The division judge bench of Justice B.R.Gawai and Justice Vikram Nath of the apex court in the case of Ram Pratap Vs The State of Haryana held that it is necessary for the prosecution to establish each and every circumstance beyond reasonable doubt to form a complete chain of evidence so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that Om Prakash was on visiting terms with the present appellant. When the accused visited the house of the deceased, after taking tea both went together. At 12 midnight, the present appellant - Ram Pratap along with others came to the house of the deceased with his dead body in a jeep. Thereafter, on the basis of the complaint of Jagdish Chander, an FIR came to be registered. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the four accused persons. When Jagdish Chander reported the matter to the police, he only reported on the basis of suspicion against the appellant and there was a delay of 14 hours in lodging the FIR.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court held that by referring to the judgement titled Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra that suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. This Court has held that there is not only a grammatical but also a legal distinction between ‘may’ and ‘must’.
For proving a case based on circumstantial evidence, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish each and every circumstance beyond reasonable doubt, and further, that the circumstances so proved must form a complete chain of evidence so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show, in all human probability, that the act has been done by the accused. Further, it has been held that the facts so established must exclude every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.
In the present case, if the evidence of Jagdish Chander (PW - 4) is to be appreciated wherein he has stated that the accused came to his house and informed him that he has killed the deceased-Om Prakash, such statement does not find any mention in the oral report.
Apart from this, the delay of 14 hours in lodging the oral report has not been sufficiently explained. The only witness of the last seen theory, i.e. PW-5, has turned hostile and has thus been disbelieved. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the charges.
CASE NAME- Ram Pratap Vs The State of Haryana
CITATION- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 804/2011
CORUM- Justice B.R.Gawai and Justice Vikram Nath
DATE- 1.12.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
