Full Judgment Text
$~R-1A
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL. A. 523/2003
th
% Judgment reserved on:28 May, 2019
st
Judgment Pronounced on: 31 May, 2019
SANJAY .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Kumar Agarwal, Mr. Subrata
Das and Mr.Anup Ratan Dutta Choudhary,
Advocates
Versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for State with ASI
Prem Ram Arya, PS Hari Nagar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
1. The present Appeal is instituted on behalf of the appellant under
Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter
referred to as “Cr.P.C.” ) against the impugned judgment dated
26.03.2003 and order on sentence dated 28.03.2003 passed by the
Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Session Case
No. 133/2001 in FIR No.160/2001, registered at Police Station Hari
Nagar under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (hereinafter
referred to as “IPC” ) whereby the appellant was convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of
payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of five months.
CRL.A. 523/2003 Page 1 of 19
2. Brief facts of the case as noticed by the Learned Trial Court, are as
under:
“Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on the night of
2.5.2001 at about 11.55 pm an information was received at
police station that a dead body was lying at house no.WZ-483
MS Block, Hari Nagar and D.D. in this regard was recorded.
D.D. was marked to SI Mahesh Kumar. SI Mahesh Kumar
went to the spot and found that a dead body of female was
lying on the floor in the aforesaid house. He sent rukka for
registration of the case. Thereafter case under Section 302
IPC was registered at P.S. Hari Nagar. During the
investigation it was transpired that accused Sanjay had a
quarrel with his wife Pooja on the evening of 2.5.2001 as on
that day the mother in law of accused had come to take Pooja
to her village and on that issue accused had on quarrel with
his wife Pooja and after his mother in law left for her village
accused committed murder of his wife Pooja.”
3. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed U/s 302
IPC. Ld. M. M. after complying with provisions of Section 207
Cr.P.C committed the case to Sessions Court as the offence
punishable U/s 302 IPC is exclusively triable by Sessions Court.
Appellant was charged for the offence punishable U/s, Section 302
IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 17
witnesses in all. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section
313 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as
CRL.A. 523/2003 Page 2 of 19
'Cr.P.C .') by the learned trial court wherein he pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial and chose not to lead any evidence in his defense.
5. After hearing the counsels for both the sides and on appreciation of
entire evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court convicted
the appellant for the charged offence.
6. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for appellant, opened his
submissions by contending that the impugned judgment dated
26.03.2003 is based on conjectures and surmises and the same is
against the facts and the settled proposition of law because the learned
Trial Court has ignored and omitted the material evidence and has
disregarded the cogent evidence in favor of the appellant and has
failed to appreciate the basic matter in dispute, as to how the appellant
has been categorized as the actual perpetrator of the crime because the
entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no direct
evidence on record to establish that the appellant was involved in the
commission of the alleged offence.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that as per the
version of the prosecution, appellant was last seen with the deceased,
but it is not prudent to base conviction solely on the basis of last seen
evidence because last seen evidence does not necessarily lead to the
inference that it was the appellant who had committed the crime.
8. He further contended that the learned Trial Court has erred in relying
on the testimonies of prosecution witnesses because there are major
contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution
witnesses, hence their evidence cannot be exclusively relied on as
trustworthy and reliable because there is a very strong possibility of
CRL.A. 523/2003 Page 3 of 19
the prosecution witnesses being tutored and influenced. Counsel for
the appellant has urged that the trial court failed to correctly
appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case; hence the
impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
9. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Agarwal, learned Counsel for the appellant further
contended that the medical evidence fails to corroborate with the
version of the prosecution and fails to establish the fact that the
deceased had died due to strangulation because as per the post
mortem report it was opined that the ‘ injuries no. 2 to 7 can also be
possible if a person falls on a hard object or on the ground’
10. Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, learned APP for State, on the other hand, strongly
refuted the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and
submitted that the impugned judgment is based on proper appreciation
of facts and evidence and the statements of prosecution witnesses and
medical/scientific evidence are corroborative in nature and the
prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
11. Learned APP for the State further submitted that the appellant was
last seen with the deceased and the same can be relied upon for
enforcing the conviction of the appellant because the same is
supported with reliable testimony of Smt. Sushila (PW-10). She
further submitted that the prosecution had relied upon the extra
judicial confession made by the accused to PW-15, wherein PW-15
(Satish Kumar) further instructed Devraj (PW-9) to take the accused
to the police station because he had committed something wrong with
his wife.
