HYDERABAD: A conviction cannot be sustained if it is based on suspicion rather than on proof beyond reasonable doubt. Mere motive is not enough to convict an accused in a case based on circumstantial evidence. Though motive plays a very prominent role, as it constitutes one of the strong links in the chain of circumstances, it is not the ‘be-all and end-all’. The other links in the chain of circumstances connecting the accused to the offence must necessarily be established in order for the Court to reach the conclusion that they are incompatible with the innocence of the accused.
In one of the cases before the State High Court, the appellant-accused challenged the order of the trial court which convicted him for offences punishable under Section 302 (punishment for murder) and other sections of IPC, and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant-accused, belonging to Nalgonda district, has no fixed place of residence and used to stay at Dargahs. The appellant developed a grudge against a security guard for refusing entry into Ghalib Shaheed Dargah. He also developed a grudge against a woman due to personal issues and even quarrelled with her a week before the incident.
The police registered the case, based on a complaint by a watchman that he noticed two dead bodies with head injuries at the doorway of the Dargah and a bloodstained cement brick was present beside the dead bodies and that the appellant was suspected to be responsible for the same. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the lower Court framed murder charges against the appellant-accused, and also charged him with the theft of a gold ring belonging to one of the deceased. He was then convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
The counsel for the appellant-accused told the High Court that the prosecution failed to produce any incriminating evidence proving the guilt of his client. As for the charge of theft of gold ring, the question of charging him does not arise as the appellant was already acquitted of the said charge, he argued. The state public prosecutor, understandably, defended the judgment.
After hearing both the sides, and perusing the material on record, the High Court noticed that the case was completely based on circumstantial evidence as there was no eye-witnesses. The Court also noticed that the prosecution has failed to examine any witness who saw the appellant in the company of the deceased so as to link him to the alleged offences. Seizure of stone/boulder from the scene of offence, the FSL report and the medical evidence would, at best, prove that the deaths were homicidal. But the question of how to link the appellant to the alleged offences needs to be answered. Even the gold ring was not directly seized from the appellant, the Court pointed out.
The appellate Court opined that the lower Court has committed a serious error by convicting the appellant based on suspicion rather than on proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The lower Court has mainly relied upon the motive factor, which cannot be the sole circumstance to convict an accused in a case based on circumstantial evidence. Besides, the prosecution failed to prove that the gold ring belonged to one of the deceased and that the appellant pledged the same before a jewellery shop. In the absence of any person witnessing the appellant in the company of both the deceased, before the alleged murders, the prosecution failed to lead the evidence which would link the chain of circumstances, the High Court remarked.
The Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence and directed the authorities concerned to set the appellant at liberty forthwith if he was not required in any other case or crime.