Circumstantial Evidence Should Not Only Be Consistent With Guilt Of Accused But Also Be Inconsistent With His Innocence: Allahabad HC Reiterates

The counsel for the appellant submitted that when the PW-1 went out in search of the deceased he had seen the accused persons coming from the side of the spot, where the dead body was found and this clearly connects the accused persons with the offence. The counsel also submitted that even the weapon used in the incident was recovered on pointing out of Narendra Singh and hence prayed to set aside the impugned judgement and convict the accused person as liable in the instant case.

Findings

At the outset, the Court noted that it is not even a case of last seen evidence. P.W.-1, brother of the deceased, has stated only this much that the dead body was found in a field and he had seen the accused persons coming from the side of the dead body.

So far as recovery of weapon is concerned, it was recovered after more than two months. Further, as per FSL report, the bloodstained on the weapon (darati) were disintegrated and therefore, were not sufficient to record any finding. Furthermore, the doctor who conducted the postmortem of the deceased stated that the nature of injuries could not have been caused by darati and it could have been caused only by sharp edged weapon only. 

In this backdrop, the Court was of the opinion that the chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete.

Court further found that the motive attributed is extremely weak, which is stated to be of the year 2003, whereas the incident is of the year 2011, that too in relation to daughter of the informant and niece of the deceased.

For this purpose, it relied upon the supreme Court judgement namely AnwarAli and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, where it was held that absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused.

"It is also required to be noted and it is not in dispute that this is a case of circumstantial evidence. As held by this Court in catena of decisions that in case of a circumstantial evidence, the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else and the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."

The court also relied on the Supreme Court judgement namely Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116] where it was held that while dealing with circumstantial evidence, the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity or lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established.

On aspect of Circumstantial evidence, it held

"in such circumstances, are of the opinion that it is a case of circumstantial evidence, where the chain of circumstances were not so complete so as to arrived at the conclusion that the accused persons have committed the offence by using the weapon allegedly recovered."

In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the court held that the trial court has taken a possible view of the matter on appreciation of the evidence and the bench does not find that it is a fit case for interference in the judgment of the trial court.

And hence, the appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Case Title : Shriniwas vs State Of U.P. And Others

Citation: 

Click Here To Read/Download Order