SURESH CHANDRA TIWARI & ANR. [APPELLANT(S)]  Vs.  STATE OF UTTARAKHAND   [RESPONDENT(S)]

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1902 OF 2013

(2JB, J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra JJ., delivered by MANOJ MISRA, J.)

This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand dated May 24, 2012, in Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2003. The High Court partially allowed the appellants’ appeal against the Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh’s decision in Session Trial No. 36 of 1997. The conviction was modified from Section 302/34 (murder) to Section 304 Part I (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, the sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.

The appellants contended that the prosecution’s reliance on circumstantial evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They argued that the “last seen” circumstance, narrated by PW-2, lacked proximity between the location where the deceased was last seen with the accused and the place of recovery of the body, leaving room for intervening factors. The incriminating recovery of items at the accused’s instance was challenged as it was not conclusively linked to either accused under Section 313 CrPC. Additionally, the recovery of a stone allegedly connected to the crime was deemed inadmissible due to a lack of proof that it caused the injuries or bore the deceased’s blood.

The testimony of PW-2 about seeing the accused walking near the crime scene was dismissed as inconsequential and unreliable, given the delayed disclosure. The recovered meat bag and the vendor’s testimony were also discounted, as no direct connection to the accused was established. In contrast, the State argued that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and pointed unequivocally to the appellants’ guilt. The State emphasized that concurrent findings by the trial and High Court were based on robust evidence.

The Supreme Court noted its authority under Article 136 to intervene if evidence evaluation was flawed or legal principles were misapplied. The Supreme Court concluded that the trial and High Court failed to properly evaluate whether the incriminating circumstances were proven beyond reasonable doubt and unerringly pointed to the guilt of the accused. The circumstances, including the “last seen” evidence, recovery of a meat bag, and the accused walking near the scene, were neither definitive nor conclusively proven. The disclosure statements were inadmissible as they did not lead to discovery, and no forensic or medical evidence linked the recovered items to the crime.

The Court criticized the High Court for altering the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of IPC, noting the multiple injuries on the deceased indicated clear intent to kill. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, without any effort by the accused to argue exceptions under Section 300 IPC, altering the conviction was unjustified. As the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence, the Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellants, and set aside the conviction. The appellants, who were on bail, were not required to surrender, and their bail bonds were discharged.