Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take The Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: SC
The Supreme Court reiterated that a suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court explained that “where the prosecution proves that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellants and the death of the deceased has occurred soon thereafter, the burden would shift upon the appellants.” However, merely because the appellants were seen near the place where the crime occurred cannot be the implication that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellants.
Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Advocate Shekhar G Devasa represented the appellants, while AAG Aman Panwar appeared for the respondent.
An FIR was lodged against the appellants under Section 302 of the IPC. the case of the prosecution was that one of the appellants bore enmity towards the complainant due to business losses and had allegedly conspired to murder the father (the deceased) of the complainant. On the day of the incident, the appellants attempted to assault the deceased with a chopper from the backside, who later succumbed to his injuries.
The appellants were arrested and were convicted under Sections 120-B and 302 read with 34 of the IPC. The Karnataka High Court altered the conviction to Part-I of Section 304 of IPC from Section 302 of IPC.
The appellants argued that their conviction was based on circumstantial evidence where the prosecution had failed to prove any of the incriminating circumstances. The Supreme Court agreed with the said submission.
The Court reiterated that “the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.”
The Court relied on the judgment rendered in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 1984 INSC 121 where the Supreme Court had held that “it is a primary principle that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ proved guilty before a court can convict the accused.”
Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellants and the judgment of the High Court was quashed and set aside.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Raghunatha & Anr. v. The State Of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 238)
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocates Shekhar G Devasa, Manish Tiwari, Thashmitha Muthanna, Shashi Bhushan and Vishwanath Chaturvedi
Respondent: AAG Aman Panwar; AOR V. N. Raghupathy; Advocates Manendra Pal Gupta and Shivam Singh Baghel
