Last update:
The bench ruled that even without eyewitness testimony, the cumulative impact of evidence was sufficient for punishment.
The bench also noted a double-barrel gun, a live and two-spent cartridges, and a handbag was recovered from the appellant’s grandfather’s house on the appeller’s example, where he lived. (PTI file)
The Supreme Court (SC) retained a person’s sentence in 2006 to kill its friend, which is in a case based on circumstantial evidence, after finding out that the circumstances proved to be with a clear pattern, inferior and logical link, surely indicated his crime.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh said that no material has been done by the trial court and the Karnataka High Court to appreciate the evidence against the appellant Chetan, nor can it be said that any gross injustice has worked for them to wrong or ignore any physical evidence.
According to the prosecution, the appellant and the deceased Vikram Sinde were friends. The deceased borrowed Rs 4,000 from the appellant and refused to return the money. On July 10, 2006, the appellant took the deceased on his bike with a double-bail gun on the pretext of hunting and killed him in the complainant’s area.
Three days later, the body of the deceased was found and the appellant was arrested on 22 July 2006. He also produced the gold chain of the deceased.
The appellant said before the apex court that he and the deceased are being seen together for the last time, it can be said that he could not be installed with evidence and the recovery of the phone related to the deceased was also not proved. No one saw the appellant shooting the deceased as prosecution, nor was they seen together in the area where the dead body was found. The gun was also not seized from the deceased, but was produced in front of the police by the appellant’s grandfather.
His lawyer also struggled because the motive was not established, the prosecution case cannot be raised on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
Analyzing the evidence, the court said that even though the last seen witness was declared hostile, he reiterated in his cross-examination that he had seen the deceased and the appellant together. Thus, his evidence was reliable in relation to this aspect.
Under other circumstances, the bench stated that the appellant was hiding from July 11, 2006 to July 22, 2006. He was arrested on July 22, 2006 after a wide discovery at several places after identifying the dead body. He misled his friends, his family members and the deceased. The individual effects of the deceased were recovered from the appellant, like a gold chain.
The court also stated that in view of the recovery of the gun and the cartridges and forensic and ballistic evidence were spent, which could include a link between pellets and gun recovered pellets recovered from the deceased’s body, which could throw suspicion on the final-referment theory, individual; Rather, it is presented inconsistently.
The bench also noted a double-barrel gun, a live and two-spent cartridges, and a handbag was recovered from the appellant’s grandfather’s house on the appeller’s example, where he lived.
The appellant tried to make a case that no one had seen the appellant to carry the gun; However, the bench said that the said dispute was devoid of merit in view of the evidence of the forensic expert, who examined the gun and clearly stated that the gun could be destroyed.
The bench said, “There is no evidence of any witness to the gun by the appellant, it may not be fatal to the prosecution case.”
The court said that where evidence is in nature, the circumstances from which guilt is to be estimated should be fully established. In other words, in every situation, which demands some conclusions to be concluded, they need to be proved according to the law, and there can be no element and any element of estimate; And each of these circumstances proved that a full range should be created without any break to clearly indicate the crime of the accused person.
The bench said that the court would have to investigate the cumulative impact of the existence of these circumstances, which would indicate the offense of the accused, although no one situation could be sufficient to prove the crime in itself.
Thus, if the joint effect of all these circumstances, each of which has been proved independently, establishes the crime of the accused, then the punishment can be maintained based on such circumstances. These circumstances should be proved, only in accordance with the hypothesis of the crime of the accused and except for every hypothesis, except for what has been proved.
If an evaluation of a set of perfect conditions to suit a set of perfect conditions to suit perfect and socially recognized human behavior, as an apparent and fixed pattern, which unexpectedly indicates unexpectedly for the accused person’s conviction, we do not see any reason that we should not accept such an estimate that the accused should be correct to overcome the accused.
On the other hand, if such an estimate is sought to be killed on the ground of any doubt, the suspicion should be a reasonable to suit human behavior under the circumstances of the case, not an imaginary, abstract speculation or imagination, the bench said.
In the case, the court also stated that there was evidence that the appellant was absconding.
However, it has been said that it is not only absconding himself, not a guilty brain formed because even an innocent person can feel nervous and try to get the police out from when it is suspected of incorrectly involving the instinct of self-conservation.
The bench said, “The work of absconding is definitely a relevant piece of evidence along with other evidence and this evidence is a conduct under Section 8 of the Act, 1872, which points to his guilty mind. The needle of suspicion is strengthened by the needle act,” the bench said.
As a motive, the court said, this is something difficult to prove because it is hidden in the deep holiday of the person concerned and in the absence of any open declaration by the person concerned, the purpose has to be estimated from the activities and conduct of the individual.
The bench said, “While the evidence of the purpose definitely strengthens the prosecution case on the basis of circumstantial evidence, failure to prove it may not be fatal.”
Even if it is believed that there was no such monetary transaction between the appellant and the deceased, the prosecution could not affect the case, the court conducted.
Regarding the law of evidence, the bench said that the law is not necessary that a fact needs to be proved on the full conditions of all doubts.
“What does the law contemplate to prove any fact, it will have to end any appropriate doubt. Proper doubt does not mean any trivial, imaginary or imaginary doubt, but due to the evidence exiting the evidence and doubt on the basis of general knowledge. A fact is proved that if the court reviews its existence, it accepts that it is in existence.
The court also said that the importance of the provision of Section 313 of CRPC in the case should not be lost.
The bench said, “Investigation of an accused under Section 313 CRPC is an important component of the judicial inquiry into the evidence trusted by the prosecution against an accused.”
The court said, it is to enable the accused to prepare their defense and make strategic. He will have all the opportunities to discredit the witness of any prosecution or to question any evidence through the cross examination equipment. After this he will get an opportunity to lead his defense evidence if any. It is in this context that the answer given by an accused has great importance in assessing evidence by the court.
“While the accused has not been forced to answer the questions made to him and still can maintain his silence or deny evidence, the court gives a perspective to the silence or a clear or incorrect answer court, yet to properly evaluate the prosecution of the prosecution, which is obtained by the prosecution.
Rejecting the appeal, the bench said, in the current case, despite the evidence coming against the appellant and the court has indicated them, they have not explained none of them, but only refusal or ignorance has been denied that necessary estimates can be estimated against him.
“We, therefore, are satisfied that the appellant’s sentence by the trial court, which has been retained by the High Court, does not warrant any intervention from this court,” the bench said.
Lobite editor Sanya Talwar has been leading the organization since its inception. After practicing in courts for more than four years, he discovered his affinity for legal journalism. He has done last work …Read more
Lobite editor Sanya Talwar has been leading the organization since its inception. After practicing in courts for more than four years, he discovered his affinity for legal journalism. He has done last work … Read more
See comments
- first published:
