Circumstantial Evidence without the presence of motive is not enough to convict the accused: Supreme Court of India
Supreme Court quashed the order of the High Court and upheld the judgement given by the session’s court concerning inconsistency in the flow of events from the prosecution held by Justice M.R.Shah in the case of Anwar Ali and another Vs State of Himachal Pradesh [Criminal Appeal No. 1121 OF 2016]. This appeal was filed by the original petitioner against the order of the High Court reversing the order of acquittal of the accused passed by the learned trial court. The accused were charged under Section 302,34,392,201 and 420 (Punishment for murder, Liability for acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, Robbery, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender, Cheating and dishonest inducing) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of Mr Deepak. The deceased’s body was found which was identified by his father and three days later the SHO of the police received information regarding a deserted vehicle that contained mobile phones and photos of the accused. Hence, they were arrested and a charge sheet was filed. Since there was no direct evidence the Trial Court felt that circumstantial evidence without proving men’s rea cannot be enough to convict a person and thus the accused were acquitted which was later set aside by the order of the High Court. The contention of the appellants was that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction to give an order against the order of the trial court. The appellants proved the various lacuna which was even considered by the trial court. There was no flow of events and there were discrepancies in the events presented by the respondent. The SHO has also not followed the whole procedure as given under Section The respondents claimed that High Court has the authority to re-examine all the evidence from the beginning and come to a conclusion. The case of State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh [(1994) 3 SCC 299] was relied on where it was held by the Supreme Court, a defective investigation if any does not vitiate the trial. It is submitted that as held by this Court in the case of Sudha Renukaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2017) 13 SCC 81], in which it was held that, “even if the IO has committed any error and has been negligent in carrying out any investigation or in the investigation there is some omission and defect, it is the legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses.” In Atley v. State of U.P. [AIR 1955 SC 807], it has been laid down by this Court that “it is open to the High Court on an appeal against an order of acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion, of course, keeping in view the well-established rule that the presumption of innocence of the accused is not weakened but strengthened by the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court which had the advantage of observing the demeanour of witnesses whose evidence have been recorded in its presence.” Hence, the contention of the appellant that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction was not sustained. However, the Supreme Court accepted the fact this is a case of circumstantial evidence. In the case of G. Parshwanath v. State of Karnataka [(2010) 8 SCC 593], it was held that 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, where various links in the chain are in themselves complete, then the false plea or false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the court. The Court was of the view that the stance taken up by the Trial Court was correct and there were too many procedural gaps and fake documents to be overlooked. The Court relying on precedence stated that “absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused”. While appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case the Court held that the order of the High Court is squashed and the two accused are acquitted. Click here to read the judgement
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned of Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 464 of 2012 by the respondent The State of Himachal Pradesh and has reversed the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court and consequently has convicted the Sections 302 read with 34 392 201 and 420 IPC and has with 34 IPC the appellants original accused have preferred the for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 392 420 and 201 IPC for having committed the murder of one Deepak. That the dead body of the deceased was found on 2.9.2010 near bypass Bihali Road Chandigarh. That the dead body was seen by one Jashwinder Singh PW4 who informed the police station Bhunter. On receiving such information the police came on the spot recorded the statement of PW4 prepared police station Bhunter. FIR was registered by Head Constable the deceased. The investigating officer PW18 conducted the that one vehicle was lying at Chandigarh in abandoned condition. IO along with the other police officers went to Chandigarh and recovered the abandoned vehicle from Sector 45C Chandigarh. On checking the jeep one envelope was found to have been recovered containing mobile phone three 8.9.2010. During the investigation the IO recovered the crates from Punjab. IO also recovered one knife and the rope on 09.09.2010 alleged to have been used in commission of the After conclusion of the investigation IO filed chargesheet against the accused persons for the aforesaid WWW.LIVELAW.IN 2.1 To prove the case against the accused the prosecution Dinesh Singh recovery of from the jeep). Before the trial Court the case was based on appreciation of evidence on record both oral as well as sniffer dogs and on appreciation of evidence found that the recoveries were made earlier and the panchnama of the same were prepared subsequently on which PW5 and PW6 put their signatures. Having found that the prosecution has failed