Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 285

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Gambhir Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(S). 850-851 of 2019
Decided on : 28-01-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, AOR Ms. Aarti U. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Harsh Som, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR Mr. Sushil Kumar Tomar, Adv. Mr. Shaurya Krishna, Adv.

The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, especially those based on circumstantial evidence, failing which the accused must be acquitted.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 302 - Indian Evidence Act - Section 27 - Criminal law - Conviction and death sentence of appellant-accused for the murder of six family members, including four children, was challenged - Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, lacking credible evidence on motive, last seen theory, and recoveries - The court emphasized that the prosecution must establish a clear chain of circumstances linking the accused to the crime. (Paras 2, 36)

(B) Burden of Proof - In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence - The court reiterated that mere suspicion or conjecture is insufficient for conviction. (Paras 2, 36)

Facts of the case:
The appellant-accused was convicted for the murder of his brother, sister-in-law, and their four children, with the incident occurring on the night of May 8-9, 2012. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including alleged motive and recoveries. (Paras 3, 4)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish any incriminating circumstances against the appellant-accused, leading to the conclusion that the conviction was unsustainable. (Paras 36, 38)

Issues: The main issues included whether the prosecution proved the motive, the last seen theory, and the recoveries made from the accused. (Paras 36)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution's failure to provide credible evidence on key aspects of the case, including motive and the reliability of witness testimonies, warranted the acquittal of the appellant-accused. (Paras 36, 38)

Result: The conviction and death sentence of the appellant-accused were quashed, and he was acquitted of all charges. (Paras 38, 39)

JUDGMENT :

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. The law is well-settled that in a criminal case irrespective of the gravity and nature of charges, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove the guilt of the accused by leading evidence which is convincing and links the accused with the crime beyond all manner of reasonable doubt. In a case based purely on circumstantial evidence, the onus is upon the prosecution to prove the chain of circumstances beyond all manner of doubt. The law in respect of the same has been crystallized in Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116. wherein it was held that:-

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793] where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047]

“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. (emphasis supplied)

3. Keeping in view the above principles, we shall now advert to the facts of the case at hand. The appellant i.e., Gambhir Singh²[Hereinafter, referred to as ‘appellant-accused’.] has been convicted and sentenced to death in relation to a ghastly incident involving murder of his own brother³[The brother, namely “Satyabhan”.], sister-in-law⁴[The sister-in-law, namely “Pushpa”.] and their four innocent children⁵[The children, namely Aarti, Mahla, Gudia and Kanhaiya.]. The incident took place in the house of the deceased persons at village Turkiya on the intervening night of 8th and 9th May, 2012.

4. The case of prosecution in a nutshell is that on 9th May, 2012 at about 6:30 am, Mahaveer Singh (PW-1), being the brother of deceased Pushpa, received shocking information that his sister, brother-in-law, nephew and nieces had been hacked to death. On receiving this information, Mahaveer Singh (PW-1), his family members, along with other villagers reached village Turkiya, where his sister used to reside along with her husband and four children. They proceeded to the house and saw that all the six members of the family had been killed in a heinous manner with blows of sharp and blunt weapons.

5. Mahaveer Singh (PW-1), the informant lodged a written report⁶[Exhibit Ka- 1.] with Station House Officer, Police Station Achhnera, District Agra alleging inter alia that the marriage of his sister Pushpa had been solemnized about 12 years ago with Satyabhan, son of Shiv Singh, resident of village Turkiya. From their wedlock a son and three daughters were born. The appellant-accused, younger brother of Satyabhan, bore enmity with them due to a land dispute. On 8th May, 2012, the appellant-accused was staying with his friend Abhishek at the house of the informant’s sister. On 9th May, 2012 Mahaveer Singh (PW-1) received information that