12. Counsel for the state lastly urged that the evidence produced on
CRL.A. 523/2003 Page 4 of 19
record as well as the circumstances proved by the prosecution, form a
complete chain pointing unequivocally towards establishing the guilt
of the accused. Based on these submissions counsel for the State
urged that this Court may not interfere with the well-reasoned order
passed by the learned trial court convicting the appellant for the
alleged offence.
13. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions
advanced on behalf of counsel for the parties at considerable length
and also perused the material available on record.
14. Since, the present case is based on circumstantial evidence, it is
essential for us to determine whether or not a complete chain of
events stand established from the evidence produced by the
prosecution. What, therefore, needs to be seen is whether the
prosecution has established the incriminating circumstances upon
which it places reliance and whether those circumstances constitute a
chain so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the
appellant to be found innocent.
15. To elucidate this case, it is essential to peruse the testimonies of
prosecution witnesses. Cross examination of PW-10 (Sushila),
landlady is reproduced below:-
“…. 20 days before this incident, at the instance of
brother in law Satish, I had given a room to Sanjay-
accused on rent. It is also correct that Sanjay used to
reside along with his wife in the said room. It is also
correct that about one week before this incident, father of
accused, his sister and brother in law came there.
However, no quarrel took place between Sanjay and his
wife on that day. However, it is correct that when the
CRL.A. 523/2003 Page 5 of 19
quarrel took place between Sanjay and his wife, I came
to know that there were not good relations between them.
It is also correct that on 01.05.2001 the mother of Sanjay
came to the room of Sanjay. It is also correct that
mother of Sanjay had returned back on 02.05.2001
afternoon, the next day. It is also correct that quarrel
had taken place one day before between accused and his
wife Pooja. It is also correct that mother of Sanjay
wanted to take Pooja to her village. However, Pooja
refused to go with her to village and at this a quarrel had
taken place between Sanjay and his wife. It is also
correct that about 4.00 pm in the evening time, I went to
mandir and sometime before Sanjay had gone to leave
his mother. It is also correct that when I was going to
Mandir, Pooja was alone in the room. It is also correct
that at about 7.30 pm, I came back to my house and when
I just entered inside my house, I saw Sanjay accused,
present in court, going outside slowly after coming down
from stairs and he was perplexed. It is also correct that
when I asked Sanjay as to whether his mother had gone
to her village or not but Sanjay did not answer and he
had gone out silently.
Xxxx xxxx xxxx
It is correct that Pooja did never complain to me against
her husband or against any other person.”
16. Satish Kumar, employer of appellant was examined as PW-15, in his
examination in Chief, he deposed that:-
“…. In April, 2001, Pooja came to Delhi and I got one
room on the first floor of H-No. WZ 483, MS block, Hari
Nagar of my relation Tej Prakash to accused Sanjay and
both Pooja and Sanjay started living in that room. On
02.05.2001, at about 8.30-9.00 pm accused Sanjay came
at the office at Nangal Rai. He was perplexed I enquired
from him as to what is the matter he told me that he
wants to talk something in private. My supervisor was
sitting in the office. I told him to go out of the office so
CRL.A. 523/2003 Page 6 of 19
that I may talk to Sanjay. They went out of the office then
Sanjay told me that his wife has strangulated herself
(fanci kha li hai). I told accused Sanjay to go to the
police station and called Devraj from outside and told
him to take Sanjay to the police station.”
Further in his cross examination he deposed that:-
“ It is incorrect to suggest that accused Sanjay came to
my office on 02.05.2001, he told me that he strangulated
his wife, as stated to the police on the next date
confronted with portion A to A of Ex.PW15/A, where it is
so recorded.”
xxxx xxxx xxxx
“It is further incorrect to suggest that Sanjay told me that
during the day time while going with his mother, she
refused to go to her village or that he (Sanjay) told his
wife that she does not want to go to his village but will go
to her sister’s house to meet Fauzi. …. It is further
incorrect to suggest that Sanjay told me that on this his
wife got angry and abused him and his mother, and
called him impotent or that he left his mother for the
village in bus and came back to his home and beat his
wife and then strangulated to her with the chunni nor I
stated so in the statement to the police confronted with
portion d to d in Ex.PW-15/A where it is so recorded.”
