In Case Of Circumstantial Evidence, Sequence Of Events Must Lead To Only One Conclusion That It Is The Accused Alone Who Committed Offence: Supreme Court
The Appeal before the Apex Court was preferred by the accused against the judgment of the Madras High Court sustaining the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment.
While directing acquittal in a case of murder of a Special Branch Grade-I Constable, the Supreme Court has observed that in the case of circumstantial evidence when other evidence has been discarded, the sequence of events must be of such a nature which leads to only one conclusion that it is the accused alone who would have committed the offence.
The Appeal before the Apex Court was preferred against the judgment of the Madras High Court, partly allowing the appeal of the appellant acquitting him of the offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) while sustaining the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000.
The 3-Judge Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Augustine George Masih explained, “In the case of circumstantial evidence, which ultimately turns out is that, with other evidence having been discarded, the sequence of events must be of such a nature which leads to only one conclusion that it is the accused and the accused alone who would be the person to have committed the offence, thus, leaving no scope for coming to any other conclusion.”
AOR P. Soma Sundaram represented the Appellant whereas Senior Advocate Amit Anand Tiwari represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The incident dates back to the year 2018 when the deceased (Jagadeesh Durai) – a Special Branch Grade-I Constable found the appellant - Murugan (A1) and two others [Krishnan (A2) and Murugaperumal (A3)], carrying illegal sand in a tractor-trailer and to stop them from doing so he chased them on a Motorcycle. He informed an Inspector over a cell phone regarding the transportation of the stolen river sand, detailing the accused's names and the tractor's registration number. The Police Officials in search of the accused also visited the residence of the accused persons.
The next morning, the dead body of the deceased was found with injuries to the head, in the land owned by one Duraipandian. A complaint was lodged, and the articles found there were seized and marked. A1 and A2 were convicted under Sections 148 and 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, whereas A4 to A6 were convicted and sentenced to undergo two yearsof rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 IPC and life imprisonment. In the appeal preferred before the High Court, A4 to A6 were acquitted. However, the conviction and sentence of A1 and A2 under Section 302 IPC were sustained while acquitting them of the charge under Section 148 of IPC. The Appeal before the Apex Court was preferred by the first accused only.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the High Court had ignored the factum that when the evidence of the witnesses which were the basis of the prosecution case and the backbone was crumbled, the same benefit could not have been denied to the appellant being similarly placed with the other co-accused who were acquitted. The aspect with regard to the presentation of the FIR before the Magistrate at a belated stage also carried weight.
An explanation put forth was that the delay occurred because of the transfer of the Magistrate. No evidence was produced with regard to the transfer of the Magistrate, nor had the Head Clerk – PW15, in the Magistrate’s Court stated anything about the Magistrate’s transfer. “The justification, therefore, does not appear to be reasonable for the delay in presentation of the FIR before the Magistrate…It thus appears that the prosecution has failed to explain the inordinate delay in the presentation of the report to the Magistrate casting doubt on the prosecution case”, it said.
The Prosecution had rested its case, in its entirety, upon the evidence of PW-2, who was alleged to be the eye witness. He claimed to have seen the commission of the offence, but his entire evidence was disbelieved by the High Court on the ground that the presence of the said witness at the spot was wholly impractical, the conduct was inconsistent and against normal human behaviour. It was noticed that despite knowing the deceased, witnessing the incident and accompanying the dead body for the postmortem, he still chose not to inform the Police about the same. Moreover, he had given his statement to the Police under Section 161 after 17 days of the incident.
“A person who recognizes not only the appellant but also the deceased and is also present at the time of postmortem would not have, in natural course, hesitated to approach the Police officials to give information with regard to the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence. The evidence, thus of PW-12 does not command any credence which could be made the sole basis for holding the appellant guilty of an offence under Section 302. The last seen evidence, therefore, also having been found to be not trustworthy”, it said.
“In these circumstances, merely the recovery at the site of the incident of a wheel spanner, which according to the prosecution has fingerprints of the accused on it and three pairs of slippers would not be enough for holding the appellant guilty of having caused the death of the deceased”, it further added.
Thus, allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned judgment, the Bench ordered the appellant to be released.
Cause Title: Murugan v. The State Rep. By the Inspector of Police (Neutral Citation:2025 INSC 446)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR P. Soma Sundaram, Advocates C.P. Paramasivam, M P Pathiban,. Y. Arunagiri, Shreyas Kaushal
Respondent: Senior Advocate Amit Anand Tiwari, AOR Sabarish Subramanian, Advocates Devyani Gupta, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Saushria Havelia, Danish Saifi, Sarathraj B, Tanvi Anand