Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PANKAJ MITHAL, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Hansraj – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1387 of 2012
Decided On : 10-02-2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 103(1)] – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with innocence of accused and must show that in all human probability act must have been done by accused – There shall not be any room for any second opinion which may lead to innocence of accused – It is alleged that relationship of appellant with deceased was strained probably on account of non-payment/ untimely payment of his wages – Appellant was the person last seen in company of deceased and weapon was recovered at his pointing out – Appellant is said to have motive to kill deceased – Alleged motive being that he was living as a servant of deceased for last two months and there was some discord between him and deceased in connection with non-payment/untimely payment of wages – However, such discord is not of such a nature of extent which may lead to such a drastic action on part of appellant to kill deceased – Issue of non-payment of wages is hardly material and is so trivial a matter so as to compel anyone to take extreme step of committing crime of such a grave nature – There is no material evidence to prove any discord between the two – No forensic report was brought on record to prove that blood stains on it matched with that
of blood of deceased – Merely for reason that doctor opined that injuries on deceased may have been caused by a similar weapon would not conclude that recovered Farsi was weapon of crime – Evidence of none of two witnesses could conclusively establish that they saw appellant running or fleeing from place of crime or from village – Identity of person running away had not been established by any evidence – Possibility of innocence of appellant does not stand excluded as per chain of events – Appellant cannot be held guilty of commission of offence beyond reasonable doubt and in such circumstances benefit of doubt goes in his favour – Impugned judgment and orders hereby set aside and appellant acquitted from offence charged with. (Paras 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Appellant is a convict for offence under Section 302 IPC for murder and has been awarded life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-.Order of conviction and sentence of Trial Court dated 19.12.2002 has been confirmed by High Court in appeal by impugned judgment and order dated 30.07.2010.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgment and orders dated 19.12.2002 and 30.07.2012 are hereby set aside and appellant is acquitted from offence charged with. He has already suffered incarceration for over 10 years. He is already on bail. His sureties and bail bonds are discharged.
Result : Appeal allowed. Accused acquitted.
JUDGMENT :
(Pankaj Mithal, J.)
1. The appellant Hansraj is a convict for offence under Section 302 IPC1[Indian Penal Code] for murdering Ramlal of village Ghotha Sakulpara Bhanupratappur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh and has been awarded life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-.
2. The order of conviction and sentence of the Trial Court dated 19.12.2002 has been confirmed by the High Court in appeal by the impugned judgment and order dated 30.07.2010.
3. The appellant preferred the Special Leave Petition with delay of 653 days which was condoned and leave to appeal was granted. Since the appellant had remained in jail for over 10 years, he was directed to be released on bail by this Court.
4. The case of the prosecution is based only on circumstantial evidence and there is no eyewitness to the incident.
5. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that it is a completely false case and that even the circumstances have not been proved conclusively to hold the appellant guilty and there are stark contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
6. The incident is of 28.03.2002. It is alleged that the appellant was residing with the deceased and was assisting him in his work for the last over two months. On the fateful day the appellant at 7:00 am in the morning left for his native place on cycle with a bag but is set to have returned at around 9:00 am claiming that his cycle got punctured. He therefore asked for money from Budhiyarin Bai (PW-5) the wife of the deceased, to get the puncture repaired. Budhiyarin Bai told him that she had no money readily available at home and that he can take paddy and sell it in the market, but he refused. So, Budhiyarin Bai herself went to the market to sell the paddy, leaving the appellant and her husband at home. When she returned at about 9:30 am, she saw the appellant fleeing with a farsi (Ex P/6) in his hand and discovered that her husband is lying on the floor, profusely bleeding with his neck severed. She therefore raised an alarm and upon hearing her cries her neighbours Jogeshwar (PW-3) and Jhadu Ram (PW-4) came and they also saw her husband lying dead. The neighbours informed another villager namely Jogi Ram (PW-1) who also came on the spot and thereafter proceeded to the Police Station Bhanupratappur to lodge an FIR. He lodged the FIR at 11:15 am on the same day.
7. It is alleged that the relationship of the appellant with the deceased was strained probably on account of non- payment/untimely payment of his wages. The appellant was the person last seen in the company of the deceased and that the weapon of recovery i.e., farsi was recovered at his pointing out. The injuries sustained by the deceased were opined to have been caused by the weapon recovered. In these circumstances, the prosecution asserts that the evidence on record proves beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant alone is the person who committed the offence and that he has been rightly convicted and sentenced by the two Courts below.
8. Undisputedly, the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no eyewitness to the commission of the offence in as much as the wife of the deceased, Budhiyarin Bai, was also not present at the time of the commission of the offence and had discovered that her husband was lying on the floor bleeding profusely with neck severed upon returning from the market. She probably saw the accused fleeing from the scene of crime.
9. The law with regard to a case based purely on circumstantial evidence stands crystalised by the decision of this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 wherein five golden principles known as panchsheel proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence were enshrined namely (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established crafting out a distinction between ‘may be’ established and ‘must or should’ be established; (ii) the fa
Murder – Circumstantial evidence – There shall not be any room for any second opinion which may lead to innocence of accused.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for circumstantial evidence to establish a complete chain of events leading to the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of ....
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt in murder cases, as reiterated by the court.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction; mere suspicion is insufficient.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing a complete chain of evidence consistent only with the guilt of the accused in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, and highlights the signi....
In circumstantial evidence cases, all links in the chain must be proven conclusively to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