17. In the present case the prosecution is relying upon the testimony of
PW-10 (Sushila) to prove that the appellant was the last person who
was seen in the company of the deceased, however, a close scrutiny of
the evidence of PW-10 (Sushila) alongwith other incriminating
circumstances, it has not been established by the prosecution that the
appellant has murdered his wife or was last seen with his wife. The
case of the prosecution has many missing links. PW-10 (Sushila) has
deposed only to the extent that she had seen the appellant coming
down the stairs. Nowhere in her testimony she suggested that the
CRL.A. 523/2003 Page 7 of 19
appellant committed the alleged offence.
18. It is pertinent to note that the Trial Court had declared PW-10
(Sushila) as a hostile witness. Moreover, in her testimony she had
stated that the appellant and the deceased did not share a good
relationship. However, it is essential to note that she categorically
stated that “ I came to know that there were not good relations
between them”. This in itself falls under the category of hearsay
evidence. The statement of PW-10 (Sushila) is in the nature of
hearsay and would not fall under 'res gestae'. It is a well settled
proposition of law that the oral evidence is only hearsay with no
evidentiary value unless supported by any valid proof.
19. Attention of this court was directed towards the decision rendered in
Gentela Vijaya Vardhan Rao v. State of A.P . reported at 1996 (6)
SCC 241 , wherein the Apex Court held, that the principle of law
embodied in Section 6 of the Evidence Act, is expressed as "res
gestae".
20. The rule of "res gestae", is an exception to the general rule, that
hearsay evidence is not admissible. The rationale of making certain
statements or facts admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act,
was on account of spontaneity and immediacy of such statement or
fact, in relation to the "fact in issue" and thereafter, such facts or
statements are treated as a part of the same transaction. In other
words, to be relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act, such
statement must have been made contemporaneously with the fact in
issue, or at least immediately thereupon, and in conjunction therewith.
If there is an interval between the fact in issue, and the fact sought to
CRL.A. 523/2003 Page 8 of 19
be proved, then such statement cannot be described as falling in the
"res gestae" concept. Reliance from the aforesaid judgment was
placed on the following observations:
15. The principle or law embodied in Section 6 of the
Evidence Act is usually known as the rule of res gestae
recognized in English Law. The essence of the doctrine is
that fact which, though not in issue, is so connected with
the fact in issue "as to form part of the same transaction"
becomes relevant by itself. This rule is, roughly speaking,
an exception to the general rule that hearsay evidence is
not admissible. The rationale in making certain statement
or fact admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act is
on account of the spontaneity and immediacy of such
statement or fact in relation to the fact in issue. But it is
necessary that such fact or statement must be part of the
same transaction. In other words, such statement must
have been made contemporaneous with the acts which
constitute the offence or at least immediately thereafter.
But if there was an interval, however slight it may be,
which was sufficient enough for fabrication then the
statement is not part of res gestae.
21. As per the case of the prosecution, the appellant had admitted his
guilt to PW-15, his employer. While discussing the credibility of an
Extra Judicial Confession, the court has to examine the same with a
greater degree of care and caution. Whenever the Court, upon due
appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a
conviction on an extra judicial confession, it must ensure that the
same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution
evidence. In the present case, nothing has emerged on record that
any confession was made by the appellant to PW-15 (Satish Kumar).
CRL.A. 523/2003 Page 9 of 19
Rather, PW-15 (Satish Kumar) had deposed that ‘ Sanjay told me
that his wife has strangulated herself (fanci kha li hai). I told
accused Sanjay to go to the police station and called Devraj from
outside and told him to take Sanjay to the police station’. PW-15
(Satish Kumar) has not stated that appellant had made any extra
judicial confession to him. The same is neither a confession nor an
incriminating statement .
22. Inspector Omwati Malik was examined as PW-17, relevant portion
of her testimony is reproduced below:
“ I received message from intercom that a boy has
come at the PS and claims himself to be Sanjay
husband of Pooja deceased and tells that his wife
has committed suicide. I further interrogated
accused Sanjay keeping in view scene of crime and
accused perplexed and then told that his wife has
not committed suicide rather he has strangulated
his wife Pooja and further told that his wife had
illicit relations with the jeth of her sister and he
had come to know of this illicit relations. ”
23. There cannot be any dispute that a confession made by the appellant to
the police is also inadmissible confession. The confession herein cannot
even be called an extra-judicial confession because of the presence of
the police. According to Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act 1860,
no credence can be placed upon the confession made by the accused
which reads as under:
25. Confession to police officer not to be proved
No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as
against a person accused of any offence.