to a case of circumstantial evidence by a detailed judgment and 2.2 On appeal by the State by the impugned judgment and order the High Court has reversed the judgment and order of convicted the accused for the offences punishable under WWW.LIVELAW.IN Sections 302 read with 34 392 420 and 201 IPC. By the for the offence under Section 392 IPC and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The High Court has also sentenced the appellants to pay a fine of Rs.10 000 ­ each for the offence under Section 420 IPC and in default of payment of fine further rigorous the offence under Section 201 IPC and in default of payment of 2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned the aforesaid offences the appellants­original accused have Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants­ passed by the learned trial Court and consequently acquittal on suspicion surmises and conjectures that the learned trial Court as such committed no that the High Court has failed to appreciate and consider that the knife which is alleged to have been recovered on the disclosure statements of the accused persons had already been recovered on 2.9.2010 with the the disclosure statements of the accused persons on doubtful which came to be considered in detail by the Chandigarh police while conducting investigation in those areas as required under Section 166(3) Cr.P.C. and other that even the IO has not tried to examine any independent witness of Chandigarh though several people that even the recovery of mobile of PW7 is very miscreants how was the mobile used by the accused the jeep with the photographs of the appellants All these material witnesses like Biri Singh Dinesh Singh Lucky WWW.LIVELAW.IN SubashRam Pal Niranjan Singh material witnesses on recovery and seizure memos has proved fatal for the prosecution and has created serious not examined by the prosecution and most of the police witnesses only were produced in the court It is submitted that non­examination of material witnesses is fatal for the that it is an admitted position that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. Therefore before convicting the accused who alone has committed the offence. It is that there are material contradictions and even the recovery of jeep knife and rope photographs from the jeep WWW.LIVELAW.IN and creates serious doubts and therefore the learned trial 3.1 Making the above submissions and taking us to the deposition of PW4 PW5 and PW18 and relying upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Babu v. State of Kerala 2010) 9 SCC 189 Bannareddy v. State of Karnataka 5 SCC 790 State of Rajasthan v. Mukesh Kumar alias Mahesh Dhaulpuria7 SCC 678 and State of Rajasthan v. Madan alias Madaniya 13 SCC 653 it is prayed to allow the passed by the High Court and restore the well­reasoned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial The present appeal is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State of after re­appreciation of entire evidence on record found the accused guilty for the unnatural death of Deepak Kumar 4.2 It is submitted that the High Court on re­appraisal of the entire evidence on record has considered the following recovery of weapon of offence on the disclosure recovery of crates on the disclosure statement of while considering the afore­stated circumstances against the particularly the deposition of PW1 PW3 PW4 PW5 PW11 and 4.5 In the alternative it is submitted by the learned counsel come in the way of dispensation of justice. Heavy reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of C It is submitted that as held by this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh 3 SCC 299 a defective investigation if any does not vitiate the trial. It is submitted that as held by this Court in the case of Sudha Renukaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh 13 SCC 81 in WWW.LIVELAW.IN which the decision in the case of Muniappanwas relied part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence de hors of weapon of offence recovery of jeep recovery of photographs established and proved by the prosecution beyond doubt by examining the relevant witnesses which as such were not submitted that therefore the order of acquittal passed by the this Court in the case of G. Parshwanath v. State of Karnataka Court in the case of Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka 2019) 5 SCC 436 paragraphs 30 31. 31.1 31.2 31.3 31.4 and 32 of the said decision. It is submitted that in the aforesaid independently and come to its own conclusion. However ordinarily the High Court would give due importance to the opinion of the Sessions Judge if the same was arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence. It is submitted that it is 4.8 Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid decisions of this Court it is prayed to dismiss the at length. We have gone through in detail the judgment and impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court Court and thereby convicting the accused. we have also gone through the relevant evidences both oral as well as 5.1 At the outset it is required to be noted that this is a case of evidence. Therefore the first and foremost thing which is required to be considered is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court is justified in WWW.LIVELAW.IN 5.2 Before considering the appeal on merits the law on the Cr.P.C. and the interference by the High Court in an appeal In the case of Babuthis Court had reiterated Section 378 Cr.P.C. In paragraphs 12 to 19 it is observed and set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are probable one. While dealing with a judgment of acquittal the had failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and or had taken into consideration the evidence brought on record Balak Ram v. State of U.P3 SCC 219 Shambhoo Missir v State of Bihar4 SCC 17 Shailendra Pratap v. State of U.P 2003) 1 SCC 761 Narendra Singh v. State of M.P10 SCC 699 Budh Singh v. State of U.P9 SCC 731 State of U.P. v Ram Veer Singh13 SCC 102 S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy 5 SCC 535 Arulvelu v. State 10 SCC 206 Perla Somasekhara Reddy v. State of A.P16 SCC 98 and 13. In Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor AIR 1934 PC 227 the Privy WWW.LIVELAW.IN the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and the slowness of an v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 216 M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 200 Khedu Mohton v. State of Bihar 1970) 2 SCC 450 Sambasivan v. State of Kerala5 SCC 412 15. