'Yawning Gap In Evidence' : Supreme Court Finds Conviction Wrong In 2004 Murder Case; Sets Aside Concurrent Findings Of HC & Trial Court

The Supreme Court has observed that when the prosecution case is solely based on the circumstantial evidence, then the courts must be vigilant while examining the facts proving the circumstantial evidence i.e., it must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should be free from doubts, improbabilities and inconsistencies.

Reversing the concurrent findings of the High Court and the Trial Court against a person accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Bench comprising of Justices B.R. Gavai and P.S. Narasimha said:

“There is a yawning gap between the charge against the Appellant and the evidence that the prosecution has adduced. The circumstances do not establish the guilt of the Appellant at all. While the principle applicable to circumstantial evidence requires that the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, in the present case the evidence adduced gives rise to doubts, improbabilities and inconsistencies.”

The Court was hearing the appeal filed by the accused against the judgement of the High Court, who was tried along with another accused for the murder of a deceased and convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC for murder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life by the Trial Court. In appeal, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana by the judgment impugned herein dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence.

Factual Background

It is the story of the prosecution that the deceased has left the shop to go to a Market with his motorcycle at around 09:30 PM. When the deceased didn't reach his house in night, the wife of deceased informed the complainant. In order to search about the whereabouts of the deceased, the complainant along with another prosecution witness went on a search, and in the meanwhile the complainant got an information that that a dead body was found lying, thereafter he along with other prosecution witnesses reached the spot and saw that the deceased lying there with his throat having knotted with some cloth, and the right eye being badly injured. The complainant informed about the incident to the Police, and a F.I.R. was registered by the police and statements of witnesses were recorded.

Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. The prosecution of two accused was separated from this case after they were declared to be juveniles. Thus, only the Appellant and Sumit Gupta (A-2) stood trial. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution and defence examined 24 and 3 witnesses, respectively.

Observations by the Court

After adducing the material evidences placed on record by the prosecution, it was observed by the court in para 10 noted that the Trial Court having noticed that there are no eyewitnesses and that the case of the prosecution is based only on circumstantial evidence, copiously referred to the statements of each witness, but rested its decision only on the evidence of PW-10, 11 & 12 and certain recoveries and the FSL Report.

Moreover, the court also showed displeasure on the findings of the High Court upon the arriving to the conclusion without scrutinizing the testimony of PW 10, and observed that:

In fact, the High Court seemed to have accepted the submission of the defence that the evidence of Ex. Sarpanch, PW-10 is unreliable. However, without discussing the evidence of PW-10, the High Court observed that the evidence of PW-11 and PW-12 are sufficient to confirm the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.

However, the Court has independently examined the evidence of PW-10 and come to the conclusion that this witness is not trustworthy and took surprise while noting that the Trial Court as well as the High Court proceeded only on the basis of PW 11 and PW 12 witness's statement to convict and sentence the Appellant and opined that testimony of PW 10 can not be relied and shall be rejected.

Moreover, the court also found the versions of deposition made PW 11 and PW 12 as unreliable and unworthy of credit, as relied solely by the High Court and the Trial to convict the appellant-accused. Further, the court in para 26 declined to accept the report of FSL by noting that:

“The FSL report states that the “pant” sent to them for examination was one dirty blue “terikot pant”. However, as per the recovery memo a “jeans pant” was recovered from the Appellant. Additionally, the FSL report states that the blood on the sticks, blood-stained pants and the blood group of the deceased is the same “O+”. Mr. Mullick has rightly contended that this is not an indication of the guilt. Moreover, nothing of these recoveries took place in the presence of an independent witness. In fact, the IO (PW-24) has admitted that he did not try to join any private person before carrying out the recoveries.”

Additionally, the Court in para 28, referred to its own decision, Pritinder Singh v. State of Punjab, where the court took a reference of the judgment delivered in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, where the Supreme Court has laid down the following conditions that must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established, terming it as a the 'panchsheel' of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence:

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

Conclusion

The Court after having considered the matter in detail and having noted the various discrepancies and improbabilities has held that the prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt, hence, the judgment and order of the high court and the Additional Sessions Judge is set-aside acquitting the accused of all charges, and his bail bonds, if any, stand discharged. The Appeal is accordingly allowed.

Case Title: PRADEEP KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 21

Click here to read the judgment