CRL.A. 523/2003 Page 10 of 19
24. Averting to the case at hand and after perusing the aforementioned
testimonies, it is evident that there were no prior disputes or quarrel
between the appellant and his wife. There is nothing on record to
show that the appellant had any motive to commit the alleged offence.
The fact that the prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence on
record to prove the motive on part of the appellant to commit the said
offence, which convinces us to give benefit of doubt to the appellant.
25. Learned APP has time and again emphasised upon the unnatural and
unexplained behaviour of the appellant after the commission of the
alleged offence. However, the Supreme Court in numerous cases has
held that there is no definite way for a person to react, every
individual will have a different response to a particular situation. In
Rana Partap and Ors. v. State of Haryana(1983) 3 SCC 327 , while
dealing with the behaviour of the witnesses, the Apex Court had
opined that: -
Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own
way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand
rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start
wailing. Some start shouting for help. Others run away to
keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible.
Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim, even going to
the extent of counterattacking the assailants. Every one
reacts in his own special way. There is no set rule of
natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness on
the ground that he did not react in any particular manner
is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and
unimaginative way.
26. Further, in State of H.P. v. Mast Ram(2004) 8 SCC 660 , it has been
held that there is no set rule that one must react in a particular way,
CRL.A. 523/2003 Page 11 of 19
for the natural reaction of man is unpredictable. Everyone reacts in his
own way and, hence, natural human behaviour is difficult to prove by
credible evidence. It has to be appreciated in the context of given facts
and circumstances of the case. Similar view has been reiterated in
Lahu Kamlakar Patil and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra 2012 (12)
SCALE 710 .
27. Hence, according to the settled proposition of law, the argument
raised by the learned APP regarding the unnatural behaviour is not
conclusive in itself.
28. At this stage it is essential to peruse the medical evidence. PW-11
(Dr.L.K. Barwah) in his examination in Chief deposed as under:-
“ All the injuries were ante mortem in nature. Injuries on
the forehead were caused by blunt object causing
contrusion of the brain. Cause of death was asphyxia
following ligature constriction of the neck by soft ligature
material. …. I had examined the jorjett saree and opined
that the ligature mark on the neck of the deceased could
be possible by the said cloth.”
In his cross examination, he deposed as under:-
“ On external examination the ligature as observed by
me can be possible by hanging. There is a possibility of
presence petecheal haemorrhagic spots on face in case
of hanging. It is incorrect that since it was three days
and body was not fresh, therefore, I could not observe
any saliva dribbling out of the mouth of the deceased. It
is incorrect to suggest that since it was 3 days and the
body was not fresh, therefore, I could not observe if the
neck was possible stressed and elongated. It is correct
that even a tension of 3.5 k.g. is sufficient to choke the
carotid artery. It is correct that if the carotid artery is
blocked there is possibility of anoxia of the brain
causing the patient unconscious. The injuries mentioned
by me at S.No. 2 to 7 in my statement above can also be
CRL.A. 523/2003 Page 12 of 19
possible if a person falls on a hard object or on the
ground (Voltd. These injuries could also have been
possible during the process of strangulation or scuffle)
(objected to by ld. Defence counsel).”
29. After considering the medical evidence and the post mortem report, it
is apparent that the deceased could have died either by hanging or by
falling on a hard object or by strangulation. Neither there is anything
on record which clearly indicates that the death was caused by
strangulation, nor from the medical examination it is established that
it was the appellant who is primarily responsible for committing the
alleged offence .
30. Further, during the course of arguments, an apprehension was
expressed by the learned counsel for the appellant, that there is a
serious lapse in the investigation of the case and the same lapse has
disabled the prosecution to prove the culpability of the accused.
