Conviction Can’t Be Based Solely On Circumstance Of Motive: SC Sets Aside Death Sentence Of Man Accused Of Killing His Mother, Wife & Daughter
|The Supreme Court set aside the death penalty imposed on a man who was convicted for killing his mother, wife, and daughter.
The accused preferred an appeal challenging the judgment of the Bombay High Court by which it upheld the separate orders of conviction and death sentence passed by the Trial Court.
The three-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed, “We find that solely on the basis of circumstance of motive, a conviction cannot be based. As held by this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sharda (supra), a suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt. As has been held by this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sharda (supra), there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved”. It is a primary principle that the accused “must be” and not merely “may be” guilty before a court can convict and every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused has to be ruled out.”
The Bench said that, it is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
Advocate Payoshi Roy appeared for the appellant/accused while Advocate Siddharth Dharmadhikari appeared for the respondent/State.
Factual Background -
As per the prosecution case, in 2012, the official at the police control room was informed by the appellant/accused about a robbery at his house and that his mother, wife, and a 2-year-old daughter were killed. He further informed that his neighbourer was also injured. Hence, an FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against unknown persons. It was stated by the accused in the complaint that one gold chain of 8 Tolas, one gold Mangalsutra, cash amount of Rs.7,000/-, 3 small rings and 2 almond shaped pendants having total value of Rs. 3,07,000/- were stolen. While recording the spot punchnama, it was observed by the ACP CID that there were no signs of forced entry on both the doors as well as the safety doors of the accused’s flat. A gold Mangalsutra, 3 small gold rings, 2 gold almond shaped pendants and cash amount of Rs. 7,000/- in one red coloured money purse hidden behind a photo frame hanging on the wall of the flat were also found in his house.
At the place of the incident, near the main door of the flat of the appellant, few pieces of bangles that were stained with blood and one blood stained odhani were also found. During investigation, it was revealed that the accused had a love affair with another woman and it was stated by her that when she came to know about his marriage, she refused to marry him but he was ready to leave his wife and daughter for her. The CCTV footage also suspected on the accused. Resultantly, he was arrested and thereafter, he made a disclosure about keeping his blood-stained clothes and Mangalsutra of his wife at a place in Pune and he further disclosed about throwing the hammer, used for committing the crime, in a canal after keeping it in a blue bag. Another disclosure was made by him about a consent letter for divorce by his wife which was found in a drawer inside his house. Based on such circumstances, the Trial Court convicted him and sentenced him to death along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. The High Court also confirmed the same and being aggrieved, the accused was before the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in the above regard, noted, “The Court held that it is a primary principle that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’. It has been held that the facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except the one where the accused is guilty.”
The Court added that the circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and that there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities, the act must have been done by the accused.
“It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted solely on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”, it remarked.
Furthermore, the Court noted that it was the appellant who had informed the police about the crime and he was present there and as such, the presence of blood-stains on his clothes cannot be said to be unnatural.
“… the recovery is from a place which is open and accessible to one and all. Same is the case with regard to the recovery of jewellery. In any case, the recovery panchnama does not show that the clothes were sealed. As such, the possibility of tampering cannot be ruled out. Insofar as the recovery of jewellery (mangalsutra) is concerned, the said mangalsutra was not shown either to Vijaykumar Kisanrao Sonpetkar (PW-5), father of deceased Archana or to the appellant’s sister so as to identify that the same belong to deceased Archana”, it also said.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction and death sentence of the accused.
Cause Title- Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 788)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR K. Paari Vendhan, Advocates Payoshi Roy, Siddhartha, S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Bharathimohan M., and Santhosh K.
Respondent: AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocates Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Bharat Bagla, Aditya Krishna, Preet S. Phanse, and Adarsh Dubey.