"Strong Suspicion Is Not Enough": Allahabad HC Acquits Man In Murder Case
The Allahabad High Court has observed that in criminal cases the entire evidence must prove that the accused has committed the offence in all human probabilities and suspicion, however strong, cannot be a basis of proof for conviction.
A criminal appeal was filed assailing the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge in a case registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, where the trial court had convicted the Appellant herein and had awarded a sentence of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-.
The Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad observed, “Thus, from the entire discussions, we find that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant and the evidence adduced is in fact in admissible as discussed above. Even from the entire evidence it can not be said that in all human probability act must have been done by the accused particularly when there were two other male members in the family present in the house at the time of incident and the instant case, being the case of a blind murder. 48. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant and he is entitled for benefit of doubt. The finding of conviction recorded by trial court is not just, proper and legal and is liable to be set-aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him…”
Senior Advocate GS Chaturvedi appeared for the Appellant while GA DN Wali appeared for the Respondents.
The Complainant’s father was found dead with multiple injuries inflicted by a sharp-edged weapon on his neck and face. The Appellant, who was the deceased’s brother, was arrested later by the investigation officer based on circumstantial evidence and an alleged property dispute.
The Court held, “We find that there is absolutely no circumstance proved by the prosecution so as to establish the guilt of the appellant. It is further evident from the evidence that only on the basis of suspicion an attempt has been made to falsely implicate the accused in the instant case. It is well settled principle of law that suspicion, howsoever strong it may be, can not take place of prove as in the present case.”
The Court relied on the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra and said that the instant case is based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the chain of evidence so far as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The Court further said that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The Court also opined that in the present case, the prosecution had failed to follow the procedure laid down by Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act i.e. discovery statements and decisions of the Supreme Court concerning such discovery statements. The Court, while discarding the finding of the trial court as regards these statements, said that these disclosure statements could not be read in evidence and the recoveries made in furtherance thereof are non est in the eyes of law.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the Appellant.
Cause Title: Rajveer Singh v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:92791-DB)
Appearances:
Appellant: Senior Advocate GS Chaturvedi, Advocates Alok Ranjan Mishra, KK Dwivedi, RP Dwivedi
Respondents: GA DN Wali and Manoj Yadav