SURESH AND ANR versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2018] 9 S.C.R. 959 · Decided: 21-08-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
959
SURESH AND ANR
v.
STATE OF  HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1445-1446 of 2012)
AUGUST 21, 2018
[N.V. RAMANA AND MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR,JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 r/w s.34 – Murder – Circumstantial
evidence – Political rivalry – Incident on election day – Prosecution
case was that victim-deceased was election agent of the losing
candidate – Accused A-1 and A-2, both supporters of losing
candidate came to the house of deceased and asked him to
accompany them on the pretext that the losing candidate was falsely
implicated in a criminal case and, so they would also falsely involve
the winning candidate in a counter case – On the way, A-3 also
joined them – At 4 a.m., PW-14 while waiting for conveyance saw
A-1 to A-3 and the deceased going in auto rickshaw – The deceased
was taken to abandoned house where he was shot by A-1 and A-2 –
Thereafter A-1 and A-2 took the deceased to hospital where he died
– A-2 lodged FIR narrating that while they were going on foot, the
members of the winning party fired a shot at them which hit the
victim – Ten days after the incident, all the accused-appellants
confessed their guilt before PW-16 – Trial court convicted the
accused persons – High Court upheld the order of trial court – On
appeal, held: It is well settled that motive is an important aspect in
circumstantial evidence case – In this case, it is not convincing that
accused would kill their own person with a motive to foist a false
case on the son of the winning candidate – There were material
improvements in the statements of the wife of the deceased, which
made her statement unreliable and doubtful – The conduct of the
wife of deceased in keeping quiet and not stopping her husband
from accompanying the accused even though knowing well that
her husband was being taken for shooting somebody, does not fit
with the natural human behavior to inspire any confidence – There
was no direct evidence which led the prosecution to clearly prove
that deceased was shot at the abandoned house as alleged – Thus,
prosecution could not establish its case beyond reasonable doubt –
Conviction set aside.
959
[2018] 9 S.C.R. 959
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
960
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
Witnesses: Chance witness – Evidentiary value of – Held:
Generally, the chance witness, who reasonably explains his presence
in the named location at the relevant time, may be taken into
consideration and should be given due regard, if his version inspires
confidence and the same is supported by surrounding
circumstances – The evidence of a chance witness requires a very
cautious and close scrutiny – A chance witness must adequately
explain his presence at the place of occurrence – Deposition of a
chance witness whose presence at the place of incident remains
doubtful should be discarded.
Witnesses: Interested witness – Although it is well settled that
mere relationship with the deceased will not be sufficient to discredit
a witness, however, in the instant case,  the wife of the deceased
was an interested witness due to earlier enmity with the accused –
Therefore, her evidence did not inspire confidence to rely on the
same – Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w s.34.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.  In cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts
are called upon to make inferences from the available evidences,
which may lead to the accused’s guilt. In majority of cases, the
inference of guilt is usually drawn by establishing the case from
its initiation to the point of commission wherein each factual link
is ultimately based on evidence of a fact or an inference thereof.
Therefore, the courts have to identify the facts in the first place
so as to fit the case within the parameters of ‘chain link theory’
and then see whether the case is made out beyond reasonable
doubt. It is well settled that motive is an important aspect in
circumstantial evidence case. In this case, the motive has an
important role as this case is based on circumstantial evidence,
motive herein forms one of the intermediate fact/circumstances.
The motive of killing deceased was to foist a false case on the
son of the winning candidate. If the motive was to foist a false
case, then it is quite strange to believe that the accused went to
the extent of killing their own person who was supporter of losing
candidate to avenge the loss in the elections. Even if the motive
is taken to be proved, then this too only forms one of the
circumstances for adducing the guilt of the accused

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