REENA HAZARIKA versus STATE OF ASSAM

Citation: [2018] 13 S.C.R. 1108 · Decided: 31-10-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1108
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13  S.C.R.
REENA HAZARIKA
v.
STATE OF ASSAM
(Criminal Appeal No. 1330 of 2018)
OCTOBER 31, 2018
[R. F. NARIMAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Evidence: Circumstantial evidence – Links in the chain of
circumstances – Determination of – Prosecution case that wife killed
her husband on basis of the last seen theory and the unnatural
conduct of wife – Conviction u/s 302 IPC by the courts below – On
appeal, held: In view of the nature of evidence available coupled
with the manner of its consideration, the links in the chain of
circumstances in a case of circumstantial evidence not established
to prove that the appellant was the assailant of the deceased –
Possibility that the occurrence may have taken place in some other
manner cannot be completely ruled out – Furthermore, neither trial
court nor the High Court considered it necessary to take notice of
the defence by the appellant u/s.313 – Complete non-consideration
thereof has clearly caused prejudice to the appellant – Thus, the
appellant entitled to acquittal on the benefit of doubt.
Circumstantial evidence – Essentials of – Explained.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 313 – Power to examine
the accused – Scope and significance of – Explained.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The entirety of the discussion, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the nature of evidence available
coupled with the manner of its consideration, leaves the Court
satisfied that the links in the chain of circumstances in a case of
circumstantial evidence, cannot be said to have been established
leading to the inescapable conclusion that the appellant was the
assailant of the deceased, incompatible with any possibility of
innocence of the appellant. The possibility that the occurrence
may have taken place in some other manner cannot be completely
ruled out. The appellant is therefore held entitled to acquittal on
the benefit of doubt. [Para 18][1119-C-D]
[2018] 13  S.C.R. 1108
1108
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1109
2.1 Normally this Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution, would be reluctant in appeal to interfere with the
concurrent findings of two courts by re-appreciating the facts and
evidence. But in an appropriate case, if this Court finds that there
has been erroneous consideration and appreciation of facts and
evidence, leading to miscarriage of justice, this Court is duty
bound to ensure that ultimately justice prevails. The principle of
criminal jurisprudence that several accused may go free, but an
innocent person should not be punished. [Para 7][1113-G-H;
1114-A-B]
Anant Chintaman Lagu v. State of Bombay [1960] 2 SCR
460 – referred to.
2.2 In a case of circumstantial evidence the prosecution is
required to establish the continuity in the links of the chain of
circumstances, so as to lead to the only and inescapable conclusion
of the accused being the assailant, inconsistent or incompatible
with the possibility of any other hypothesis compatible with the
innocence of the accused. Mere invocation of the last seen theory,
sans the facts and evidence in a case, will not suffice to shift the
onus upon the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act,
1872 unless the prosecution first establishes a prima facie case.
If the links in the chain of circumstances itself are not complete,
and the prosecution is unable to establish a prima facie case,
leaving open the possibility that the occurrence may have taken
place in some other manner, the onus will not shift to the accused,
and the benefit of doubt will have to be given. [Para 8]
[1114-G-H; 1115-A-B]
2.3 PW-1 deposed that he was told by the deceased at about
11:00 p.m. that he had suffered a head injury because of a fall,
and that the witness did not provide any first aid to the deceased
though he along with his brother PW 2, did try to call an ambulance
at about 12:00 am. Additionally, that he did not see any other
injuries on the deceased. On the contrary, CW 1 deposed that
PW 1 had applied Dettol to the wounds of the deceased. Contrary
to the statement of PW-1, his brother, PW-2 deposed that he was
woken up at about 2-3 a.m. by the appellant who was crying and
told him that her husband had suffered head injury. The deceased
is then stated to have himself told the witness that the injury was
REENA HAZARIKA v. STATE OF ASSAM
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1110
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13  S.C.R.
not serious. The contradiction in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-
2 is further compounded by the third brothe

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