31. The Hon’ble Apex Court very recently, in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs
Wasif Haider Etc reported at 2019 2 SCC 303 has held that lacunas
in an investigation will fortify the presumption of innocence
in favour of the accused. Germane portion of the judgment is
extracted below:-
“24. In the present case, the cumulative effect of
the aforesaid investigative lapses has fortified the
presumption of innocence in favor of the
accused-respondents . In such cases, thebenefit of doubt
arising out of a faulty investigation accrues infavor of
the accused.
25. Although we acknowledge the gravity of the
offence alleged against the accused-respondents and the
unfortunate factof a senior official losing his life in
CRL.A. 523/2003 Page 13 of 19
furtherance of his duty we cannot overlook the fact that
the lapses in the investigation have disabled the
prosecution to prove the culpability of the accused.
32. In the present case, D.D. entry 29A was registered at police station
Hari Nagar on 02.05.2001 and the same was marked to SI Mahesh
Kumar. SI Mahesh Kumar stepped into the witness box as PW-5 and
deposed as under:
“ On 02.05.2001, I was posted at PS Hari Nagar. On
that night at about 11:55 pm on receipt of DD No. 29A
from D.O. copy of which is Ex.PW4/A. I long with Const.
Abhey Singh went to H.No. WZ 483 MS Block, Hari
Nagar, double storey house and on the Ist floor in a room
on night side measuring 9ft. x 7ft. a dead body of female
was lying on the floor whose name was Smt. Pooja w/o
Sanjay. I inspected the dead body. She had marks of
injuries on right side forehead. One of the fists was
closed and the other was half closed. On the right side of
the dead body there was a folding bed and on left side
there was a tape recorder and some household articles. I
found it to be a case of murder and I made endorsement
Ex.PW4/8 on DD No. 29A and sent rukka through const.
Abhey Singh for registration of the case.”
During the cross examination, PW-5 (Mahesh Kumar) deposed as
under:
“I reached the spot at about 12.10 in the night on the
night of 2/3.5.2001. The rukka was sent by me at about
1.30 am (night). It is correct that till the rukka was sent
from the spot to the PS no witness was available. I
cannot tell as to whether any public witness was present
when tape recorder Ex.P1; chunni Ex.P3 and diary
Ex.P5 and two pens were seized vide memos Ex.PW5/A;
PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C . No person from the
neighbourers or from the house in question was called
by the Investigating Officer before seizing the Tape
CRL.A. 523/2003 Page 14 of 19
recorder. Ex.P1 vide memo Ex.PW5/C in my presence;
C chunni Ex.P3 vide memo Ex.PW5/A and diary and
two pens Ex.P4/1 to 2 vide memo Ex.PW5/B. It is
correct that memos Ex.PW5/A to Ex.PW5/C do not bear
signatures of any public witness.”
33. The investigation officer Insp. Omwati Malik stepped in the witness
box as PW-17 and deposed as under:
“On the night between 2/3.5.01 I was working as
Addl.SHO PS Hari Nagar. I recd. Message from DO that
a dead body is lying at WZ-483 MS Block where SI
Mahesh Kumar had already been sent. On receipt of
message, I went to the spot on Ist floor of H.No.WZ483
MS Block Hari Ngr. There was only one room where
dead body of female was lying just near the entrance of
the room on the floor. SI Mahesh Kr. was already present
there. SI Mahesh told me that he had already sent rukka
for regn. of the case and had made request for
summoning crime team and photographer at the spot.
After regn. of the case, I recd. the investigation of the
case. At the spot I prepared rough site plan of the place
of occurrence Ex.PW17/A with correct marginal notes
signed by me. SI Mohar Singh of crime team with staff
reached the spot who inspected the spot and after
discussions told me that he will submit his report
E.PW13/A.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Then I came back to the PS and in the morning I recd.
telephonic message from SDM Rajouri Gdn. Sh. Vijay
Khanna that he is reaching the spot. Accordingly I also
reached the spot. SDM examined the spot and opined
verbally that it was a case of murder rather than dowry
death. I discussed with my ACP Rajouri Gdn. and I
started investigation U/s 302 IPC of the case. Case was
also regd. U/s 302 IPC. From the spot I took into
possession a blue colour chunni and two pens of blue
and red ink lying by the side of dead body of Pooja at
the spot. They were sealed in a parcel with the seal of
CRL.A. 523/2003 Page 15 of 19
OM and seized vide memo Ex.PW5/A. Chunni is Ex.P3
taken out from parcel sealed with the seal of the court .
