1. Conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC, based on circumstantial evidence including last seen theory and call detail records. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 687
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Kamal – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 465 of 2017, Criminal Appeal No. 2295 of 2023, SLP (Crl.) No. 6213 of 2021
Decided On : 07-08-2023
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) If accused are already shown to witnesses in Police Station, then sanctity of TIP before court is doubtful.
(2) However strong suspicion may be, it cannot take place of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
(1) If accused are already shown to witnesses in Police Station, then sanctity of TIP before court is doubtful.
(2) However strong suspicion may be, it cannot take place of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 34 – Murder – Common intention – Life sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should exclude every possible hypothesis except one sought to be proved – If accused are already shown to witnesses in Police Station, then sanctity of TIP before court is doubtful – No evidence is placed on record to show as to how SIM came to be in possession of accused – Apart from that, if at the time of incident both of them were at same place and according to prosecution inside house of deceased and they were talking to each other on telephone, this itself creates doubt on prosecution version – However strong suspicion may be, it cannot take place of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Prosecution has utterly failed to prove case as they need to prove incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt – Evidence with regard to last seen theory is totally unreliable – Evidence regarding CDRs also is one which does not inspire any confidence – Appellants acquitted of all charges levelled against them. (Paras 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals challenge judgment and order dated 5th August 2014 passed by High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1242, 936 and 1136 of 2013, thereby affirming judgment and order dated 17th May 2013 passed by trial court, vide which trial court convicted original three accused for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life.
Findings of Court:
Judgment and order dated 5th August 2014 passed by High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1242, 936 and 1136 of 2013, and judgment and order dated 17th May 2013 passed by trial court quashed and set aside.
Result : Appeals allowed. Appellants acquitted.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, AOR Mr. R.vijay Nandan Reddy, Adv. Mr. V.krishna Swaroop, Adv. Ms. Kheyali Singh, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Sunita Sharma,Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, AOR Mr. R.vijay Nandan Reddy, Adv. Mr. V.krishna Swaroop, Adv. Ms. Kheyali Singh, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Sunita Sharma,Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Appellants contend the chain of circumstantial evidence is broken; prosecution argues concurrent findings of the trial and High Court warrant no interference. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
3. Evidence regarding last seen theory and call detail records is unreliable; identification of accused in police station before TIP compromises the evidence's sanctity. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 20 )
4. Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of established facts that exclude every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
5. Appeals allowed; convictions and sentences quashed; appellants acquitted of all charges. (Para 21 , 22 )
6. What are the essential requirements for conviction based on circumstantial evidence?
The circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, conclusive in nature, exclude every other possible hypothesis, and form a complete chain of evidence leaving no reasonable ground for innocence. (Para 17 , 18 )
7. How does showing an accused to a witness in a police station affect a Test Identification Parade (TIP)?
If the accused are shown to the witnesses in the police station prior to the TIP, the sanctity of the identification process before the court becomes doubtful. (Para 12 , 13 )
8. Can strong suspicion substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal convictions?
No, it is a settled principle of law that however strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 19 )
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted in appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6213 of 2021.
2. The appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 5th August 2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1242, 936 and 1136 of 2013, thereby affirming the judgment and order dated 17th May 2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II (North-West), Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial court’) vide which the trial court convicted the original three accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life.
3. The prosecution story, shorn of details, is as under:
3.1 On 10th September 2009 at around 04.15 pm, complainant-Surat Singh, brother of the deceased Hoshiyar Singh, came to the house of the deceased and found him lying dead on the cot. In the meantime, his elder brother Jai Singh (PW-20) also reached the spot. The deceased was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead.
3.2 The First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) came to be lodged expressing suspicion on Prem Singh, son of the deceased, since he had a property dispute with the deceased. It is the prosecution case that on earlier occasions, the accused had given beatings to the deceased and had also threatened to kill him.
3.3 It is the prosecution case that Prem Singh fled away from the scene of incident and was apprehended on 12th September 2009. During interrogation, he revealed the names of his associates Kamal Kishore and Manoj, the present appellants. Thereafter, the appellants were also apprehended. At the instance of accused Kamal Kishore, one rusted iron rod was recovered. At the instance of accused Manoj, a sweater was recovered which was used to strangulate the deceased.
3.4 Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against all the three accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First class. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge, the case was committed to the Sessions Judge. The trial court, vide judgment and order dated 17th May 2013, convicted all the three accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each.
3.5 All the three accused preferred appeals before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order dated 5th August 2014, the High Court dismissed all their appeals. Hence, the present appeals.
4. We have heard Mr. R.K. Kapoor and Ms. K. Sarada Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Ms. Sonia Mathur and Mr. A.K. Panda, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
5. Mr. Kapoor submitted that the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence. It is submitted that unless the prosecution establishes an unbroken link of circumstances, conviction based upon circumstantial evidence is not permissible.
6. Mr. Kapoor submitted that the prosecution mainly relies on the testimony of Jai Singh (PW-20) and Naresh Kumar (PW-21).
7. Ms. Mathur and Mr. Panda, on the contrary, submitted that the High Court and the trial court have concurrently, on proper appreciation of evidence, convicted the appellants. It is submitted that no interference is warranted in the present appeals.
8. Insofar as Naresh Kumar (PW-21) is concerned, he states that on the date of incident, at around 03.15 pm, he saw that the accused Prem Singh was present in his vehicle Toyota Qualis in front of the room of deceased Hoshiyar Singh, and was pressing the accelerator of his vehicle continuously and making the sound of the vehicle loud. Upon being asked about the reason for the same, accused Prem Singh replied that the vehicle was not starting. PW-21 further states that meanwhile, he saw two boys coming out of the room of deceased Hoshiyar Singh. When PW-21 asked the accused Prem Singh about those boys, he replied that th