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka4 SCC 415 this reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is 2) The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 puts no limitation 3) Various expressions such as ‘substantial and compelling reasons’ ‘good and sufficient grounds’ ‘very strong circumstances’ ‘distorted conclusions’ ‘glaring mistakes’ etc. are not intended to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to 4) An appellate court however must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused competent court of law. Secondly the accused having secured his acquittal the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced evidence on record the appellate court should not disturb the 16. In Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P10 SCC 450 this Court reiterated the said view observing that the appellate court in accused should bear in mind that the trial court’s acquittal WWW.LIVELAW.IN demeanour of the witnesses and was in a better position to 17. In State of Rajasthan v. Naresh9 SCC 368 the Court 18. In State of U.P. v. Banne4 SCC 271 this Court gave certain illustrative circumstances in which the Court would be justified in interfering with a judgment of acquittal by the High ii) The High Court’s conclusions are contrary to evidence and iii) The entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the iv) The High Court’s judgment is manifestly unjust and case when both the Sessions Court and the High Court have A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Dhanapal v 19. Thus the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the court’s acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence held to be perverse has been dealt with and considered in WWW.LIVELAW.IN “20. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality.4 SCC 635 Excise and Taxation Officer­cum­Assessing Authority v v. CCE 1994 Supp. SCC 665 Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad It is further observed after following the decision of evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it the order would be perverse. But if could be relied upon the conclusions would not be treated as 5.3 In the recent decision of Vijay Mohan Singh this Cr.P.C. and the interference by the High Court in an appeal this Court right from 1952 onwards. In paragraph 31 it is on record. However the High Court while reversing the acquittal acquitting the accused. Confirming the judgment of the High evidence independently and come to its own conclusion Ordinarily the High Court would give due importance to the proper appreciation of the evidence. This rule will not be applicable in the present case where the Sessions Judge has made an absolutely wrong assumption of a very material and Court reversed the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial evidence on record however the High Court did not record its by the High Court convicting the accused on reversal of the acquittal passed by the learned trial court after being satisfied perverse and suffered from infirmities this Court declined to interfere with the order of conviction passed by the High Court “8. We have perused the judgment under appeal to ascertain whether the High Court has conformed to the aforementioned principles. We find that the High Court has not strictly proceeded in the manner laid down by this Court in Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat 9 SCC 225 viz. first High Court has rendered a well­considered judgment duly appeal We think not. In our view in such a case the approach an appellate court which has reversed the order of acquittal WWW.LIVELAW.IN passed by the trial court should be to satisfy itself if the approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was is free from those infirmities if so to hold that the trial court judgment warranted interference. In such a case there is the appellate court in the order of acquittal was not justified the acquittal alone has to stand. Having regard to the above grievance of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Court refused to set aside the order of conviction passed by the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge on several Sessions Judge was not justified in discarding the Court therefore was fully entitled to reappreciate the evidence and the eyewitnesses and opined that reasons adduced by the trial evidence made by the trial court was manifestly erroneous and therefore it was the duty of the High Court to interfere with an 31.3. In Atley v. State of U.P. AIR 1955 SC 807 in para 5 this the judgment of the trial court being one of acquittal the High Court should not have set it aside on mere appreciation of the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution unless it came to the WWW.LIVELAW.IN It has been laid down by this Court that it is open to the High Court on an appeal against an order of acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion of course judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court which had the to the riders that the presumption of innocence with which the appellate stage and that the appellate court should attach due in mind and comes to a contrary conclusion the judgment cannot cited at the Bar namely Surajpal Singh v. State AIR 1952 SC 52 that the High Court was not justified in reviewing the entire 31.4. In K. