Entire Case Based On Circumstantial Evidence, Motive Of Accused Not Proven: Meghalaya High Court Acquits Convict In Murder Case

The Meghalaya High Court on Friday (August 16) acquitted the convict charged with an offence of murder upon failure of the prosecution to prove the motive and intention of the accused behind the commission of the offence.

In this case, the appellant was convicted for the offence of murder under Section 302 of IPC based on the testimonies of the two prosecution witnesses. As per their version, a quarrel took place between the deceased and the appellant which led to the killing of the deceased.

The Section 164 Cr.P.C statements of the PWs were recorded two months after the incident, and their testimonies were recorded in the Court after a decade.

Moreover, as per the Doctor's evidence, the deceased was killed by a sharp weapon, however, neither a recovery of a sharp weapon was made nor did the PWs mention the weapon used by the appellant while hitting the deceased.

Referring to the case of Mahamad Khan Nathekhan vs. State of Gujarat, the Court said that when the entire case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence then it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the accused motive behind killing the deceased.

“Of course, in the instant case, two witnesses, viz., P.Ws.1 and 2 were cited as eyewitnesses and on the basis of their evidence, the Trial Court proceeded to convict the accused. Except saying that there were quarrel between the accused and the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased was murdered, no witness had spoken about the motive for such murder. Even the prosecution failed to establish as to what was the exact motive for the so-called quarrel and subsequent attack.”

The Court also doubted the last-seen theory suggested by the PWs that they had identified the accused with the help of a torchlight. The Court said that since the occurrence had taken place during night hours and the P.W.2 is stated to have identified the accused only with the help of a torchlight, which has not admittedly been recovered and what were the weapons used for hitting the deceased were not known.

“Thus, we are able to see several flaws in the theory of the prosecution and with such inconclusive evidence, we are afraid to uphold the judgment of the Trial Court. As stated earlier, we have also found that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the alleged motive. In our considered view, the remaining circumstances relied on by the prosecution and held as proved by the Court below would not unerringly point to the guilt of the Appellant. Thus, in our view, it is unsafe on the aforesaid circumstances to maintain the conviction of the Appellant and we thus extend the benefit of doubt to him.”, the bench comprising Chief Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice W. Diengdoh held.

Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the trial court was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

Appearance:

For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, Adv with Mr. J. Shylla, Adv Mr. P.P. Medhi, Adv

For the Respondents : Mr. R. Gurung, GA with Mr. J. Thabah, GA Ms. S. Shyam, GA

Case Title: Shri.Thombor Shadap Versus The State of Meghalaya & Anr., Crl.A.No. 25/2023 with Crl.M.C.No.83/2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Megh) 24

Click here to read/download the judgment