Dead body was sent to mortuary DDU Hospital. From
the spot I came back to the spot and recorded stats. of
const. Abhey.
34. During the cross examination, PW-17 deposed as under:
“ Nobody was prepared to make statement on the night
nd
of 2 and 3.5.01 from the neighbours. No public
witness has been joined in investigation at the time of
seizure of articles . It is wrong to suggest that accused
Sanjay had surrendered itself on 2.5.01 itself or that the
entire investigation was done while in the PS or that PW
Satish did not tell me that accused had to him that he
strangulated his wife or that or that I obtained signatures
of accused. Sanjay on plain paper or that I did not fairly
investigated the case or that I have falsely implicated the
accused or that during investigation I came to know that
Pooja had committed suicide or that I falsely involved the
accused.”
35. From a conjoint reading of the aforementioned testimonies, it is
apparent that a Tape recorder (Ex.PW5/C), chunni (Ex.PW5/A), diary
and two pens (Ex.PW5/B) were recovered from the spot, at the time
of seizure of articles . Further the D.D. entry 29A was registered at
police station Hari Nagar on 02.05.2001 at about 11.55 pm upon the
receipt of the information from Constable Sunita that a dead body is
lying at house no. WZ-483 MS Block, Hari Nagar. However, it is
relevant to highlight that Constable Sunita has not been examined as a
prosecution witness and neither the prosecution has procured
information with regard to the identity of the anonymous caller who
had reported the incident from telephone no. 5404759.
CRL.A. 523/2003 Page 16 of 19
36. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the benefit of
doubt arising out of such inefficient investigation, must be bestowed
upon the accused. Furthermore, we are of the considered view that
there are various lacunae in the case of prosecution in establishing the
motive on the part of the appellant for commission of the said offence
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
37. Henceforth in the instant appeal before us, the prosecution has failed
to link the chain of circumstances so as to dispel the cloud of doubt
about the culpability of the appellant.
38. It is a settled law that while deciding an appeal filed by the appellant,
in case two views are possible, if the High Court reaches a conclusion
that another view can reasonably be taken, then the view, which
favours the accused, should be adopted.
39. The Apex Court in P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. The Dist. Inspector
of Police and Ors.: (2015) 10 SCC 152 , wherein it has been held that
if in the facts and circumstances, two views are plausible, then the
benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. Relevant para whereof
is being reproduced herein below:
“25. In reiteration of the golden principle which runs
through the web of administration of justice in criminal
cases, this Court in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam
MANU/SC/0564/2013 : (2013) 12 SCC 406 had held that
suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof
and the prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the
realm of "may be" true but has to upgrade it in the
domain of "must be" true in order to steer clear of any
possible surmise or conjecture. It was held, that the
Court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided
CRL.A. 523/2003 Page 17 of 19
and if in the facts and circumstances, two views are
plausible, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the
accused.”
40. In the case Jose vs. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy and
Ors.: (2016) 10 SCC 519 , the Apex Court has held as under:
“53. It is a trite proposition of law, that suspicion
however grave, it cannot take the place of proof and that
the prosecution in order to succeed on a criminal charge
cannot afford to lodge its case in the realm of "may be
true" but has to essentially elevate it to the grade of
"must be true". In a criminal prosecution, the court has a
duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not
take the place of legal proof and in a situation where a
reasonable doubt is entertained in the backdrop of the
evidence available, to prevent miscarriage of justice,
benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused. Such a
doubt essentially has to be reasonable and not
imaginary, fanciful, intangible or non-existent but as
entertainable by an impartial, prudent and analytical
mind, judged on the touch stone of reason and common
sense. It is also a primary postulation in criminal
jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the
evidence available, one pointing to the guilt of the
accused and the other to his innocence, the one
favourable to the accused ought to be adopted.”
41. Keeping in view the aforesaid settled law and the material available
on record, we conclude that the prosecution has failed to prove its
case beyond all reasonable doubts and it would be highly unsafe to
convict the appellant. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The
judgment dated 26.03.2003 and order on sentence dated 28.03.2003 of
CRL.A. 523/2003 Page 18 of 19
the trial court are set aside. The appellant stands acquitted.
42. Trial Court record be sent back.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
MANMOHAN, J
MAY 31, 2019
SU
CRL.A. 523/2003 Page 19 of 19