok who had hired Appellant-Sundar to commit murder of the deceased.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellants, have argued that none of the circumstances were of conclusive nature and tendency, the circumstance of seeing the Appellants near the hutment of the Deceased was not proved; the solitary witness of this circumstance, Hemlal (P.W. 8), was not reliable; that apart all the prosecution witnesses made late disclosure after about 10-15 days of the incident, therefore, the conviction based on the above circumstances cannot be sustained.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Vinod Tekam, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court.
5. We have heard counsel for the parties.
6. The Supreme Court has said time and again that the circumstances on which the Prosecution relies must be of conclusive nature and tendency. Those circumstances must be established by cogent and reliable evidence; and none of the circumstance whould be capable of be
