'Yawning Gap In Evidence' : Supreme Court Finds Conviction Wrong In 2004 Murder Case; Sets Aside Concurrent Findings Of HC & Trial Court

The Supreme Court has observed that when the prosecution case is solely based on the circumstantial evidence, then the courts must be vigilant while examining the facts proving the circumstantial evidence i.e., it must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should be free from doubts, improbabilities and inconsistencies. Reversing the concurrent findings of the High Court and the Trial Court against a person accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Bench comprising of Justices B.R. While the principle applicable to circumstantial evidence requires that the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, in the present case the evidence adduced gives rise to doubts, improbabilities and inconsistencies.” The Court was hearing the appeal filed by the accused against the judgement of the High Court, who was tried along with another accused for the murder of a deceased and convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC for murder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life by the Trial Court. Observations by the Court After adducing the material evidences placed on record by the prosecution, it was observed by the court in para 10 noted that the Trial Court having noticed that there are no eyewitnesses and that the case of the prosecution is based only on circumstantial evidence, copiously referred to the statements of each witness, but rested its decision only on the evidence of PW-10, 11 & 12 and certain recoveries and the FSL Report. In fact, the IO has admitted that he did not try to join any private person before carrying out the recoveries.” Additionally, the Court in para 28, referred to its own decision, Pritinder Singh v. State of Punjab, where the court took a reference of the judgment delivered in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, where the Supreme Court has laid down the following conditions that must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established, terming it as a the 'panchsheel' of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence: the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.