Brief Facts
- That the Appellant (Ram Pratap) and the deceased knew each other very well and were on visiting terms to each other houses. They used to spend time together and were friends. On 13.12.2007 at 10.00 AM, the Appellant had visited the deceased house. They both took tea together at the house of the deceased and went together. At midnight about 12, the Appellant along with other people came to the house of the deceased carrying his dead body in a jeep. They met Jagdish Chander, who was the brother of the deceased. Ram Pratap told him that he died at his house. Thereafter an FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint made by Jagdish Chander. A chargesheet was filed against the four accused person. Jagdish while reporting the matter to the police had only expressed a suspicion against the accused.
- It is pertinent to state here that there was a delay of 14 hours in reporting the incident. The trial court convicted the Appellant. Thereafter, the high court, confirmed the conviction on the basis of the evidence of Jagdish Chander though specifically observed that Bhagwana( PW 5), the brother in law of the deceased, who was the witness to the last seen, has turned himself hostile.
Issues
- Whether merely on the basis circumstantial evidence, can conviction be held?
- Whether the legal distinction between ‘may and must’ has to establish or not, to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt?
Held
- The Apex Court ordered for acquittal of the Appellant as the other accused persons were acquitted by the trial court on the same set of evidence. There was a delay of 14 hours in lodging the oral report and also that the only witness of the last seen theory had turned hostile.
- It has been held by this Apex Court in a catena of cases including Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, that suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. This Court has held that there is not only a grammatical but also a legal distinction between “may” and “must” For proving a case based on circumstantial evidence, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish each and every circumstance beyond reasonable doubt, and further, that the circumstances so proved must form a complete chain of evidence so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show, in all human probability, that the act has been done by the accused. Further, it has been held that the facts so established must exclude every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.
Relevant Para No.
- 9, 10, 11