LexSURESH CHANDRA TIWARI & ANR. versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1233 : 2024 INSC 907 Suresh Chandra Tiwari & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Appeal No. 1902 of 2013) 28 November 2024 [J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration (a) Whether the circumstances relied by the prosecution have been proved beyond reasonable doubt; (b) whether those circumstances are of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; (c) whether those circumstances taken cumulatively 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; (d) whether they are consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused being guilty; and (e) whether they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 and s.304 Part-I – On 03.02.1997, at about 10 AM, PW-7, a cousin of the deceased, lodged an FIR (Exb. Ka2), inter alia, alleging that on 03.02.1997, at about 9.30 AM, he came to know that dead body of the deceased was lying in the verandah of one M’s shop – Trial court convicted the accused-appellants for offences punishable u/ss.302/34 and 201/34 of IPC – The High Court, upon finding that the accused had no previous criminal record and except injuries 1 and 2 none were dangerous to life and those two could be a result of a solitary blow, thought fit to alter the conviction from offence of murder, punishable u/s.302 of IPC, to offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable u/s.304 Part I of IPC, and thereby reduced the sentence, accordingly – Correctness: Held: (a)The trial court and the High Court failed to test the evidence on record to find out whether the incriminating circumstances were proved beyond reasonable doubt and whether they were of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused- appellants; (b) The circumstance of (i) last seen; (ii) recovery of a meat bag from near the spot; (iii) accused-appellants walking on *Author 1234 [2024] 11 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports the pathway near M’s shop in the night; and (iv) accused-appellants inquiring about the deceased in the evening of 02.02.1997 are not of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellants – Circumstance (iii) above, was not even proved beyond reasonable doubt; (c) The disclosure statement was not admissible as it did not lead to discovery – The stone, etc. were allegedly recovered even before the disclosure statement was recorded – That apart, neither Doctor’s (PW-1’s) statement nor forensic report could connect them with the crime – (d) In consequence, no case was made out to hold the appellants guilty – Thus, the prosecution had failed to establish the chain of incriminating circumstances, the accused appellants are entitled to be acquitted of the charges for which they have been tried and convicted – The High Court also erred in converting the conviction from one punishable under Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of IPC only because, according to it, the fatal injury could be a result of a solitary blow – What it overlooked was that there were multiple injuries on the body of the deceased apart from two incised wounds on the head with underlying fracture of occipital bone of the skull – In such a scenario, whosoever committed the crime had clear intention to kill the deceased – Once that is the position, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, when no effort is made on the part of the accused either to take a plea, or lead evidence to show, that their act would fall in any of the exceptions to Section 300 IPC, there was no justification at all to alter the conviction. [Paras 39, 40] Evidence – Circumstantial – Prosecution case rests on evidence circumstantial in nature: Held: As to when on strength of such evidence an accused can be convicted, the legal principles, as propounded in a series of decisions of this Court, may be summarized thus: (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; (ii) the circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; (iii) 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; (iv) the circumstances should be consistent onl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.