SHANKAR versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 661 · Decided: 15-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
661
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 661
661
SHANKAR
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No. 954 of 2011)
MARCH 15, 2023
[AJAY RASTOGI AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Penal Code 1860: s. 302 r/w 34 – Conviction under, on basis
of circumstantial evidence – Sustainability of – Prosecution case
that the victim assaulted with sharp weapons, sustained 22 ante-
mortem injuries leading to instantaneous death – On the fateful
day, the victim went to the house of PW 8, the accused persons also
came there and the appellant in the latter appeal hurled abuses on
the victim and asked him why he along with his friend had assaulted
his brother, though the victim denied the assault – Later, the accused
invited the victim for drinks and all of them left the house of PW 8
on motorcycles – An hour later, the dead body of the victim was
found by the complainant – There was no eye-witness – Based on
the circumstantial evidence, the trial court convicted the appellants
u/s. 302/34 and sentenced them to life imprisonment – High Court
upheld the same – On appeal, held: If doubt lingers with respect to
the probability or conclusiveness of any circumstance relied on by
the prosecution, forming a link in the chain of circumstances pointing
to the guilt of convict, despite the existence of concurrent findings,
the evidence has to be scrutinized by this Court so as to ensure that
the totality of the evidence and circumstances relied on, did constitute
a complete chain and it points to the guilt of the convict – On facts,
correctness of the last seen version emanating from PW-8 becomes
doubtful, especially against the appellants – Oral testimonies of
PW-8 and PW-10 are at variance about the last seen and it becomes
inconclusive – Prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive –
Though the victim met with a homicidal death, it cannot be said that
the rest of the circumstantial evidence culled out by the courts below
unerringly point to the culpability of the appellants in the homicidal
death of the deceased – Even the recovery of the weapon and the
dress, at the instance of the appellant not conclusive – Conviction
of the appellants cannot be maintained, thus, given benefit of doubt
and are acquitted – Evidence.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
662
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1In view of the law relating circumstantial
evidence and the scope of interference in exercise of power under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India in respect of cases where
concurrent findings are recorded by the lower courts, if doubt
lingers with respect to the probability or conclusiveness of any
circumstance relied on by the prosecution, forming a link in the
chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of convict, despite
the existence of concurrent findings, the evidence has to be
scrutinized by this Court so as to ensure that the totality of the
evidence and circumstances relied on, did constitute a complete
chain and it points to the guilt of the convict and it did not brook
any hypothesis other than the guilt of the convict. [Para 13][671-
B-C]
1.2 There can be no doubt with respect to the fact that in a
case where the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence,
motive assumes great significance. Just like complete absence
of motive failure to establish motive after attributing one, should
also give a different complexion in a case based on circumstantial
evidence and it will certainly enfeeble the case of prosecution.
[Para 18][674-A, C-D]
1.3 The prosecution alleged a motive. According to the
prosecution on 29.09.2001, the deceased along with his friend
assaulted the brother of appellant in the latter appeal (the first
accused in the Sessions Trial). It is also the case of the prosecution
that after the accused persons entered the house of PW-8, the
first accused/the appellant in the latter appeal hurled abuses on
the deceased and asked him why he along with his friend assaulted
his brother. It is also the case of the prosecution that though the
deceased denied any such occurrence, the said appellant
continued to say that the deceased had done dishonesty and
assaulted his brother. After alleging motive the prosecution had
failed to establish the same. In this context, it is to be noted that
the trial court made a positive finding that the prosecution had
miserably failed to establish the alleged motive. Despite the said
finding of the trial court and despite that issue was pointedly raised
before the High Court, obviously 

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