ASHISH BATHAM versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 146 · Decided: 09-09-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ASHISH BATHAM 
V. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 302 and 449--Murder and house trespass 
to commit murder--Conviclion based on circumstantial evidence--Concurrenl 
C findings. bf court be/ow--Sustainability--On appeal held, evidence relied on 
for substantialing circumstances suffered from serious infirmities and lack of 
legal credibilities to merit acceptance-Also does not lend continuity lo chain 
of even/s resulting in murder-Hence conviclion sel aside. 
Appellant-accused committed house trespass and murder of two 
D girls. Trial Court relied on circumstantial evidence that appellant-accused 
failed in love affair with the elder of the two sisters and also failed to marry 
her; that he was seen entering and leaving house where both the sisters 
were found dead; that accused was found absent in suspicious 
circumstances one day before the date of incident and three days after 
the incident from his office and the improbable and unproved defence of 
E alibi taken that he was with his sister in a different place; that the chain 
seized from his possession and identification of the same by deceased's 
parents and the seizure of knife and blood stained clothes. It convicted 
appellant-accused under Sections 302 and 449 IPC. High Court confirmed 
the same. Hence the present appeal. 
F 
Appellant contended that the case being on circumstantial evidence, 
the prosecution miserably failed to prove the circumstances satisfactorily 
to complete the chain of circumstances so as to establish conclusively the 
guilt of the accused in a manner that rule out every hypothesis inconsistent 
with his innocence; that the missing links were also liberally filled upon 
G by manipulated material and baseless surmises resulting in grave injustice 
and the prosecution suppressed and withheld, relevant and most vital 
materials gathered by them in the course of investigation and also withheld 
important witness from being examined. 
H 
Respondent contended that the prosecution successfully proved its 
146 
I 
ASHISH BA THAM v. ST A TE OF MAD HY A PRADESH 
14 7 
case by placing on record circumstantial C\'idence which go to establish A 
·the guilt of the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I Both the courts below ha\'e committed serious error in 
presuming the guilt of appellant first and try thereafter to find out one B 
or other reason to justify· such a conclusion without an objecti\'e, 
independent and impartial analysis or assessment of the materials, before 
recording a finding on the guilt of appellant. Contradictory standards or 
yardstick and lack of coherence is found writ large in the manner of 
consideration adopted by courts below. In the case of e\'aluation of the 
e\'idence, insignificant things ha\'e been unduly magnified and serious C 
lapses and withholding of \'ital materials and relevimt witnesses have been 
unjustifiably glossed over despite the fact that the production of those 
materials would have really helped to fix the guilt or otherwise of appellant 
concretely and bring about the real truth about the matter. 1164-B-DI 
1.2. The fact that at a busy place like the one where the incident 
occurred, nearby the Hospital area, a thickly residential with surroundings 
D 
as spoken to by the witnesses such murder of two girls could be said to 
have been executed without attracting the attention of anyone nearby or 
regular passerby at that point of time in the area also seriously 
improbablise the prosecution \'ersion that appellant alone was and could E 
ha\'e been the culprit. Also that the doubtful and suspect nature of the 
evidence sought to be relied upon to substantiate the circumstances suffer 
from serious infirmities and lack of legal credibilities to merit acceptance 
in the hands of Courts of Law, since the very circumstanc.es sought to be 
relied upon themselves stood seriously undermined the existence or proof F 
of one or more of stray circumstances in the chain, break and dislocate 
the link in such a manner so as to irreversibly snap the link in the chain 
of circumstances rendering it difficult, inappropriate as well as impossible 
too, to consider even one or more of them alone to either sufficiently 
constitute or provide the necessary basis to legitimately presume the guilt 
of the appellant. 1164-E-GI 
G 
1.3. The appellant seems to have been roped in merely on sus

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.