Guilt Has to Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: SC Upholds Acquittal Of Six In Murder Case

In this case, six out of ten accused persons were initially convicted by the trial court for offenses under Sections 148, 201,149, and 302,149 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court, however, set aside the conviction and sentence in its judgment in 2008. The complainant appealed against the acquittal of the six accused.

A two-judge Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal held, “the conviction has to be based on the evidence which proves the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution in this case has failed to prove the guilt of the accused both by circumstantial evidence and by means of evidence of the eyewitness. In respect of circumstantial evidence, the chain of events is not complete whereas the presence of eyewitness is also doubtful. Thus, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court in extending the benefit of doubt to the accused persons appears to be the most plausible view.”

Advocate Anjani Kumar Mishra appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Chinmoy Khaladkar appeared for the Respondents.

The appellant's counsel argued that appellate courts are usually cautious about overturning convictions by trial courts, especially when based on the evidence presented, including that of the eyewitness (complainant).

The sole eyewitness, the appellant/complainant, worked with Delhi Police, and three of the accused were also associated with Delhi Police.

The Supreme Court upon reviewing the findings of the lower courts and the complainant's testimony, noted that the appellant/complainant did not witness the killing or the burning of the deceased. The Court added, “The appellant/complainant (PW-9) happened to be the sole eyewitness but he had neither seen anyone killing his son Kishan Sarup nor he had deposed that he had seen anyone burning the victim Kishan Sarup. Therefore, he is not actually an eyewitness either to the killing or to the burning of the deceased Kishan Sarup though he may be an eyewitness to the incident which took place on 04.11.2000 at 7 pm wherein a car had chased their motorcycle, pushed them towards the roadside making them fall in the bushes, thereupon assaulting the deceased Kishan Sarup and then taking him away in an injured position in the car”

The appellant/complainant's presence during the incident was deemed doubtful and the Court added, “In view of the above situation and the other evidence on record, the very presence of the appellant/complainant even during the incident of 04.11.2000 appears to be doubtful. He appears to have met Kishan Sarup on the scooter stand per chance whereupon he took lift from Kishan Sarup to travel towards the village.”

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision adding, “It may not be out of context to mention that the appellant/complainant, a sole eyewitness, happens to be the most interested witness being the father of the deceased and having long enmity with the group to which the accused persons belong, therefore, his testimony was to be examined with great caution and the High Court was justified in doing so and in doubting it so as to uphold the conviction on his solitary evidence.”

The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, both through circumstantial evidence and the testimony of the eyewitness.

As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: Chhote Lal v. Rohtash & Ors., [2023 INSC 1072]

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Anjani Kumar Mishra

Respondents: Advocates Chinmoy Khaladkar, Salonee Paranjape, A.S. Rishi, Ishwar Chand, M.k. Bansal, AOR B. K. Pal, Monika Gusain and AAG Dinesh Chander Yadav

Click here to read/download Judgment