Appellate Court Should Grant Benefit Of Doubt To Accused When Evidence Doesn't Conclusively Prove Guilt And Alternative View Is Plausible: SC
The Supreme Court held that the Appellate Court should extend the benefit of the doubt to the accused when the evidence fails to conclusively establish guilt, and an alternative plausible view exists.
The Court allowed a Criminal Appeal challenging a conviction in a murder case which was upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The Court also noted that the victim's dying declaration lacked specific evidence and had no corroborating material, raising doubts about its reliability.
The Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal observed, “where the evidence on record indicates the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that a plausible view, different from the one expressed by the courts below can be taken, the appellate court should not shy away in giving the benefit of doubt to the accused persons”.
Senior Advocate Rajesh Pandey appeared for the Appellant and Additional Advocate General D.S. Parmar appeared for the State.
Four individuals were convicted to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in a case involving the murder of Pappu alias Rajendra Yadav. The accused, armed with weapons such as a knife or sickle, allegedly beat and assaulted the deceased, resulting in his death. Despite appeals, the High Court upheld the convictions. The Appellant along with the co-accused filed an appeal challenging the order of the High Court.
The Court observed that the witness, Rahul Yadav, who allegedly tried to save the deceased, was not found at the place of occurrence by the deceased's brother and mother when they arrived immediately after the incident. Neither the deceased nor his family mentioned Rahul Yadav's presence in the alleged dying declaration or statements. The FIR also did not include him. These factors raised serious doubts about his presence, and the Court emphasized that the conviction could not solely rely on his testimony. Additionally, the friends of the deceased, Virendra and Amit Jha, who were mentioned in the FIR as witnesses to the incident, did not support the prosecution's case and were declared hostile.
The Court examined the dying declaration made by the deceased to his brother and mother and noted the severity of the injuries sustained. The doctor who conducted the postmortem revealed that the deceased's left lung was punctured, causing respiratory failure, and the heart injury could have led to death within 5 to 15 minutes. The postmortem report indicated that the deceased died due to hemorrhagic shock and cardio-respiratory failure, with additional serious injuries on various body parts.
The Bench noted that the deceased's brother and mother arrived at the scene after receiving information about the incident, which would have taken around 15-25 minutes. Given the extent of the injuries, the Court questioned whether the deceased could have been alive or in a condition to make a declaration when his family reached the spot.
Consequently, the Court expressed reservations about accepting the dying declaration as correct without corroborating evidence, noting a lack of material for corroboration. “The dying declaration cannot be ex facie accepted to be correct unless it stands corroborated by any other cogent evidence. There is no material to corroborate the said dying declaration”, the Court added.
The Court emphasized the cautious approach required in interfering with convictions but noted that when the evidence suggests a failure to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and an alternative plausible view exists, the Appellate Court should not hesitate to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Court held that the Appellant and Trial Courts should have granted the benefit of the doubt to the Appellants.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the conviction.
Cause Title: Jitendra Kumar Mishra @ Jittu v The State Of Madhya Pradesh (2024 INSC 20)
Appearance:
Appellant: Mohan Pandey, Chandrika Prasad Mishra, Abhishek Pandey, Mahesh Pandey, Prashant Kumar Umrao, Nishi Prabha Singh, Prashanti Singh, Swati Surbhi, Gyan Prakash Dandekar, Mahesh Kumar Tiwari and Mridula Ray Bharadwaj Advocates
Respondent: Indira Bhakar and Mrinal Gopal Elker Advocates
