LexCHANDRU @ CHANDRASEKARAN versus STATE REP. BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CB CID AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 105 CHANDRU @ CHANDRASEKARAN v. STATE REP. BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CB CID AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1193 of 2011) FEBRUARY 12, 2019 [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s.302 r/w. s. 120B – Murder – Prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence – Conviction by the trial court – High Court affirmed the conviction in appeal – On appeal, held: There was inconsistency in the statement of the complainant (PW1) – There was delay in filing private complaint – The private complaint which was filed four years later was contrary to the first complaint which was filed immediately after the incident – Evidence of PW1 and PW5 cannot be relied on as they did not come to the court with clean hands – The circumstances relied on by the prosecution cannot lead to the inference that it is the accused alone who committed the offence – In view of inconsistencies in medical evidence, prosecution has even failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the death was homicidal – Thus prosecution miserably failed to link the accused with the death of the deceased – The appellants-accused are entitled to be acquitted. Evidence: Circumstantial evidence – Appreciation of – Held: In the case of circumstantial evidence it should be observed that (1) circumstances leading to inference of guilt must be proved beyond doubt; (2) circumstances should unerringly point to the guilt of the accused (3) circumstances should be so linked to form a chain leading to only one conclusion i.e. guilt of accused and (4) There is probability of the crime having been committed by a person other than the accused. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: There are no eye-witnesses to the case and this is a case based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution which lead to an inference to the [2019] 2 S.C.R. 105 105 A B C D E F G H 106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R. guilt of the accused must be proved beyond doubt. The circumstances should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be linked together in such a manner that the cumulative effect of the chain formed by joining the links is so complete that it leads to only one conclusion i.e. the guilt of the accused. That there should be no probability of the crime having been committed by a person other than the accused. [Paras 9 and 11][112-C, 113-D-F] Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343 : [1952] SCR 1091 – relied on. Wills on Circumstantial Evidence (Chapter VI) by Sir Alfred Wills Butterworths, Seventh Edition, Pp 296- 329 – referred to. 2.1 In a case based on circumstantial evidence it is always better for the courts to deal with each circumstance separately and then link the circumstances which have been proved to arrive at a conclusion. In the present case, though a reference has been made to some circumstances, the circumstances have not been discussed separately. [Para 13][113-G] 2.2 Though the circumstance of last seen together is proved, the manner in which the accused reached Chennai and the guest house in question suggests a total different story. It was not the accused, who had organised the trip but it was the deceased, who had organised the trip and, therefore, it cannot be said that the accused had taken the deceased to the guest house with the intention of killing him. This assumption by both the courts below is based on no evidence. [Para 13] [114-B, C, 115-B-C] 2.3 Medical evidence led in this case clearly indicates that the deceased died due to overdose of Tidijesic. It is not disputed that 4 ml of Tidijesic was injected into the wrist of the deceased. The medical evidence clearly shows that after chemical analysis it was found that the amount of the offending substance found in the blood of the deceased would be equal to injecting 40 ml of Tidijesic. Therefore, there is no manner of doubt that the deceased died due to overdosing of drug. The prosecution, by means of the medical evidence, has failed to link the accused with the death of the deceased. The prosecution has failed to A B C D E F G H 107 prove the exact time of death of the deceased. The deceased was first injected an injection between 9.30 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. As per doctor, the effect of this could end in about six hours. Therefore, the possibility of the deceased getting up himself in the middle of the night to inject himself cannot be ruled out. There is also
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.