MUNIKRISHNA @ KRISHNA ETC. versus STATE BY ULSOOR PS

Citation: [2022] 13 S.C.R. 415 · Decided: 30-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
415
MUNIKRISHNA @ KRISHNA ETC.
v.
STATE BY ULSOOR PS
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1597-1600 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 30, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 34 – Constitution of India – Article
20(3) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.161 – Evidence Act
– ss.25, 27 – Murder of old aged person – Circumstantial Evidence
– Appellants were convicted u/s.302 r/w s.34 and sentenced to life
imprisonment – Order of conviction and sentence upheld by High
Court – On appeal, held: In a case of circumstantial evidence, the
entire chain of evidence must be complete and the conclusions
arrived after examining the chain of evidence must point towards
the culpability of the accused and to no other conclusion – However,
in the present case this is clearly missing from the case of the
prosecution – Entire case of the prosecution is built upon the
confessional/voluntary statements made by the accused persons
before the police and the recovery of the alleged weapon of murder
recovered at the pointing out of the accused and the recovery of
alleged stolen gold material from a jewelry shop, again on pointing
out of the accused – Under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, an
accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself –
Further, u/s.25, Evidence Act , a confessional statement given by
an accused before a Police officer is inadmissible as evidence –
Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court wrongly placed reliance
on the voluntary statements of the accused and their videography
statements – Orders passed by Trial Court and High Court set aside
- Appellants be released from jail, unless wanted in some other crime.
Criminal Law – Evidence – Circumstantial Evidence – Duty
of Court – Held: In a case of circumstantial evidence, the Court
has to scrutinize each and every circumstantial possibility, which is
placed before it in the form of an evidence and the evidence must
point towards only one conclusion, which is the guilt of the accused
– A very heavy duty is cast upon the prosecution to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt.
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 415
415
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
416
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1.1 There is no direct evidence in the case. There
is no forensic or scientific evidence which links any of the present
appellants to the crime. The so-called discovery of the weapon of
crime and the discovery of stolen gold material is also severely
flawed. It is thus in sum and substance entirely a case of
circumstantial evidence. It is a case of circumstantial evidence
and in a case of circumstantial evidence, the entire chain of
evidence must be complete and the conclusions which is arrived
after examining the chain of evidence must point towards the
culpability of the accused and to no other conclusion. This is
clearly missing from the case of the prosecution. The entire case
of the prosecution is based on the confessional statements or
voluntary statements given by accused Nos. 1 to5 (all the present
appellants) while they were in police custody. Statement given by
an accused to police under Section 161 of CrPC is not admissible
as evidence. The evidence discovered under section 27 of Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, i.e., the recovery of stolen items and the
recovery of the weapon are also very doubtful. In a case of
circumstantial evidence, the Court has to scrutinize each and
every circumstantial possibility, which is placed before it in the
form of an evidence and the evidence must point towards only
one conclusion, which is the guilt of the accused. In other words,
a very heavy duty is cast upon the prosecution to prove its case,
beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 10-12][425-B-G]
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. v. State of
Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343 : [1952] SCR 1091;
Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr. v. State of
Madhya Pradesh (2010) 2 SCC 748 : [2010] 2 SCR
119 – relied on.
Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1969) 3
SCC 198; Ram Gopal v. State of Maharashtra (1972) 4
SCC 625; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88 –
referred to.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
417
1.2 In the case at hand the entire case of the prosecution is
built upon the confessional/voluntary statements made by the
accused persons before the police and the recovery of the alleged
weapon of murder recovered at the pointing out of the accused
and the recovery of alleged stolen gold material from

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