LexMAJENDRAN LANGESWARAN versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 907 MAJENDRAN LANGESWARAN v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1300 of 2009) JULY 1, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] 907 Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 - Murder - Incident occurred A B on a ship while it was on the high seas - Allegation that appellant-helmsman killed another helmsman with a knife - C Conviction of appellant based on circumstantial evidence - Justification - Held: On facts, not justified - There were many inconsistencies and infirmities in the prosecution version - The very fact that two blood-stained .knives were found by the prosecution proves that the prosecution failed to give sufficient D explanation as to who had assaulted the deceased by using another knife - Two other helmsmen present when appellant allegedly made confession before PW-6, not examined by the prosecution - Though deceased was alleged to have been assaulted as many as 14 times by a sharp-edged weapon E and there was massive blood at the site of the offence, no blood had spilled on the appellant or his clothes - Moreover, nothing on record by way of explanation from the prosecution side as to why the clothes of the appellant were not seized - Vital piece of evidence regarding enmity of the appellant with F his superiors and others was suppressed - Even the Investigating Officer failed to inspect the cabin where the dead body was found - No site plan was prepared by the Investigating Officer - Before arrival of the Investigating Agency officials, the place of occurrence including the cabin G was completely washed and cleaned in such a way as if nothing had happened in the cabin and the place around it - Conclusion of the guilt of the appellant not fully established beyond all shadow of doubt as the circumstances not 907 H 908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 10 S.C.R. A conclusive in nature - Neither the chain of events was complete nor the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the offence was committed by the appellant and none else. Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Appreciation of - 8 Conviction based on circumstantial evidence - Permissibility - Held: Conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence - But while dealing with conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should in the first C instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should also be consistent with oniy one hypothesis i.e. the guilt of the accused - Onus lies on the prosecution to prove that the chain of event is complete and not to leave any doubt in the mind of the Court - All circumstances must lead to the conclusion that the accused is the only one who has D committed the crime and none else. The accused-appellant and the deceased 'L' were helmsmen (crew members) on a ship sailing from South Africa to Japan via Singapore. The prosecution case was E that while the ship was on the high seas, the appellant allegedly approached the llnd Officer (PW-6) with a blood- stained knife in his hand and his hands smearing in blood and allegedly confessed before him that he had killed 'L'. The entire prosecution case was based on circumstantial F evidence as no one saw the murder having been committed by the appellant. The trial court held the appellant guilty of committing the murder of 'L' taking note of an earlier incident of assault in which the appellant had sustained injuries at G the hands of the deceased as motive on the part of the appellant for commission of crime, the extra- judicial confession made by him to PW-6 and presence of his fingerprints on the knife that was allegedly used as the weapon of offence. The appellant was convicted under H Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. MAJENDRAN LANGESWARAN v. STATE (NCT OF 909 DELHI) & ANR. The High Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and A sentence, and therefore the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested on the B touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence. While dealing with conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be dra'!"n should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should C also be consistent with only one hypothesis i.e. the guilt of the accu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.