Suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal cases.

Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction and Sentence Challenged - Acquittal Due to Lack of Proof
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted and sentenced for the rape and murder of a minor. The prosecution's case relied on eyewitness testimony, but the appellant challenged the evidence, alleging contradictions and suppression of early versions. The postmortem doctor's opinion indicated injuries consistent with sexual assault and homicide.
Finding of the Court:

The court found the eyewitness unreliable due to contradictions and inconsistencies in her testimony. It noted the suppression of early versions and the presence of police before the lodging of the complaint, casting doubt on the authenticity of the case. The court emphasized that suspicion cannot replace proof and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
Issues: Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony, Suppression of Early Versions, Presence of Police Before Complaint, Sufficiency of Proof
Ratio Decidendi: Suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof. The suppression of early versions and contradictions in eyewitness testimony cast doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution's case. Lack of sufficient proof led to the acquittal of the appellant.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal is allowed, and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges and directed to be released forthwith.

JUDGMENT

(Order of the Court was delivered by SUNDER MOHAN,J.)

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole accused, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him vide judgment dated 11.05.2017 in Spl.S.C.No.38 of 2016 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai.

2. For the sake of convenience, the accused is hereinafter referred to as 'appellant'.

3(i) It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased is the minor daughter of PW1; that on 02.06.2016 deceased along with PW1 came to their native village for making arrangements for the marriage of PW1's son one Balaji; that the appellant taking advantage of the age of the deceased decided to commit rape on her; that at about 4.00 p.m., on the same day, the appellant deceived the deceased and induced her to come to a covered place surrounded by sugarcane crop on the pretext of fetching green chillies; that the appellant removed the dress of the deceased and had forcible sexual intercourse; and that in order to conceal the said offence, caused the death of the deceased by strangulating her neck, as a result of which, the deceased died due to asphyxia.

(ii) It is the further case of the prosecution that PW1 on hearing the cry for help of the deceased, went to the scene of the occurrence; that she saw the appellant and deceased and at that time the appellant attempted to commit rape on her and strangulated the neck of the deceased; that when she shouted for help, the appellant ran away; that at 12.30 p.m., PW1 gave a complaint [Ex.P1] to PW12, the Special Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR [Ex.P13] in Cr.No.140 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act and 376(2), 376(1), 511 and 302 of the IPC.

(iii) PW13, the investigating officer went to the scene of the occurrence at about 1.15 a.m. on 03.06.2016 and since it was dark, he could not conduct the inquest and sent the dead body of the deceased to Tiruvannamalai Government Hospital for a postmortem. He examined the witnesses and thereafter went to the scene of the occurrence at 6.00 a.m., and in the presence of witnesses prepared the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P4). He seized a blue coloured jeans pant [M.O.1] worn by the deceased under Seizure Mahazar [Ex.P3]. He went to the hospital at 9.00 a.m., and conducted inquest and prepared inquest report (Ex.P14) in the presence of the panchayatars.

(iv) On the same day at about 2.30 p.m., PW13 arrested the appellant and on his confession, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P5, seized the underwear [M.O.2] and lungi [M.O.3] of the appellant under Seizure Mahazar [Ex.P6]. He thereafter sent the seized material objects under Form-95 to the Court.

(v) After examination of the other witnesses, he sent the seized articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory and after obtaining the reports and statements, filed the final report against the appellant for the offences under Sections 366, 376, 302 r/w Section 6 and 10 Act and Sections 4 and 4(A) of the Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, before the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai.

(vi) The case was numbered as Special S.C.No.38 of 2016 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai. On the appearance of the appellant, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., were complied with. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 366(A) and 302 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, against the appellant and when questioned, the appellant pleaded 'not guilty'.

(vii) To prove the case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.13, marked 14 exhibits as Exs.P1 to P14, and marked 3 Material Objects as M.O.1 to M.O.3. When the appellant was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. The appellant/accused neither examined any witnesses, nor marked any documents.

(viii) On appreciation of oral and documen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document