Overview<\/b><\/p>\n
In this case, the Supreme Court examined the law as to the circumstantial evidence while deciding whether the conviction of the appellant for murder was sustainable or not.<\/span><\/p>\n The appeal arose from findings of the Trial Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.<\/span><\/p>\n The principal issue to be dealt with by the Court was whether the prosecution proved the complete chain of circumstantial evidence, which excluded every possibility except the guilt of the accused.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Facts of the Case<\/b><\/p>\n The prosecution stated that on 24 May 2004, the appellants took away the deceased, Mohinder, on a motorcycle from his house at night. He did not return home. The next morning, his body was found in a field near GT Road with injuries on his head.<\/span><\/p>\n The prosecution relied upon circumstances, such as the deceased being last seen with the appellants, recovery of a damaged motorcycle and footwear from the area nearby, disclosure statements allegedly made by the accused, and motive that the deceased was about to inform the police about their narcotics activities.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The prosecution\u2019s case was accepted by the Trial Court, and both the accused were convicted. The conviction was further affirmed by the High Court.<\/span><\/p>\n The appellants challenged the same before the Supreme Court while contending that the evidence was insufficient and the circumstances were also consistent with a road accident.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Legal Issues<\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Decision\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court, and acquitted both the appellants.<\/span><\/p>\n It was held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. The evidence did not point towards the accused being guilty or exclude every other possibility.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Court also found the last seen evidence to be unreliable. Medical evidence indicated that the deceased had an empty stomach despite having eaten shortly before leaving his home. The Court therefore held that the prosecution failed to prove this particular circumstance beyond any reasonable doubt.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n It was also observed by the Court that the prosecution failed to establish the ownership of the damaged motorcycle. Disclosure statements were also of no assistance as such because they did not lead to any new incriminating fact, and the alleged crime scene had already been identified by the police. The prosecution also failed to prove any credible motive.<\/span><\/p>\n After examining the medical evidence and the circumstances, it was noted by the Court that the injuries were consistent with a motorcycle accident. It was concluded that the prosecution failed to prove murder beyond reasonable doubt and the evidence clearly showed an accidental death.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Accordingly, both the appellants were acquitted and discharged from their bail bonds.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1148 OF 2013 Didar Singh @ Dari\u00a0 [Appellant(s) ]\u00a0 \u00a0Vs.\u00a0 The State of Haryana\u00a0 [Respondent(s)] WITH\u00a0 \u00a0CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. \u00a0 786 OF 2017\u00a0 \u00a0 Ranjeet Singh @ Jeeta \u00a0[Appellant(s) ]\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 \u00a0The State of Haryana\u00a0 [Respondent(s)] (DB, Before Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.) Overview In this case, the Supreme Court examined […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3867,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3865","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3865","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3865"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3865\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3869,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3865\/revisions\/3869"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3867"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3865"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3865"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3865"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n