LexKANHAIYA LAL versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 3 S.C.R 744 KANHAIYA LAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (Criminal Appeal No. 595 of 2014) MARCH 13, 2014 [T.S. THAKUR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: C ss. 302 and 201 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Dead body recovered from the well belonging to accused- appellant - Appellant and deceased stated to have been last seen together previous night - Witness declared hostile - Held: In the instant case, circumstance of last seen together does 0 not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was appellant who committed the crime - Mere non-explanation on the part of appellant, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against him - Motive is not established -Conviction of appellant cannot be maintained merely on suspicion, however strong it may be, or on his conduct -- Conviction and sentence E imposed on appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge, by giving him benefit of doubt - Evidence - Circumstantial evidence. The appellant (accused A-2) and accused A-1 were F prosecuted in connection with the murder of the brother of PW4. The prosecution case was that at about 9 p.m. on 31-08-2003, the appellant-accused and the deceased visited PW4 and bought a bottle of liquor. When the deceased did not reach his home till the morning, his wife G ( PW10) went to the house of PW4, who told her about the visit of the deceased and A-2 on the previous night. When PW10 accompanied by PW11 went to the house of A-2 and did not find the deceased there, she lodged a report about the missing of her husband. The villagers H 744 KANHAIYA LAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN • 745 found the belongings of the deceased floating in the well A of A-2. PW3 lodged another report at the Police station. Police took out the body of the deceased and registered a case of offenses punishable u/ss 302 and 201 IPC. A-2 and A-1 were arrested. The trial court convicted A-2 u/s 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for B life and 3 years RI respectively under the two counts. A- 1 was acquitted of the charge. The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentences of A-2. Allowing the appeal, the Court c HELD: 1.1 From the medical evidence it is clear that the deceased suffered a homicidal death. However, nobody witnessed the occurrence and the case rests on circumstantial evidence. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be D justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. The circumstances from which an inference as E to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. [para 8 and 10] [749- G-H; 750-A-B, G] 1.2 The primary, if not the solitary basis of the conviction of the appellant is on the theory of last seen, F as the deceased along with accused A-2 visited the house of PW4 at 9.00 pm on 31.8.2003. PW4 did not fully support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. G He has stated that on the occurrence night A-2 and the deceased came to his house and he gave one bottle of . .-liquor and they returned together. It is the testimony of . PW10 that her husband did not return home on the occurrence night and in the morning she went to the house of PW4 and inquired and came to know from him H 746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 3 S.C.R. A about the visit of her husband along with accused A-2 to his house in the night. Though PW4 was treated as hostile witness, the above testimony of him is corroborated by the testimony of PW10. [para 11] (750- G-H; 751-A-D] B 1.3 The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the appellant who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. Mere non-explanation on the part C of the appellant, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against him. [para 12] (751-D-E] 1.4 The alleged illicit intimacy of the appellant with the wife of PW3, the brother of the deceased, is said to be 0 the cause for the occurrence. According to PW3, his wife left him four years back and was residing with her parents in a different village. PW3
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.