“Significant Chinks & Cracks In Chain Of Events”: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused

The Court said that to safely opine and affirm that the Appellant is the perpetrator, it must ensure that the chain of evidence is so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with his innocence and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by him.

The Court was hearing Criminal Appeal against the impugned judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court that affirmed the conviction of Appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “…the prosecution version leaves significant chinks and cracks in the chain of circumstances. In view of the aforesaid position, we feel that the prosecution evidence does not establish a case beyond doubt against the appellant..”

Brief Facts-

In the present case, Vivek Goyal @ Vicky/Vikky went missing, and a kidnapping and ransom case was filed. A ransom demand of ₹50 lakhs was made via a call to Ranjana Gupta, using the deceased's SIM card. Monu Saxena was arrested based on mobile phone surveillance, but he was found dead in police custody.

The Court said that it is not satisfied that any ‘disclosure’ can be attributed to the appellant, Lav Kumar leading to the recovery of the dead body of the deceased, Vivek Goyal.

The Court noted that the prosecution also relies upon CDRs, for which, officers from the telecom companies were examined. However, as per the Court, they did not produce certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, of 1872. “Even if we are to ignore the non-production of the said certificates, the CDRs would only reveal that there were occasional conversations between the deceased, Vivek Goyal @ Vicky/Vikky and the appellant, Lav Kumar @ Kanhiya.”, the Court said.

The Court said that there is evidence that the property/building from where the dead body was recovered, was surrounded by other houses and residences. “It is difficult to believe that the smell/stink emanating from the dead body, which was lying in the said property/building for 4-5 days, would have gone unnoticed.”, the Court noted.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and allowed the Appeal.