SANTOSH @ BHURE versus STATE (G.N.C.T.) OF DELHI

Citation: [2023] 7 S.C.R. 719 · Decided: 28-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
719
   [2023] 7 S.C.R. 719
719
SANTOSH @ BHURE
v.
STATE (G.N.C.T.) OF DELHI
(Criminal Appeal No.575 of 2011)
APRIL 28, 2023
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, MANOJ MISRA AND
ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 r/w. s.34 – Acquittal under –
Prosecution case that ‘S’ was tenant of an apartment on the second
floor of a building owned by PW-3 – On 12.09.2000, at about 10.40
a.m., an information was given to the police that a dead body is
lying in that apartment – As per prosecution, two disclosure/
confessional statements were made by each of the two accused (‘S’
and ‘N’) during police custody – Trial Court held that the proven
circumstances constituted a chain which conclusively indicated that
the accused ‘S’ in the company of co-accused ‘N’ committed the
crime and to remove the evidence hid the dagger and the blood-
stained clothes and further, to hoodwink the police, ‘N’ wrote and
planted a suicide letter in a pocket of the trouser worn by the
deceased – Both the accused were convicted u/ss. 302 r/w. s. 34 –
High Court acquitted ‘N’, however, S’s conviction was upheld – On
appeal, held: Mere tenancy of the apartment being with ‘S’ by itself
is not sufficient to hold him guilty as there is no general presumption
against the owner/tenant of a property with regard to his/her guilt
if a dead body with homicidal injuries is found in his/her property
– Prosecution failed to lead any evidence that the two accused, or
any one of them, were present there, or in the vicinity – There is no
witness statement identifying the handwriting of accused ‘N’ or
disclosing that accused wrote the suicide letter in his presence –
There is also no evidence to explain the relevance of the contents of
the suicide letter – Suicide letter indicts one person ‘C’– As to why
such indictment was made; whether it was with reference to some
other event contemplated, the prosecution evidence is silent –
Barring the expert report, there exists no internal or external
evidence to lend assurance to the prosecution story that the suicide
letter was written by accused ‘N’ – As regards recovery of clothes at
the instance of ‘S’, PW4, a witness to that recovery, has been
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
720
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
declared hostile – There is thus no support to that recovery from
any public witness – The circumstance that the clothes carried blood
of same group as of the deceased is rendered meaningless because
there is no admissible evidence to connect the clothes with the two
accused – As regards recovery of knife at the instance of ‘N’, the
same has been denied by ‘N’ and there appears no independent
witness to support it – Its incriminating value is extremely limited
because, firstly, there is no forensic evidence connecting the knife
with the crime; secondly, the knife is a common knife which could
easily be available; thirdly, the wounds found on the body of the
deceased were of different dimensions giving rise to possibility of
use of more weapon than one; and, fourthly, the entire exercise of
recovery does not inspire confidence, particularly, because the first
attempt to recover had failed – Thus, the prosecution failed to prove
a chain of incriminating circumstances as to conclusively point out
that in all human probability it was the two accused or any one of
them, and no one else, who had committed the murder.
Evidence – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction on strength
of evidence which are circumstantial in nature – Settled legal
position – The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is
to be drawn should be fully established – Also, circumstances should
be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of
the accused – Further, the circumstances taken cumulatively should
form a chain so far complete that there is no escape from the
conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed
by the accused and the circumstances should be consistent only
with the hypothesis regarding the guilt of the accused and they must
exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved –
The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn
should be fully established meaning thereby that they ‘must’ or
‘should’ and not ‘may be’ established as the Court must not be
oblivious of the most fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence, which is, that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely
‘may be’ guilty before the Court proceeds to convict him.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 106 – 

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