Conviction Solely Based On Uncorroborated 'Last Seen Evidence' Not Sustainable: Jharkhand High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction After 7 Yrs
The Jharkhand High Court recently set aside the conviction and sentence of a murder convict while observing that the conviction cannot be said to be just and proper solely on the basis of last-seen evidence which is not corroborated with any evidence.The division bench comprising Justice Subhash Chand and Ananda Sen observed, “The prosecution case, which is based on circumstantial evidence,...
The Jharkhand High Court recently set aside the conviction and sentence of a murder convict while observing that the conviction cannot be said to be just and proper solely on the basis of last-seen evidence which is not corroborated with any evidence.
The division bench comprising Justice Subhash Chand and Ananda Sen observed, “The prosecution case, which is based on circumstantial evidence, the motive of occurrence is neither shown in the FIR nor it came in the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. In case of circumstantial evidence, the evidence of motive becomes relevant and important, for lack of the same, prosecution case becomes doubtful.”
“The prosecution case being based on circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete from the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. In chain of the circumstantial evidence, no one link should be missing. From the chain of the circumstantial evidence, there should be only one conclusion in regard to commission of crime by the accused person. The circumstantial evidence should be conclusive in nature excluding every possibility of the hypothesis except the one to be proved.”
As per prosecution, Jug Singh Sidhu, the informant, reported to the police that his mother was at home when Sur Singh Sidhu, the appellant, claimed that his bull had died. Under this pretense, Sur Singh Sidhu persuaded his mother to leave the house with him, subsequently strangling her to death. Allegedly, upon hearing his mother's screams, Jug Singh Sidhu arrived at the scene to witness Sur Singh Sidhu fleeing after committing the murder. Villagers gathered, and the mother's body was brought back to the house due to a lack of transportation to inform the authorities immediately.
The following morning, Jug Singh Sidhu approached the village headman, informing him of the incident. It is alleged that a land dispute between the appellant and his mother led to the murder.
The appellant's counsel argued that the appellant's conviction, upheld by the Trial Court, rested primarily on the testimony of the informant, Jug Singh Sidhu, and two other prosecution witnesses. However, the counsel asserted that the reliability of these witnesses' testimonies was questionable because they were situated far from the actual occurrence, which took place in an area surrounded by bushes, making it unlikely for them to have witnessed the event.
On the other hand, the Special Public Prosecutor representing the State refuted the appellant's counsel's arguments, while contending that the Trial Court's judgment was well-founded, supported by the testimonies of Jug Singh Sidhu and the other witnesses. Additionally, the prosecutor pointed out that their testimonies were corroborated by medical evidence indicating the cause of death as throttling. Therefore, the prosecutor maintained that the Trial Court's judgment, conviction, and sentencing order were justified and required no interference.
After hearing the rival submissions of the counsels for the appellant and the Spl.PP for the State and perusing the materials available on record, the Court at the outset scrutinized the evidence - oral as well as documentary adduced on behalf of the parties on record in order to decide the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.
Moving ahead, the Court observed that the case in hand was based on last seen evidence only and the same was not corroborated with any other evidence, therefore, solely on the basis of last seen evidence being not corroborated with any evidence, the conviction cannot be said to be just and proper.
In view of the above analysis of the evidence, the Court while allowing the Criminal Appeal, held, “prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt and the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court needs interference and this Criminal Appeal deserves to be allowed.”
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, and acquitted the appellant from the charge levelled against him and was directed to be released, if not wanted in any other case.
Appearance:
For the Appellant : Ms. Varsha Ramsisaria, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, Spl.PP
Case No.: Cr. Appeal (DB) No.474 of 2017
Case Title: Sur Singh Sidhu Vs The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 62