The absence of motive weighs in favor of the accused: Supreme Court of India
When direct evidence is available in a case, the role of motive is limited. But when it comes to a case which is substantiated by circumstantial evidences, motive plays an important link to complete the chain of circumstances. Conviction in a case of circumstantial evidence will not be warranted unless and until the prosecution proves its case beyond all reasonable doubt. This was held in the case of Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 1348 of 2013, by Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai in the Supreme Court of India. The subject matter of the case is an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Husband, who is the appellant in the case has been accused of homicide as his wife was found hanging dead in their house. The learned trial judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The appellant who was aggrieved by the order filed an appeal to set aside his order of conviction and imprisonment. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the case was entirely based on circumstantial evidences and would not be sustainable, unless and until proven beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to establish motive in the case and Reliance in this respect is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Babu v. State of Kerala, which says that motive plays an important role in cases with circumstantial evidence. Reliance was also placed on the golden principles which was established in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, that should constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.
IN THE CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1348 OF 2013 SHIVAJI CHINTAPPA PATIL STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …Respondent(s JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI J This appeal assails the judgment and order delivered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 405 thereby dismissing the appeal of the appellant and maintaining the conviction and sentence of the appellant as passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Islampur in Sessions Case No. 303 for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code8 SCC 593 216 SCC 269 314 SCC 415 49 SCC 738 The learned counsel submitted that in the case of circumstantial evidence motive plays an important role and the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the case as to motive Reliance in this respect is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Babu v. State of Kerala5 Lastly the learned counsel submitted that when two views are possible one leaning towards acquittal and another towards conviction the benefit should be given to accused. Reliance in this respect placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan6. 10. Shri Sachin Patil learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that no interference is warranted in the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court. He submitted that the trial court as well as the High Court have rightly relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram7 for convicting the accused 11. The law with regard to conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence has been very well crystalised in the 59 SCC 189 619 SCC 447 712 SCC 254 judgment of this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v State of Maharashtra8 : “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established 1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra2 SCC 793 where the observations were made :p. 1047 “19. …..Certainly it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from 2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused that is to say they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty 3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency 4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and 5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused 84 SCC 116 154. These five golden principles if we may say so constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on In the light of these guiding principles let us examine the facts in the present case In the present case PW 6 Dr. Kishor Patki has been examined as a medical expert. He has conducted the autopsy along with his senior medical officer Dr. Tamboli. In the advance death certificateissued on 24th March 2003 under the signature of PW 6 the probable cause of death was ‘asphyxia due to strangulation’. However in the Post Mortem Report wherein this Court relied on Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology and observed thus: “7. In Modi s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology 23rd Edn. p. 572 it is observed as follows “Homicidal hanging though rare has been recorded. Usually more than one person is involved in the act unless the victim is a child or very weak and feeble or is rendered unconscious by some intoxicating or narcotic drug. In a case where resistance has been offered marks of violence on the body and marks of a struggle or footprints of several persons at or near the place of the occurrence are likely to be found.” None of the well known signs referred to by the learned author are present in this case.” In the present case also admittedly there are no marks on the body which would suggest violence or struggle. In any case the medical expert himself has not ruled out the possibility of suicidal death. On the contrary the Post Mortem Report shows that the cause of death was ‘asphyxia due to hanging’. In the light of this evidence we find that the trial court as well as the High Court have erred in holding that the prosecution has proved that the death of the deceased was homicidal. 19. That leads us to the reliance placed by the High Court as well as the trial court on the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In the case of Subramaniamthis Court had occasion to consider the similar case of the husband and wife remaining within the four walls of a house and death taking place. It will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court: “23. So far as the circumstance that they had been living together is concerned indisputably the entirety of the situation should be taken into consideration. Ordinarily when the husband and wife remained within the four walls of a house and a death by homicide takes place it will be for the husband to explain the circumstances in which she might have died. However we cannot lose sight of the fact that although the same may be considered to be a strong circumstance but that by alone in the absence of any evidence of violence on the deceased cannot be held to be conclusive. It may be difficult to arrive at a conclusion that the husband and the husband alone was In the case of Subramaniamreliance was placed on behalf of the State on the judgments of this Court in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra9 and Ponnusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu10. This Court observed thus: “26. In both the aforementioned cases the death occurred due to violence. In this case there was no mark of violence. The appellant has been found to be wholly innocent. So far as the charges under Section 498 A or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned the evidence of the parents of the deceased being PW 1 and PW 2 as also the mediators PWs 4 and 5 have been disbelieved by both the courts below. That part of the prosecution story suggesting strong motive on the part of the appellant to commit the murder thus has been ruled It will also be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Gargi10 SCC 681 105 SCC 587 been free from error where it was omitted to be considered that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not absolve the prosecution of its primary burden. This Court has explained the principle in Sawal Das v. State of Bihar 1974) 4 SCC 193 in the following:SCC 80 that if motive is proved that would supply a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence but the absence thereof cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case. However at the same time as observed by this Court in Babu9 SCC 189 absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. In paras 25 and 26 it is observed and held as under: 9 SCC 189] SCC pp. 200 01 “25. In State of U.P. v. Kishanpal 16 SCC 73 this Court examined the importance of motive in cases of circumstantial evidence and observed:10 SCC 166 weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one. It is also settled law that the motive loses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eyewitnesses is available because even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused persons to commit a particular crime they cannot be convicted if the evidence of eyewitnesses is not convincing. In the same way even if there may not be an apparent motive but if the evidence of the eyewitnesses is clear and reliable the absence or inadequacy of motive cannot stand in the way of conviction.’ 26. This Court has also held that the absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs Vide Pannayar v. State of T.N. 9 SCC In the present case we are of the considered view that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove motive beyond doubt. As such an important link to complete the chain of circumstances is totally absent in the present case. Insofar as the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the State on the judgment of Kashi Ramis concerned it would reveal that this Court had used the factor of non explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. only as an additional link to fortify the finding that the prosecution had established chain of events unquestionably leading to the guilt of the accused and not as a link to complete the chain. As such the said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case It is more than settled principle of law that if two views are possible the benefit shall always go to the accused. It will be apposite to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda2 SCC 808 this Court made the following observations :p. 1060 “Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by 33. This Court recently in the case of Devi Lalobserved “19. That apart in the case of circumstantial evidence two views are possible on the case of record one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other his innocence. The accused is indeed entitled to have the benefit of one which is favourable to him. All the judicially laid parameters defining the quality and content of the circumstantial evidence bring home the guilt of the accused on a criminal charge we find no difficulty to hold that the prosecution in the case in hand has failed to meet the same.” In the present case we are of the considered view that let alone establishing chain of events which are so interwoven to each other leading to no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused the prosecution has failed even to prove a single incriminating circumstance beyond reasonable doubt. As such the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court as affirmed by the High Court is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges and he is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. [R.F. NARIMAN [B. R. GAVAI NEW DELHI MARCH 02 2021