When doubt emanates in the chain of circumstances, the benefit accrues to the accused, and not the prosecution.
This is a case of murder where prosecution story is appellant had the strong motive to kill the deceased as the deceased had illicit relationship with his sister. It means that the two family ie deceased’s family & the appellant’s must have strong animosity amongst them. Whereas this fact was nullified by the wife of the deceased as she said appellant and her family had cordial relationship. Further deceased went missing for 2-3 days but no complaint was filed either by the wife of the deceased or by the brother of the deceased. This also creates doubt. There was no forensic examination of the blood found on the body of the deceased. Another story is it was another accused who took deceased from his home where as deceased’s wife said it was appellant who took deceased with him, contradiction in the version also creates doubt. Hence, it would be perilous to sustain the conviction of the appellant on such evidence, where the chain is clearly incomplete & the presumption of innocence is in favour of the accused.
The Division Bench of the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath J & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah J allowed the Criminal Appeal as there was no definite evidence of last seen of the deceased, there was a long time-gap between the alleged last seen of the deceased and the recovery of his body, and in the absence of other corroborative pieces of evidence, it cannot be said that the chain of circumstances is complete and the only inference that could be drawn is the guilt of the appellant.
R Sreenevasa v. State of Karnataka
Before Supreme Court of India
Crl. Appeal 859/2011, allowed on 06.09.2023
The appellant was a co-accused along with one other accused.
Upon trial, both were acquitted.
However, State felt aggrieved and appealed before the High Court of Karnataka & the Hon’ble Court reversed the judgement of the trial Court and convicted present appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.
According to the complainant an unidentified body was found in his field later it was identified as one of Krishnappa.
The allegation is that present appellant and another accused killed Krishnappa as he was having illicit relationship with the sister of the present Appellant.
It is also alleged that the accused persons tried to destroy the evidence by setting dead body on fire by pouring petrol.
Prosecution failed to prove that deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant and had also failed to prove extra judicial confession of the appellant, hence, acquitted the appellant for the charge under Section 302IPC RW Section 34 IPC.
Submission of the Counsel of the Appellant
In the charge framed by the Trial Court, it was clearly mentioned that it was other accused A2 who had come to the house of the deceased two days prior to the incident and taken him away on the pretext that the appellant’s father wanted to meet him whereas during deposition, Prosecution Witness 3 and Prosecution Witness 8 have stated that it was the appellant who had come and taken the deceased with him.
This very basic aspect which completely changes the theory of last seen cannot result in conviction of the appellant as that is the sole ground for reversal of acquittal by the High Court.
There was no forensic examination conducted to prove that the blood belonged to the deceased.
The theory of the Prosecution Witness that appellant bought petrol for setting the dead body on fire is also not proved as the witness turned hostile & this is enough to entitle the appellant benefit of doubt.
The deceased’s wife stated in her evidence that there was cordial relationship between the appellant and family of the deceased thus, the theory of strong animosity is also stands negated.
The deceased’s wife admitted during deposition that even when the deceased did not return for two-three days, she had not made any complaint and a very vague reason for such conduct is given saying that even in the past he (the deceased) used to go away for two-three days.
Submission of the Respondent State
There was a strong motive for the appellant to kill the deceased.
Observation of the Apex Court
Allegation was that the other accused took the deceased from his house. Whereas during deposition deceased’s wife & brother stated that it was appellant who had taken away is enough to raise doubts with regard to the veracity and authenticity of such statements.
The fact that there was strong animosity between the deceased and the appellant, appears to be highly improbable, as when there was strong animosity between them than why deceased would go late at night with the appellant.
The doubt as to the appellant’s involvement attain more credence when it is taken into consideration that the deceased being missing for more than two days, yet neither his wife nor his brother reported the deceased as missing.
The deceased’s wife has testified that relations between the parties were cordial, and has not hinted at animosity.
The very fact whether the deceased had in fact gone with the appellant, after which his dead body was found had not been proved, as is the requirement in law.
Appeal is allowed. conviction and sentence passed by the High Court is set aside.
