KAMAL versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: [2023] 11 S.C.R. 49 · Decided: 07-08-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 11 S.C.R. 49 : 2023 INSC 678 
49
CASE DETAILS
KAMAL
v.
STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
(Criminal Appeal No. 465 of 2017)
AUGUST 07, 2023
[B. R. GAVAI AND PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration : In a prosecution case where father was found 
dead by the complainant-brother of the deceased, and suspicion arose on the 
son of the deceased on account of the property dispute between the father and 
the son, and the son fl ed from the scene of incident and was apprehended two 
days later, whether the courts below were justifi ed in convicting the son u/s. 
302/34 IPC and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life.
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 r/w 34 – Murder – Circumstantial 
evidence and last seen theory – Conviction on basis of, by the courts 
below – Correctness:
Held : Failure of the prosecution to prove the case as they need to 
prove the incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt – Suspicion 
howsoever strong, cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt – 
Sanctity of test identifi cation parade before the court doubtful since the accused 
were already shown to the witnesses in the Police Station – Evidence with 
regard to last seen theory totally unreliable – Evidence regarding the Call 
Detail Records-CDRs does not inspire any confi dence – Thus, the judgment 
and order passed by the High Court as also the trial court quashed and set aside 
– Appellants acquitted of all charges – Evidence. [Paras 13, 19, 20 and 21]
Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Conviction on basis of – 
Conditions to be fulfi lled:
Held : Circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn 
should be fully established – Facts so established should be consistent only 
50
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, they should not be explainable 
on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty – Circumstances 
should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should exclude 
every possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved – There must 
be a chain of evidence so complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground 
for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. [Para 18]
Evidence – Case of murder – Conviction on basis of strong 
suspicion – Correctness of: 
Held :  Suspicion howsoever strong, cannot take place of a proof 
beyond reasonable doubt. [Para 19]
Evidence – Last seen theory – Reliance upon:
Held : Evidence with regard to last seen theory totally unreliable. 
[Para 20]
Evidence – Call Detail Records – Reliance upon:
Held : Evidence regarding Call Detail Records does not inspire any 
confi dence. [Para 20]
Test identifi cation parade – Evidentiary value, when accused 
already shown to the witnesses in the Police Station:
Held : Sanctity of test identifi cation parade before the court is 
doubtful. [Para 13]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 
116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88 – relied on.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 465 
of 2017.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.08.2014 of the High Court of Delhi 
at New Delhi in CRLA No. 1136 of 2013.
With
Criminal Appeal No. 2295 of 2023.
51
KAMAL v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Appearances:
Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, Ms. Kheyali Singh, R K Kapoor, Ms. Shweta 
Kapoor, Ms. Sarabjeet Kaur, Rajat Kapoor, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv., Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Ms. Pratiksha 
Mishra, Ms. Ronika Tater, Ms. Rupakshi Soni, Divik Mathur, Nikhil Chandra 
Jaiswal, Simarjeet Singh Salooja, A.K.Panda, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Ms. Nidhi 
Khanna, Navanjay Mahapatra, Noor Rampal, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, Advs. 
for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT/ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
B. R. GAVAI, J. 
1. Leave granted in appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 6213 of 2021.
2. The appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 5th August 2014 
passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1242, 
936 and 1136 of 2013, thereby affi  rming the judgment and order dated 17th 
May 2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II (North-West), Rohini 
Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial court’), vide which the trial 
court convicted the original three accused for the off ence punishable under 
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter 
referred to as ‘IPC’) and sentenced them to undergo imprison

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