Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said that howsoever strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt as it set aside the Delhi High Court and trial court's concurrent findings holding two men guilty of murdering his father.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra allowed an appeal filed by Kamal Kishore and Manoj who were accused of killing co-accused Prem Singh's father, Hoshiyar Singh at his instance on September 10, 2009.

According to the prosecution, Prem had a property dispute with the deceased father. It was alleged that on earlier occasions, the accused had given beatings to the deceased and had also threatened to kill him.

All the three accused were convicted of murder and awarded life term by the trial court. The HC also dismissed their appeals.

The top court, however, found one of the witnesses of the last seen had turned hostile while there was improvement in version of another witness.

The bench also did not appreciate the correctness of the Delhi High Court's findings that the witnesses having identified the appellants in the dock is sufficient to hold that they have been duly identified by the witnesses and prove the guilt of the accused.

"If the accused are already shown to the witnesses in the Police Station, then the sanctity of TIP (Test Identification Parade) before the court is doubtful," the bench said.

"We find that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the case as they need to prove the incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence with regard to last seen theory is totally unreliable. The evidence regarding the CDRs also is one which does not inspire any confidence," the bench added.

Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in case of 'Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra (1984), the bench said the law with regard to conviction based upon circumstantial evidence is very well crystalised.

"It has been held that the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved, and that there must be a chain of evidence so complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused," the bench said.

The bench also said this court has held that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It has been held that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. It has been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved”. It has been held that the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. 

Case Title: KAMAL V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)