Motive Has Bearing Only When Evidence Is Sufficient To Prove Ingredients Of Alleged Offences: Supreme Court Acquits 7 Men In 1985 Murder Case
The Supreme Court, while acquitting seven men in a murder case of the year 1985, observed that, motive has a bearing only when the evidence on record is sufficient to prove the ingredients of the offences under consideration.
The Court observed thus in a batch of criminal appeals filed against the judgment of the Patna High Court by which it upheld the conviction of five accused and set aside the acquittal of the other two.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held, “As regards motive, we may suffice to say that motive has a bearing only when the evidence on record is sufficient to prove the ingredients of the offences under consideration. Without the proof of foundational facts, the case of the prosecution cannot succeed on the presence of motive alone. Moreover, the motive in the present matter could operate both ways. The accused persons and the eyewitnesses belong to the same family and the presence of a property related dispute is evident. In a hypothetical sense, both the sides could benefit from implicating the other. In such circumstances, placing reliance upon motive alone could be a double-edged sword. We say no more.”
The Bench emphasised that a post mortem report is generally not considered as conclusive evidence of the facts mentioned in the re-port regarding the cause of death, time of death etc and it could always be corroborated with other direct evidence on record such as ocular evidence of the eye witnesses.
Senior R.K. Dash represented the appellants/accused while Advocate Shivam Singh represented the respondent/State.
Brief Facts -
In 1985, as per the prosecution case, a woman’s death was discovered in furtherance of the written report lodged by the informant and brother-in-law of the deceased, wherein he alleged that the deceased was abducted by seven persons from their house in an incident which occurred at around 10:00 PM. Based on this information, an FIR was lodged which led to the filing of a chargesheet against the seven accused persons i.e., the appellants. The Trial Court charged all seven accused persons for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 302, 364, 449, 450, 380, 34, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Later, the accused nos. 6 and 7 were distinctly charged for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 342 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
After trial, the Trial Court convicted the accused persons listed as accused nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for the commission of offences under Section 302, 34 and 364, 34 of IPC. They were acquitted of all other charges, and accused nos. 6 and 7 were acquitted of all the charges. They preferred an appeal before the High Court and it upheld the conviction of the five convicts and set aside the acquittal of accused nos. 6 and 7 by finding them guilty of the commission of offences under Sections 364, 34 and 302, 34 of IPC. Accordingly, accused nos. 6 and 7 were also convicted and were sentenced to undergo rigorous life imprisonment on each count. Hence, the appellants approached the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “… when there is no other credible evidence on record to contradict the report, the facts stated in the post mortem report are generally taken as true. In the present matter, the evidence of the eye witnesses has been declared as wholly unreliable including on the aspect of time of death. Thus, there is no rea-son to doubt the post mortem report and the findings there-in.”
The Court said that the High Court was well within its powers to appreciate the evidence on record in its exercise of appellate powers, however, in order to reverse a finding of acquittal, a higher threshold is required.
“… such a finding could not be reversed merely because the possibility of an alternate view was alive. Rather, the view taken by the Trial Court must be held to be completely unsustainable and not a probable view”, it added.
The Court further reiterated that the offence of murder is entirely dependent on circumstantial evidence and although, the post mortem report indicates that the death of the deceased was unnatural and the commission of murder cannot be ruled out.
“But there is no direct evidence on record to prove the commission of murder by the accused per-sons. The link of causation between the accused persons and the alleged offence is conspicuously missing. The circumstantial evidence emanating from the facts sur-rounding the offence of abduction, such as the testimonies of eye witnesses, has failed to meet the test of proof and cannot be termed as proved in the eyes of law. Therefore, the foundation of circumstantial evidence having fallen down, no inference could be drawn from it to infer the commission of the offence under Section 302 IPC by the accused persons”, it also noted.
The Court said that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of evidence must be complete and must give out an inescapable conclusion of guilt and in the present case, the prosecution case is far from meeting that standard.
“… the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubts, indicated above, are irreconcilable and strike at the foundation of the prosecution’s case. Thus, the appellants are liable to be acquitted of all the charges”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the appeals and acquitted the appellants of all the charges.
Cause Title- Vijay Singh @ Vijay Kr. Sharma v. The State of Bihar (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 735)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate R. K. Dash, AORs Fauzia Shakil, Amit Sharma, Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocates Dipesh Sinha, Pallavi Barua, and Aparna Singh.
Respondent: AORs Shantanu Sagar, Manish Kumar, Advocates Shivam Singh, and Kartikay Aggarwal.
