“While Men May Lie, Circumstances Do Not”- Supreme Court Upholds Conviction In Murder Case

The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a man while relying upon the circumstances of the case.

The Court was deciding a Criminal Appeal filed by the accused against the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which upheld the conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh observed, “… if we consider all these circumstances, all of which, in our opinion, have been proved in the present case, the cumulative effect of these would clearly demonstrate that no other person other than the appellant could have caused the fatal injury to the deceased by use of fire arms. As the saying goes, while men may lie, circumstances do not.”

The Bench reiterated that where the evidence is circumstantial in nature, the circumstances from which the inference of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully established.

Senior Advocate D.N. Goburdhun appeared on behalf of the Appellant/Accused while Advocate Eesha Bakshi appeared on behalf of the Respondent/State.

Brief Facts

As per the prosecution case, the Appellant-accused and the deceased were friends and about eight months prior to the incident, the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,000/- in order to lend the same in turn to the deceased, which however, was not returned by the deceased to the accused even after a lapse of about 7-8 months, despite repeated demands to return the same. In that connection, there was an argument between the accused and the deceased in which the deceased had apparently insulted the accused, because of which the accused bore a grudge against the deceased. It was alleged that the accused after taking a 12 Bore D.B.B.L Gun with cartridges belonging to his grandfather on the pretext of going for hunting, took the deceased along with him on his motorcycle to the sugarcane grove belonging to the Complainant and shot him dead.

It was further alleged that after committing the said offence, he took the mobile phone and gold chain belonging to the deceased and misappropriated the same, thus committing the offence under Section 404 of the IPC. In the course of the investigation, it was revealed that the accused and the deceased were last seen together near a bus stand and thereafter seen on a motorcycle. Resultantly, the accused was arrested and he confessed to the crime. The Trial Court convicted him and the High Court upheld his conviction and sentence. Hence, he was before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “It is trite that mere absconding by itself does not constitute a guilty mind as even an innocent man may feel panicky and may seek to evade the police when wrongly suspected of being involvement as an instinct of self-preservation. But the act of abscondence is certainly a relevant piece of evidence to be considered along with other evidence and is a conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which points to his guilty mind.”

The Court remarked that even if it is held that there was no such monetary transaction between the accused and the deceased, the same may not materially affect the prosecution case.

“As is well known, the motive is something that is very difficult to prove as it remains hidden in the deep recess of the mind of the person concerned and in the absence of any open declaration by the person concerned himself, the motive has to be inferred from the activities and conduct of the person”, it added.

The Court further reiterated that while proof of motive certainly strengthens the prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence, failure to prove the same cannot be fatal.

“The present case is clearly one that is founded on circumstantial evidence. By its very nature, circumstantial evidence as opposed to direct evidence, is the inference one draws from the existence of a fact based on certain established fact/circumstance. This process invariably involves intuitive reasoning, proper understanding of human behaviour and psychology. This reasoning has to be rational, probative and which accords with the natural human behaviour. At the same time, there will always be certain subjective elements, which however, cannot be in the nature of surmise or conjecture”, it said.

The Court emphasised that when evaluating the proven circumstances for drawing certain inferences therefrom, a logical, rational and pragmatic approach must be adopted without being too technical, pedantic, or seeking absolute proof, for this principle of circumstantial evidence is not based on statutory provision.

“A fact is considered proved if the court, after reviewing the evidence, either believes it exists or deems its existence probable enough that a prudent person would act on the assumption that it exists”, it also enunciated.

The Court was of the view that each of the circumstances from which certain inferences are sought to be drawn, is required to be proved in accordance with law, and there cannot be any element of surmise and conjecture, and each of these circumstances so proved must form a complete chain without any break to clearly point to the guilt of the accused person.

“These circumstances so proved must be consistent only with the hypothesis with the guilt of the accused and should exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. … It is true that even in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution cannot depend on the false alibi or unproven defence plea since the onus is always on the prosecution to prove the prosecution case and the onus never shifts to the accused”, it elucidated.

The Court added that however, in such circumstances where prosecution has been able to prove on the basis of cogent evidence that the weapon of crime was traced to the accused, as in the present case, it was incumbent upon the accused to explain the circumstances of the recovery of the weapon with which a linkage has been established with the injury suffered by the deceased through scientific evidence.

“However, apart from claiming ignorance and denying the various incriminating evidence presented during the trial, the appellant chose not to adduce any evidence to explain these circumstances. Thus, his silence and failure to explain any of the incriminatory circumstances, would strengthen the prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence against him as proved by the Prosecution”. It held,

Furthermore, the Court observed that while the accused is not obligated to answer the questions put to him and still can maintain his silence or deny the evidence, yet silence or evasive or wrong answers to the questions put by the Court provides a perspective to the Court in properly evaluating the incriminating materials which have been brought forth by the prosecution by drawing necessary inference including an adverse one.

“Examination of an accused under Section 313 CrPC is an important component of the process of judicial scrutiny of the evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against an accused. At the time of indictment and framing of charges against an accused, the untested evidence marshalled by the investigating authority in the course of the investigation is laid bare before the accused, who would have an idea as to the nature of evidence and case being built up against him by the prosecution. This is to enable the accused to prepare and strategize his defence”, it explained.

The Court said that the answers given by an accused assume great significance in assessing the evidence by the Court. It further noted that despite the incriminating evidence which has come up against the accused has been pointed out to him by the Court, he has not explained any of these but merely denied or feigned ignorance to which necessary inference can be drawn against him.

“… in our considered opinion, a clear pattern emerges out of the circumstances so proved with inferential and logical links which unmistakably points to the guilt of the appellant for committing murder of the deceased Vikram Shinde, punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and also for committing offences under Section 404 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Arms Act,1959 punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeal to an extent, upheld the judgment of the High Court, and set aside the conviction under Section 404 of IPC by giving benefit of doubt.

Cause Title- Chetan v. The State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 793)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate D.N. Goburdhun, AOR Abha R. Sharma, Advocates Rajani K. Prasad, and B. K. Prasad.

Respondent: AAG Muhammad Ali Khan, AOR V. N. Raghupathy, Advocates Eesha Bakshi, Omar Hoda, Kamran Khan, Arjun Sharma, Jayanti Singh, and Gurbani Bhatia.

Click here to read/download the Judgment