Circumstantial evidence enough to convict — SC

NEW DELHI, NOV 16: In murder cases where direct evidence is scanty, trial courts can convict an accused on the basis of circumstantial evi...

NEW DELHI, NOV 16: In murder cases where direct evidence is scanty, trial courts can convict an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence provided they were "so complete to leave no doubt about the guilt of the accused", the Supreme Court has said.

While deciding an appeal in a murder case, a Division Bench comprising Justice K T Thomas and Justice R P Sethi said "The chain of circumstances, furnished by the prosecution, should be so complete as not to lead any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused."

Justice Sethi, writing the judgement for the Bench, cited an oft-quoted proverb "witnesses may lie but the circumstances cannot" and added "To convict a person on the basis of circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances, relied upon by the prosecution must be clearly established."

Story continues below this ad

He said the circumstantial evidence should be consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with the innocence of the accused.

In cases where the prosecution case was mainly based on circumstantial evidence, medical evidence plays an important role, he said.

"Medical evidence in such a case may be an important circumstance giving assurance to the existence of the other circumstances alleged against the culprit," Justice Sethi said.

One Roop Devi was married to Shyam Mohan on June 6, 1973. Her father, after receiving a letter from her on March 18, 1977, went to see her but was told by his son-in-law’s elder brother Hari Mohan that she died of cholera three days back.

Story continues below this ad

Suspecting foul play, the father lodged an FIR on March 20, 1977 and two days later, the body of his daughter was found in a gunny bag bearing bullet woulds. The trial Court had convicted Hari Mohan of murder charges and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

The High Court acuitted the accused when they appealed against the trial court verdict. The Uttar Pradesh Government filed appeal against the High Court order in the apex Court.

Justice Sethi said the Apex Court has consistently held that when the evidence against the accused, particularly when charged with grave offence like murder consisted of only circumstances, it must be qualitatively such that the accused was guilty.

While criticising the Police for a shoddy investigation, the bench said "It appears that the valuable evidence, though available, was not collected apparently for ulterior puposes."

Story continues below this ad

However, taking into account the strained relations between the deceased and her in-laws due to demand of dowry, deceased letter to her father that she apprehended being killed by her in-laws, gun shot heard on the date of her death, and the licenced gun possessed by the accused, the Bench upheld the trial court verdict.