Suspicion, Howsoever Strong, Cannot Substitute Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt : Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused

Suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court reiterated while setting aside a concurrent conviction of murder accused.

Ram Pratap was one of the accused in murder case. He was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and the same was upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. 

In appeal, the Apex Court noted that the case is based on circumstantial evidence. On behalf of the appellant-accused, it was contended that there is no evidence worth the namesake.

The bench referred to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported at (1984) 4 SCC 116, in which, it was observed that that suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. It added:

"This Court has held that there is not only a grammatical but also a legal distinction between 'may' and 'must'. For proving a case based on circumstantial evidence, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish each and every circumstance beyond reasonable doubt, and further, that the circumstances so proved must form a complete chain of evidence so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show, in all human probability, that the act has been done by the accused...Further, it has been held that the facts so established must exclude every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused."

The court further noted that the delay of 14 hours in lodging the oral report has not been sufficiently explained. Taking note of the evidence on record, the bench allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused.

Case details

Ram Pratap vs State of Haryana | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1025 | CrA 804 Of 2011 | 1 Dec 2022 | Justices B R Gavai and Vikram Nath

For Appellant(s) Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR Mr. Mayank D., Adv. Ms. Priyanka C., Adv. Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kuchaliya, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Dinesh Chander Yadav, AAG Mr. A.S. Rishi, Adv. Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR Mr. D.C. Yadav, AAG Mr. Ishwar, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR

Headnotes

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt - There is not only a grammatical but also a legal distinction between 'may' and 'must'. For proving a case based on circumstantial evidence, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish each and every circumstance beyond reasonable doubt, and further, that the circumstances so proved must form a complete chain of evidence so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show, in all human probability, that the act has been done by the accused - The facts so established must exclude every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused - Followed Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116. (Para 9)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment