If a case is based on circumstantial evidence, then such circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.
Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that ‘may be’ proved, and something that ‘will be proved’. Doubtful evidence may result in acquittal of the accused.
The High Court has acquitted the accused in a murder case saying that the prosecution has failed to bring home guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The bench relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra wherein certain parameters were laid down for holding the accused guilty in the cases which are based on circumstantial evidence.
The parameters are circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established, the facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, chain of evidence must be complete 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.
As for the case before the High Court, an accused filed an appeal challenging the order of the Sessions court that had convicted and sentenced him for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and to undergo life imprisonment.
The case of the prosecution is rested mainly on the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses apart from motive and recovery of the object used in the crime.
The deceased was an officer in a cooperative urban bank and his brother (one of the prosecution witnesses) is also an employee of the said bank along with the accused. Two months prior to the death incident, a memo was issued to the accused of his alleged misconduct.
After considering the explanation submitted by the accused, the deceased suspended him and later issued a charge memo and an enquiry officer was appointed and the information was received by the accused. On the following day, the incident took place. The police registered the case and filed charge sheet after completion of investigation before the trial court.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the sessions court convicted and sentenced the accused to life imprisonment. Aggrieved with the same, the accused filed an appeal before the High Court for relief.
Mere surmise
After hearing the case and perusing the material on record, the Court opined that the case of the prosecution regarding the motive is based on mere surmise and not on any concrete material to enable the court to arrive at a definite conclusion that the accused had entertained the motive for doing away with life of the deceased. The prosecution has not examined any witness or employee to speak about the conduct of the accused reflecting his grudge against the deceased.
“From the mere fact that the deceased suspended and charge-sheeted the accused, no presumption could be drawn that he must have developed motive to kill the deceased. Undoubtedly, the motive is a mental process, which cannot be proved with certainty, but at the same time to attribute such a motive, the prosecution must bring out attendant circumstances, such as the accused openly defying or questioning the deceased for his acts of suspension and issuing charge-sheet.
Besides, there is a patent contradiction between the chief-examination and cross-examination of the brother of the deceased (prosecution witness). "The most crucial aspect to be discussed here is about the strange conduct of brother of the deceased in not informing anybody about the incident through his mobile nor disclosing names of the assailants to the wife and other family members of the deceased,” the Court opined.
The Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the lower court judgment and acquitted the accused of the offences, and directed the police to release the accused if not required in any other case or crime.