Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“A very careful, cautious and meticulous appreciation of evidence is necessary when the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must elevate its case from the realm of ‘may be true’ to the plane of ‘must be true’.”
The Court emphasised on the settled position that when two views are possible to a case, then the one that is favours the accused must be adopted.
“It is never the intention of the legislature to say that merely because two persons were residing together in a house along with others and one of them suffered homicidal death, it would not necessarily mean that the deceased was last seen in the company of others.”
The Court said that the prosecution evidence must establish that the accused was the perpetrator of the offence and no one else.
The Court noted that the conviction was solely based on last seen evidence and it was not corroborated with any evidence, hence it could not be said to be just and proper.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on circumstantial evidence.
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 302 and 201 — Circumstantial evidence — Last seen theory and recovery of weapon: In this case,
Supreme Court said that a Court of Appeal should be circumspect in overturning its judgment of acquittal, is not a principle that requires reiteration. It has been held time and again that an acquittal will only be overturned in the presence of very compelling reasons.
The Court stated that motive assumes great importance in a case based on circumstantial evidence as without motive, chain of events is incomplete.
The impugned judgment accepted the case of appellant being annoyed of second marriage, took her to the well to eliminate the deceased and strangulated her and thereafter threw her body in the well.
The instant matter related to a person killed while he was travelling with his group on scooter, allegedly by constables patrolling the village, which was investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’).
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1951 on Section 6 of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1889.
Supreme Court concurred with the Punjab and Haryana High Court that incriminating circumstances were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and chain of evidence was not complete to interfere with a degree of certainty of accused having committed the crime.
The Court said that in the case of circumstantial evidence, the links must form a continuous chain and must point unerringly to the guilt of the accused and to no one else.
The Supreme Court was of the view that the High Court ought to have interfered with the conviction when it found one of the links in circumstantial evidence missing and not proved, respecting the settled law in this regard.
The Court said that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the case did not pass the standard required in a case of circumstantial evidence.
Supreme Court said that when reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence to prove the demand for gratification, the prosecution must establish each and every circumstance from which the prosecution wants the Court to draw a conclusion of guilt.
The Supreme Court opined that the evidence has to be scrutinized so as to ensure that the totality of the evidence and circumstances relied on, did constitute a complete chain and directly points to the guilt of the convict.
Supreme Court said that the cherished principles or golden threads of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our law should not be stretched morbidly which was done by the Courts below.
by Harsh N. Dudhe† and Pranay Bhardwaj††