LexSANTOSH @ RAJESH @ GOPAL versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 609 : 2024 INSC 723 Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 2030 of 2024) 19 September 2024 [Sanjiv Khanna,* Sanjay Kumar and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Evidence provided by the prosecution, if sufficient to secure a conviction of the appellant for the murder of the victim. Headnotes† Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.8 and 27 – Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct – How much of information received from accused may be proved – Chain of circumstances to establish hypothesis of guilt – Absence of corroborative evidence – On facts, conviction of the appellant u/ss.302, 34 and 120B IPC and s.25(1-B)(A) of the Arms Act, for committing murder of the victim, by the courts below – Conviction on the basis of the recovery of a pistol from him and the ballistic report which confirmed that the bullet recovered from the body of the victim, was fired from the pistol recovered from the appellant, however, no eyewitnesses to the crime, implicating the appellant – Correctness: Held: Ballistic report connecting the pistol recovered from the appellant with the bullet recovered from the body of the victim, is an inculpatory fact – Prosecution case that the said discovery and recovery of the pistol is attributable to the disclosure statement provided by the co-accused (since deceased), are governed by ss.8 and 27 – As the disclosure statement led to the arrest of the appellant, the prosecution may take the benefit of s.8 – However, absence of any corroborative evidence directly linking the appellant to the crime introduces a significant gap in facts as alleged in the chain of circumstances, which fails to establish a hypothesis of guilt that conclusively excludes all other reasonable possibilities – To establish that the appellant participated in the murder, the * Author 610 [2024] 9 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports prosecution must present further material and evidence linking the appellant to the actual crime – Appellant may be guilty of an offence u/s.201 IPC, the evidence provided by the prosecution insufficient to secure a conviction for the murder of the victim – Thus, the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant guilty of murder, either individually or with shared common intention or in conspiracy with the co-accused – Thus, the conviction of the appellant set aside – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 34 and 120B – Arms Act, 1959 – s.25(1-B)(A). [Paras 11, 13, 15, 16] Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27 – How much of information received from accused may be proved – Conditions to be satisfied u/s.27 – Stated. [Para 12] Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Principles to be satisfied to conclusively establish the guilt of the accused: Held: Where the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, a finding of guilt is justified only if all the incriminating facts and circumstances are incompatible with the accused’s innocence – There must be a chain of evidence so far complete, such that every hypothesis is excluded but the one proposed to be proved and such circumstances must show that the act has been done by the accused within all human probability. [Para 9] Case Law Cited Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1952] 1 SCR 1091 : (1952) 2 SCC 71; Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharasthra [1985] 1 SCR 88 : (1984) 4 SCC 116; Perumal Raja v. State, Represented By Inspector of Police [2024] 1 SCR 87; Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra [1976] 1 SCR 715 : (1976) 1 SCC 828; State of Maharashtra v. Suresh [1999] Supp. 5 SCR 215 : (2000) 1 SCC 471 – referred to. List of Acts Evidence Act, 1872; Penal Code, 1860; Arms Act, 1959. List of Keywords Murder; Recovery of pistol; Ballistic report; No eyewitnesses to the crime; Inculpatory fact; Disclosure statement; Absence of corroborative evidence; Chain of circumstances; Common intention; Conspiracy; Evidence; Circumstantial evidence. [2024] 9 S.C.R. 611 Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 2030 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 18.10.2022 of the High Court of M.P. at Indore in CRLA No. 5856 of 2017 Appearances for Parties Ms. Shweta Garg, Ashish Gopal Garg, Rakesh Garg, Advs. for the Appellant. Nachiketa Joshi Sr. Adv./A.A.G., Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Pushpender Singh, Mirza Kayesh Begg, Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Ms. Ruby, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.