SUNIL RAI @ PAUA & ORS. versus UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

Citation: [2011] 7 S.C.R. 41 · Decided: 04-07-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2011] 7 S.C.R. 41 
SUNIL RAI @ PAUA & ORS. 
v. 
UNION tERRITORY, CHANDIGARH 
(Criminal Appeal Nos.1254-1255 of 2011) 
JULY 4, 2011 
[AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
A 
B 
s. 302134 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Extra- c 
judicial confession - Conviction of three accused by trial court 
- Affirmed by High Court - HELD: The first circumstance of 
deceased seen being chased by accused not established -
The witness who claims that the main accused made 
confession to him, tried to save· one of the accused and 0 
implicate another person in his place and thus, his evidence 
cannot be relied upon - The recovery of blood stained jacket 
of the main accused is of no consequence ·as his blood 
sample was not taken to ascertain his blood group - Theft of 
money and clothes of main accused cannot be said to make 
out sufficient motive for him to kill the deceased - Besides, 
E 
there was nothing on record as against the remaining two 
accused - On the materials on record, there may be some 
suspicion against the accused, but,. the suspicion, howsoever 
strong, cannot take place of proof .:. · Conviction of accused 
persons is· based on completely insufficient evidence and, as 
F 
such, is set aside - Evidence - Circumstantial evidence -
Extra-judicial confession - Recovery of blood stained articles 
- Proving of - Criminal Law - Motive. 
· The appellants were prosecuted for commission of G 
an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC. The prosecution case 
was that on 29.3.2001 at about 8:30 p.m., PW-14, PW-9 and 
one 'JS' were present near the GPO,' Sector 17, 
Chandigarh; accused-appellant no.2 (A-2) was also 
41 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
42 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 7 S.C.R. 
present there. At that time accused-appellant no. 1 (A- I) 
and accused-appellant no.3 (A-3) came there. A•1 was 
agitated as his money and clothes were stolen. He 
accused A-2 of committing the theft and an altercation 
took place between them. A-2 told A-1 that he had not 
stolen his money or the other articles and it might have 
been the work of 'DR' (the deceased). It was at this stage 
that 'DR' also arrived at the scene. A-1 caught hold of 
'DR' by his neck and asked him to return his money and 
clothes otherwise he would kill him. A scuffle took place 
between the two but 'DR' got himself freed and ran away 
from there. The three accused went after him yelling and 
shouting that they would not spare him. The following 
day, at about 8:30 A.M. 'DR' was found lying injured near 
the local bus stand on the rear side of Neelam Cinema, 
situate at Sector 17 market. There were injuries on his 
head and face. He was sent to hospital where he died. 
The three accused were put on trial for the murder of 'DR'. 
The trial court relied on the circumstances: (i) the 
deceased was last seen being chased by the appellants 
yelling at him and shouting that they would not spare him 
(ii) extra judicial confession of A-1 before PW-10, (iii) 
recovery of the blood-stained jacket (Ext. PS) of A-1 from 
under the seat of the rickshaw on the basis of the 
disclosure statement (Ex. PU) made by him; and (iv) 
motive for the accused to commit the offence. It 
cynvicted all the three accused u/s 302/ 34 IPC and 
sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life and a 
fine of Rs.5,000/- each .. The appeals filed by the accused 
were dismissed by a division bench of the High Court. 
Aggrieved, the accused filed the appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. From the ante mortem injuries on the 
body of the deceased as coming to light from the medical 
evidence and the objects found at the spot where the 
; 
. SUNIL RAI @ PAUA & ORS. v. UNION TERRITORY, 
43 
CHANDIGARH 
body was found lying, it is quite clear that his death was A 
homicidal. But, there is no ocular evidence of the 
commission of the offence and the prosecution case is 
based entirely on circumstantial evidence. [para 7-8] [49-
C-D] 
, 
1.2. On the issue of last seen, the prosecution 
examined PW-9, PW-14 and PW-15. Though 'JS' had also 
been cited earlier as one of the witnesses on this point, 
he was not examined before the court. The first statement 
B 
of PW-9 suggests that the deceased and the accused had C 
gone in the direction completely opposite to where his 
body was found 12 hours later. His second statement is 
thaythe deceased and the accused had gone in opposite 
directions. His third statement, in answer to the court 
question, is of course that the deceased 

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