NEW DELHI: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a man who murdered his friend in 2006 following a financial dispute, after noting that the circumstances in the case proved the guilt of the accused.
"Each of the circumstances so proved must form a complete chain without any break and clearly point to the guilt of the accused," the bench noted in its order.
The bench further stated that, "Merely because there is no evidence of any witness seeing the gun being carried by the appellant (Chetan), it cannot be fatal to the prosecution's case," and dismissed the appeal of the convict, Chetan.
On July 10, 2006, Chetan took his friend Vikram Shinde on a hunting trip. Vikram's body was discovered in a field three days later and Chetan was arrested two weeks following that. Chetan had allegedly murdered Vikram after the latter refused to repay a loan of Rs 4,000. Since there were no eyewitnesses of the crime, the case was drawn out.
The top court bench, upheld the conviction of the Sessions Court and Karnataka High Court, stating that this case was based on circumstantial evidence.
The court added that it had relied on the last seen theory supported by the recovery of articles including the weapon of crime, forensic evidence, and the act of abscondence by the appellant.
"On consideration of the circumstantial evidences and other proven facts, in our considered opinion, a clear pattern emerges out of the circumstances so proved with inferential and logical links which unmistakably points to the guilt of the appellant (Chetan) for committing murder of the deceased Vikram Shinde, punishable under Section 302 (Murder) of the IPC (Indian Penal Code (IPC) and many other sections," said, a two-judge bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh.
While dismissing the appeal of the convict -- the apex court said that the evidence presented formed a consistent and logical chain. These proved circumstances considered individually or taken together do not indicate the involvement of anyone else other than the appellant.
"In the circumstances so proved, the possibility of any other person being responsible for the death being ruled out, it can be safely said that the Prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. There can thus be no doubt that no one else other than the appellant could have committed the crime," said the bench and upheld his conviction.
The apex court rejected the contention of the convict that gross injustice has been caused to him by the impugned judgment by misreading or ignoring any material evidence. It agreed with the findings of the Sessions Court and also the Karnataka HC.
The judgment of the apex court highlighted key principles governing circumstantial evidence, but also made it clear that how courts must evaluate human conduct, forensic inputs, and gaps in the accused's defence when forming conclusions in criminal cases.