Brief Facts
- The Appellant reported that robbers had entered his flat, killed his mother (Shobha), wife (Archana), and two-year-old daughter (Kimaya), and injured a neighbour (PW-12, Madhusudhan Kulkarni), while also stealing valuables. Initial investigation found no forced entry and the alleged stollen valuables hidden inside the house.
- Police, during the investigation found that the appellant was having an extramarital affair with one Gauri Londhe (PW-2) and wanted to divorce his wife. The Post-mortem confirmed homicidal deaths—smothering of the child and head injuries to the wife and mother. The police alleged that the appellant killed his family, and attacked his neighbour to silence him.
- The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 307, and 201 IPC, sentencing him to death. The Bombay High Court confirmed the conviction and death sentence.
- The present appeal was filed against the said judgment.
Issues
- Whether the delayed, inconsistent, and partly contradictory testimony of an injured eyewitness can be relied upon for conviction?
- Whether strong suspicion or moral conviction, absent conclusive evidence, is enough to justify conviction in serious offences under IPC?
Held
- Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence of the Appellant. The findings of the Court are summarised as under:
Court discarded the testimony of PW1-2 eye witness
- TheCourt held that the case of prosecution is primarily based on the testimony of the eye-witness PW-12, the neighbour who was allegedly attacked. However, the Court found his testimony to be unreliable as Firstly, the statement of Madhusudhan Kulkarni (PW-12) is recorded after 6 days. Secondly, when the evidence shows that he was conscious and oriented on the date of the incident, no neighbourer has been examined to corroborate the testimony of Madhusudhan Kulkarni (PW-12) though even according to Madhusudhan Kulkarni (PW-12), after the incident, the neighbourers had come and he himself had asked them to get the doctor there only. Thirdly, his testimony does not show that he has witnessed the incident and he himself admitted that he had given the statement after he was informed by the police that the present appellant had committed the crime.
Recovery of Hammer was not reliable
- The case was also not found to be proven on circumstantial evidences as recovery of hammer was found to be unreliable. Firstly, it is to be noted that the said recovery is from a canal. The recovery panchnama shows that the said hammer was having blood stains. It is the prosecution case that the hammer was packed in a bag which was put in water. It is to be noted that the hammer was recovered from a place which is open and accessible to one and all. It is improbable that a hammer which was soaked in water for 3 days would still retain the blood-stains. It is to be noted that the investigating agency had to take the service of two swimmers to take the bag out from the canal. The evidence of Santosh Bhau Awaghade (PW-11) who is a panch witness would show that when the police along with the appellant reached the spot, two persons were already there and they were searching as per the say of the police party. It is thus clear that the place where the accused had taken the police party to show where he had concealed the incriminating article was already within the knowledge of the police. It is also difficult to believe that, in flowing water where two swimmers were required to find out the incriminating material, the said article would remain at the same place after 3 days. We therefore find that it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the said circumstance beyond reasonable doubt.
Suspicion cannot be a basis of conviction
- 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.
- Solely on the basis of circumstance of motive, a conviction cannot be based. A suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is 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.
Relevant Para No.
- 18, 22, 25 and 27