Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court last week reiterated that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the chain has to be complete in all respects so as to indicate the guilt of the accused and also exclude any other theory of the crime.

While making this observation, a division bench has relied on the rulings of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) and Sailendra Rajdev Pasvan vs. State of Gujarat Etc. (2020).

In the case before court, prosecution led evidence to establish three links of the chain, (i) motive, (ii) last seen, and (iii) recovery of weapon of assault, at the pointing out of the appellant-accused.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah found that the High Court, while dealing with the evidence on record, agreed with the finding of motive and the last seen, however, insofar as the recovery of the weapon of assault and blood-stained clothes were concerned, the High Court held the same to be invalid and also went to the extent to say that the recovery which had been made did not indicate that the appellant has committed the offence.

In this regard, the bench said, "Still, it observed that looking to the entire gamut and other clinching evidence against the appellant of last seen and motive, affirmed the conviction.... We do not find such conclusion of the High Court to be strictly in accordance with law."

Top Court thus held that if the High Court found one of the links to be missing and not proved in view of the settled law on the point, the conviction ought to have been interfered with.

Thus, while allowing the criminal appeal, the court suspended the life sentence recorded by the Trial Court under Section 302 IPC.

Case Title: LAXMAN PRASAD @ LAXMAN vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH