Approach In Criminal Trial Has To Be Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt & Not Probability Or Possibility: SC Acquits Accused In 44-Yr-Old Murder Case

The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the accused persons (including the appellants herein), arising out of a judgment of the Trial Court thereby convicting all the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 and Sections 147 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. They were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and one-year rigorous imprisonment respectively.

The 3-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice K. Vinod Chandran asserted, “In the present case we find that no such chain of circumstances has been established by the prosecution, which proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is appellants and the appellants alone who have committed the crime.”

Senior Advocate Rajul Bhargava represented the Appellants while Advocate Vikas Bansal represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

The deceased was married to accused No.3. The incident dates back to the year 1981 when the uncle of the deceased lodged a complaint stating that Nand Kishore and Ram Prakash, residents of village Rasoolpur came to his house and informed him that the deceased had died due to burn injuries. The complainant and others rushed to the house of the accused persons where they found that her body was kept on a cot and she was burnt from top to bottom. It was the case of the prosecution that the deceased was ill-treated on account of non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry. Another motive that was attributed to the accused persons was that the deceased had not given birth to a child though a period of three years of marriage had been over.

On the basis of the oral complaint, an FIR was registered and a charge sheet was filed against six accused persons. The Trial court convicted and sentenced all the six accused persons, as aforesaid. Being aggrieved thereby, the accused persons preferred a Criminal Appeal before the High Court which was dismissed. Thus, the appellants, who are original accused Nos.1 and 4, approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that the case was based upon the evidence of the uncle and father of the deceased respectively. It was further made clear by the Bench that the present case occurred before Section 304-B of the IPC, was brought into the statute book and thus the case would fall only within the parameters of Section 302 IPC.

“For this Court to uphold the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the prosecution will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is the appellants who have committed the offence. No doubt that in view of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the burden would shift upon the accused. However, for the burden to shift upon the accused, the initial burden will have to be discharged by the prosecution. In a case such as the present one, the prosecution will have to show that before the death occurred it is only the appellants who were in the company of the deceased. The issue would have been different if it was only the husband and the wife who were residing together and the death had occurred in suspicious circumstances”, it explained.

It was also noticed by the Bench that the prosecution had chosen to proceed against all the male members of the family and the mother-in-law of the deceased. Only the other women in the family i.e. the wives of the other brothers of the accused/Umesh had not been proceeded against. Clarifying that the present matter rests upon circumstantial evidence and relying upon its judgment in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984), the Court said, “As such, the prosecution will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is the appellants and the appellants alone, who have committed the crime. Every hypothesis except the guilt of the appellants will have to be ruled out. As held by this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra), there is not only a grammatical distinction between ‘may’ and ‘must’ but also a legal distinction.”

The Bench also found that no such chain of circumstances had been established by the prosecution, which proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellants who committed the crime. Coming to the motive of non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry, the Bench referred to the evidence of the father of the deceased who had admitted that there was no letter addressed by the deceased to her family members regarding the demand of dowry and ill-treatment on account of non-fulfillment thereof.

“As such, in the present case, we are of the view that the conviction is based only on suspicion. As held by this court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra), however strong the suspicion, it cannot take place of proof beyond reasonable doubt”, it said while also adding “The High Court has further observed that the prosecution case that the appellants set the deceased on fire was a possible and acceptable view. The approach in the criminal trial has to be of proof beyond reasonable doubt and not the probability or a possibility.”

Thus, allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned judgments, the Bench acquitted the appellants and directed their release.

Cause Title: Suresh Chandra and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 156)

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocate Rajul Bhargava, AOR Kartikeya Bhargava, Advocate Jasir Aftab

Respondent: Advocates Vikas Bansal, AOR Yasharth Kant, Advocates Sonal Kushwah, Suryaansh Kishan Razdan, Abhas Upmanyu

Click here to read/download Judgment