Suspicion and Enmity Without Cogent Evidence Cannot Sustain Conviction in Homicide Trials

On October 15, 1982, the body of Krishna Aadhar @ Chhote was found murdered at his tube-well

The informant, Ramadhar Tyagi (PW-6), lodged an FIR against unknown persons (Ext. K-1)

Four months later, on February 15, 1983, the informant filed a second written report (Ext. K-2) expressing suspicion against Udai Kumar Chaubey

The prosecution subsequently relied on "last seen" and "conspiracy" testimonies from witnesses recorded broadly four months after the incident

The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 147, 148, and 302/149 of the IPC

During the pendency of the appeal, all appellants except Basant Singh (Appellant No. 3) died, leading to the abatement of the appeal for the deceased

1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence

2. Whether the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, recorded after a significant delay, were reliable enough to sustain a conviction

3. Whether enmity alone can serve as a sufficient basis for conviction in the absence of credible evidence

The Court applied Section 302 (Murder) and Section 149 (Unlawful Assembly) of the IPC

It relied on the evidentiary principle that "suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof," as established in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam and State of Odisha v. Banabihari Mohapatra

It further applied the principle from Sushil v. State of U.P. and State of Punjab v. Sucha Singh that enmity is a "double-edged weapon" that can provide a motive for both the crime and false implication

The Court also upheld the "presumption of innocence" as a fundamental human right per Babu v. State of Kerala

The Court found the prosecution's case fundamentally flawed as the initial FIR was against "unknown" persons and lacked any mention of suspects or enmity

The "planted" witnesses (PW-1 to PW-5) only emerged four months after the incident, and their statements to the police were recorded with significant delay

PW-1 and PW-3’s claims of hearing a conspiracy at a public flour mill were deemed "totally unbelievable" and "artificial"

PW-4 and PW-5, who claimed to have seen the accused near the site on the night of the murder, failed to disclose this vital information to the informant or police for months, rendering their conduct highly suspicious

The Court critiqued the Trial Court for ignoring the cross-examinations which exposed major improvements and contradictions

Furthermore, no murder weapon was recovered, and no forensic link was established between the accused and the crime scene

The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order of conviction dated April 28, 1988, were set aside. Appellant Basant Singh was acquitted of all charges under Sections 147 and 302/149 IPC, and his bail bonds were discharged