| Citation | (2023) 2 SCC 345 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Type | Criminal Appeal (No. 804/2011) |
| Petitioner | Ram Pratap |
| Respondent | State of Haryana |
| Date of Judgement | December 1, 2022 |
| Bench | Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice Vikram Nath (Division Bench) |
| Judgement Status | Disposed of |
FACTS
- This particular appeal is a case of homicide, whereby culpable homicide amounting to murder is being in question under section 302 IPC. According to the story of the prosecution in nutshell, the accused here( Ram Pratap) and the deceased (Om Prakash) known each other very well and were on visiting terms to each other houses. They used to spend time together and were friends.
- On 13th December, 2007 at 10.00 AM, the accused i.e. Ram Pratap had visited the deceased house. They both took tea together at the house of the deceased and went together. At midnight about 12 in the fateful night, the accused Ram Pratap along with other people came to the house of the deceased carrying his dead body in a jeep. They met Jagdish Chander (PW 4), who was the brother of the deceased. Ram Pratap told him that he died at his house.
- An FIR was being registered on the basis of the complaint made by Jagdish Chander. A chargesheet was filed against the four accused person after the investigation was done by the investigating officer. Jagdish while reporting the matter to the police had only expressed a suspicion against the accused. Further, it was found that there was a delay of 14 hours in reporting the incident. The high court, confirmed the conviction on the basis of the evidence of Jagdish Chander and recorded specifically Bhagwana( PW 5), the brother in law of the deceased, who was the witness to the last seen, has turned himself hostile and this was out of the purview of prosecution case.
ISSUES
- Whether merely on the basis circumstantial evidence, can conviction be held?
- Whether the legal distinction between ‘may and must’ has to establish or not, to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt?
ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONERS
The learned counsel has submitted that both the high court as well as trial court have grossly erred in convicting the accused which can lead to the miscarriage of justice. Also, there is no such evidences to show that the offence is committed by the accused and no one else and such evidence are sufficient to prove any reasonable doubt for a ordinary prudent man.
ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENTS
The respondent herein contended that, the findings and the order of both the trial court and the high court has appreciated the evidence in the correct perspective and no interference is required with the order the respective courts mentioned above. Thus, the order of the above court need to interference and modifications and is enough to prove that, the offence is committed by none another but the accused.
JUDGEMENT
B.R. Gavai, J.
- The court said that, without any doubt this case is based on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidences are those, which though is not directly connected with the case and are not the direct or material evidences but are acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
- It has been held by this Hon’ble court in a catena of cases, that it doesn’t matter how much strong is the suspicion, still cannot be considered as the proof beyond reasonable doubt. This was strongly held in the case Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra.[1] Any case where the question of conviction and acquittal is in challenge, the court must look for all the material and direct evidences which connects straight forward with the commission of an offence. No question of doubt and suspicion should be left, because it is unbearable to convict an innocent man.
- In the present scenario, of the court consider the evidence of Jagdish Chander wherein he stated that the accused came to his house with the body of his deceased brother and told him that he has killed the deceased Om Prakash, such statement was not found in any of the oral report. Also, it can not be neglected that the PW 4 has delayed 14 hours in lodging the oral report and the reason behind that was not explained and thus has been disbelieved.
- The Hon’ble Supreme court has held that there is not only a grammatical mistake but also a legal distinction between the witf “may” and “must”. It is necessary for the prosecution to establish each and every circumstances without leaving any reasonable doubt behind it, for proving a case based on circumstantial evidence. Further, the circumstances is to be proved upto the extent that it formed a chain of evidence without leaving any doubt for the conclusion consistent with the accused’s innocence. It has been held that the facts so established must exclude each and every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.
- In the above view, the court held that, the High court as well as the trial court were not justified in convicting the accused. Thus, the appeal is allowed and appellant is acquitted of the charges.
Pending application, if any, stand Disposed of.
REFERENCES
https://www.scconline.com/DocumentLink/00JRyXzV
https://main.sci.gov.in/case-status
This article is written by Deepanshi Srivastava of Shambhunath Institute of Law, Legal intern at legal Vidhiya.
[1] (1984) 4 SCC 116 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 487
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
