1. Appeal against conviction and life sentence under Section 302 IPC based on circumstantial evidence. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 581
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Laxman Prasad @ Laxman - Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 821 of 2012
Decided On : 14-06-2023
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Murder – In a case of circumstantial evidence, chain has to be complete in all respects so as to indicate guilt of accused and also exclude any other theory of crime.
Murder – In a case of circumstantial evidence, chain has to be complete in all respects so as to indicate guilt of accused and also exclude any other theory of crime.
Subject
Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Life sentence – Circumstantial evidence – In a case of circumstantial evidence, chain has to be complete in all respects so as to indicate guilt of accused and also exclude any other theory of crime – High Court, while dealing with evidence on record, agreed with finding of motive and last seen, however, insofar as recovery of weapon of assault and blood-stained clothes were concerned, High Court held the same to be invalid – Still, it observed that looking to entire gamut and other clinching evidence against appellant of last seen and motive, affirmed conviction – Such conclusion of High Court is not strictly in accordance with law – If High Court found one of links to be missing and not proved in view of settled law on the point, conviction ought to have been interfered with – Conviction and sentence of appellant set aside. (Paras 2, 3, 4 and 5)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal has been preferred assailing the correctness of the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior dated 28.09.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No.231 of 2003 dismissing the appeal of the appellant and confirming the conviction and life sentence recorded by the Trial Court under Section 302 IPC.
Findings of Court:
Appellant is already on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled and sureties if any, stand discharged.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Ram Swarup Sharma, AOR (Not Present) (SCLSC)
For the Respondent: Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, A.A.G., Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, AOR.
For the Appellant : Mr. Ram Swarup Sharma, AOR (Not Present) (SCLSC)
For the Respondent: Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, A.A.G., Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, AOR.
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the validity of conviction where the High Court affirmed guilt despite finding a key link in the circumstantial evidence chain to be invalid. (Para 2 )
3. The High Court erred in affirming conviction based on motive and last seen while simultaneously holding the recovery of the weapon and blood-stained clothes invalid. (Para 2 , 3 )
4. Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence that indicates the guilt of the accused and excludes any other theory of the crime. (Para 3 , 4 )
5. Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside. (Para 5 )
6. What is the legal standard for conviction based on circumstantial evidence?
The chain of circumstantial evidence must be complete in all respects so as to indicate the guilt of the accused and exclude any other theory of the crime. (Para 3 )
7. How does a missing link in the chain of circumstantial evidence affect a conviction?
If any link in the chain of circumstantial evidence is found to be missing or not proved, the conviction ought to be interfered with. (Para 4 )
ORDER :
1. This appeal has been preferred assailing the correctness of the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior dated 28.09.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No.231 of 2003 dismissing the appeal of the appellant and confirming the conviction and life sentence recorded by the Trial Court under Section 302 IPC.
2. The present one is a case of circumstantial evidence. The prosecution led evidence to establish three links of the chain, (i) motive, (ii) last seen, and (iii) recovery of weapon of assault, at the pointing out of the appellant. The High Court, while dealing with the evidence on record, agreed with the finding of motive and the last seen, however, insofar as the recovery of the weapon of assault and blood-stained clothes were concerned, the High Court in paragraph 18 of the judgment held the same to be invalid and also goes to the extent to say that the recovery which has been made does not indicate that the appellant has committed the offence. Still, it observed that looking to the entire gamut and other clinching evidence against the appellant of last seen and motive, affirmed the conviction.
3. We do not find such conclusion of the High Court to be strictly in accordance with law. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the chain has to be complete in all respects so as to indicate the guilt of the accused and also exclude any other theory of the crime. The law is well settled on the above point. Reference may be had to the following cases :
(i) Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra , (1984) 4 SCC 116;
(ii) Sailendra Rajdev Pasvan vs. State of Gujarat Etc. , AIR 2020 SC 180
4. Thus, if the High Court found one of the links to be missing and not proved in view of the settled law on the point, the conviction ought to have been interfered with.
5. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The appellant is already on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled and sureties if any, stand discharged.
6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
