Brief Facts
- • The Respondent was held guilty of offence under section 302 of IPC by the trial court upon finding that the circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain, good enough to convict the Respondent. The respondent being aggrieved by the said judgment filed an appeal before the High Court which found that there were material inconsistencies and the chain of circumstance was not complete and as such the conviction of the Respondent was not legally sustainable and the respondent was acquitted. Hence, the State filed the present appeal.
Issues
- Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete so as to convict the respondent?
- Whether the recovery made was admissible?
- Whether the extra judicial confession was reliable and admissible?
- Whether the prior enmity would affect the credibility of the witness?
- When would the burden of proof shift upon the accused?
Held
- The Apex Court upheld the order of the High Court acquitting the accused.
- Bearing in mind that the deceased was found dead in his own house, where the accused did not reside, and there was no evidence as to when the accused left the house and that no one else could have entered the house in the interregnum, other intervening circumstances including hand of some third person in the crime was not ruled out by the prosecution evidence. For the reasons above, we are of the considered view that the High Court was justified in doubting the testimony of PW-2 and finding the last seen circumstance inconclusive in pointing towards the guilt of the accused by excluding other hypotheses consistent with his innocence.
- Recovery of Khanjar (knife) was found to be doubtful as the recovery was made on the disclosure statement of accused. However, the High Court has raised doubts regarding the date of arrest of the accused and accepted the possibility of arrest being much earlier in point of time. Thus, the disclosure statement was also found to be doubtful.
- Extra judicial -confession is a very weak type of evidence and solely on its basis a conviction is not ordinarily to be recorded. In this case the accused denies to have made such confession. No evidence was demonstrated to show if PW-3 (to whom the confession was claimed to be have made) was having any prior relation with the accused so as to repose confidence on him for making such confession.
- The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that since there was no proven enmity between the accused and the witnesses therefore there was no reason to disbelieve them, would not be of much help to the appellant because this is a case based on circumstantial evidence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence not only do each of the incriminating circumstances have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt but those incriminating circumstances must constitute a chain so far complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability it is the accused who has committed the crime.
- The argument that the accused has failed to discharge his burden under section 106 of the Evidence Act and, therefore, his conviction was justified is misconceived. Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not absolve the prosecution of discharging its primary burden of proving the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. It is only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain a conviction, or which makes out a prima facie case, the question arises of considering facts of which the burden of proof would lie upon the accused.
Relevant Para No.
- 18, 19, 20, 21, 22