Facts
Sulender was convicted by the trial court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murdering his wife, Devki, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Source reference: para. 2The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including alleged last-seen evidence, a witness’s observation of a person walking briskly, an alleged extra-judicial confession, and recovery of a knife.
Source reference: paras. 6–13The High Court allowed Sulender’s appeal and acquitted him, finding the circumstances unproved or insufficient.
Source reference: paras. 2, 6–13The State appealed to the Supreme Court
Source reference: paras. 2, 6–13Issues
Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence proving Sulender’s guilt for murder
Source reference: paras. 6–14Whether the High Court’s acquittal disclosed a basis for appellate interference
Source reference: paras. 14–16Law Applied
Section 302 IPC prescribes punishment for murder
Source reference: para. 2In an appeal against acquittal, where two views are possible, the appellate court should adopt the view favourable to the accused and should not interfere unless the acquittal suffers from patent perversity, as stated in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415
Source reference: para. 15Circumstantial evidence must be sufficiently proved and form a complete chain pointing exclusively to the accused’s guilt.
Source reference: para. 14Reasoning
The Supreme Court agreed that the alleged last-seen evidence was not established, the witness who saw a person walking briskly did not identify Sulender, and soil on Sulender’s clothes was explainable by his presence when the body was found.
Source reference: paras. 7–10The alleged confession was made while he was in police custody, and the evidence concerning the knife’s recovery had material deficiencies; the forensic report did not connect the knife to the crime.
Source reference: paras. 11–12The prosecution also failed to establish motive.
Source reference: para. 13Taken together, the circumstances neither formed a complete chain nor pointed exclusively to Sulender’s guilt; the High Court’s assessment did not warrant interference under the rule governing appeals against acquittal.
Source reference: paras. 14–16Holding
The Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove Sulender’s guilt beyond the required standard and that the High Court’s acquittal disclosed no infirmity warranting interference.
The State’s appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal remained undisturbed.
Source reference: para. 17Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Indian Penal Code, 18601
Original Court PDF
The State Of Himachal PradeshvsSulender
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