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P.1 SCC 355 this Court has observed that where the trial court allows itself to be reasons and takes a view of the evidence which is but barely circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the “22. In Krishnan v. State 15 SCC 430 this Court after considering a large number of its earlier judgments observed as “15. … This Court in a series of decisions has consistently held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence such be drawn must be cogently and firmly established iii) the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so be complete and incapable of explanation of any other should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but SCC 116 while dealing with circumstantial evidence it has been cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence must be WWW.LIVELAW.INthe facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused that is to say they should iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human 24. In Subramaniam v. State of T.N 14 SCC 415 while at a conclusion that the husband and husband alone was responsible therefor. The evidence produced by the prosecution appellant unsustainable.this Court has “23. In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature the should in the first instance be fully established. Each fact sought this principle a distinction must be made between facts called primary or basic on the one hand and inference of facts to be the court has to judge the evidence and decide whether that evidence proves a particular fact and if that fact is proved the question whether that fact leads to an inference of guilt of the there should not be any missing links in the case yet it is not WWW.LIVELAW.IN from the proved facts. In drawing these inferences the court must the purpose of conviction the court has to consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts each one of which hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should exclude every mean that before the prosecution can succeed in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence alone it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused howsoever extravagant and fanciful it might be. There must be a chain of evidence so in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused where various links in chain are in themselves complete decisions to the facts of the case on hand it is to be considered whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the High 6.1 In the present case the prosecution as well as the High PW5 PW6 and PW7. However it is required to be noted that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record the trial Court on 9.9.2010 and thereby did not believe the recovery of knife the accused and that too recovered on 9.9.2020. However the observing that those contradictions were minor contradictions and therefore the learned trial Court was not justified in acquitting the accused solely on the basis of such minor contradictions. However on considering the entire evidence on learned trial Court. The contradictions which came to be WWW.LIVELAW.IN and PW18­IO on the basis of disclosure statements made by the accused on 8.9.2010 the knife and rope were recovered on 9.9.2010. However PW4 and PW5 have categorically stated in their deposition that the police brought the sniffer dogs on 2.9.2010 and the sniffer dogs recovered rope knife etc. on 2.9.2010. So according to even PW4 and PW5 the rope and noted that the accused were arrested on 8.9.2010 and prior also admitted in the cross­examination that this fact has not WWW.LIVELAW.IN sniffer dog had traced the strings Ex. P52 knife Ex. P59 and vest Ex. P54. However PW4 and PW5 in their deposition have categorically stated that the knife and rope were recovered on The aforesaid cannot be said to be minor contradictions. Therefore the trial Court was justified in not believing the disclosure statements of the accused and the recovery of the knife rope etc. on 9.9.2010 as alleged by the prosecution. From evidence it emerges that the knife rope and vest were recovered on 2.9.2010 i.e. much prior to 8.9.2010 from the jeep also create serious doubts. According to the went to Chandigarh and recovered the jeep in the presence of 3 & 4) Cr.P.C. Even he did not comply with the provisions of WWW.LIVELAW.IN alone may not be a ground to acquit the accused. However where recovery is seriously doubted non­compliance of the Even the recovery of the mobile phone from the jeep belonging to PW7 also creates doubt. Though PW7 has stated that his mobile was stolen or cheated he never filed any complaint earlier. Even the IO has not tried to have the call details of the mobile. He has not tried to verify from the call to crates being sold to PW6 is concerned it is required to be is found to be suspicious and doubtful. Cogent reasons have concerned it is true that the absence of proving the motive case. However at the same time as observed by this Court in the case of Babuabsence of motive in a case depending accused. In paragraphs 25 and 26 it is observed and held as “25. In State of U.P. v. Kishanpal 16 SCC 73 this Court examined the importance of motive in cases of circumstantial “38. … the motive is a thing which is primarily known to the importance in a case where direct evidence of eyewitnesses is the evidence of the eyewitnesses is clear and reliable the absence or inadequacy of motive cannot stand in the way of depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in WWW.LIVELAW.IN 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case the findings recorded by the learned trial Court which were trial Court. Under the circumstances the impugned judgment present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order the learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court Kullu Himachal Pradesh in Sessions Trial No. 05 of 2011 is hereby WWW.LIVELAW.IN restored. The accused­Appellants namely Anwar Ali son of