LexUMA & ANR. versus THE STATE REP. BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1757 : 2024 INSC 809 Uma & Anr. v. The State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Criminal Appeal No. 757 of 2015) 22 October 2024 [Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was able to demonstrate perversity and non-appreciation of the materials on record by the Trial Court while reversing its finding of acquittal. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860, s.120B, 302, 201; Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998, s.4A – Appellants acquitted by Trial Court – High Court in impugned judgment reversed the finding of acquittal and convicted the Appellants – Held, High Court has demonstrated perversity and non-appreciation of the materials on record by Trial Court – Appeals dismissed: Held: The Trial Court acquitted the Appellants as it concluded that the prosecution had not proven the case beyond reasonable doubt; in the absence of ocular evidence, the Trial Court did not consider it appropriate to award due to the medical evidence; and held the motive to be highly artificial and unbelievable – Findings reversed by the High Court after thorough re-appreciation of the evidence on record – Post mortem report supported the case of homicide on account of clear motive and presence of Appellants at the time the incident occurred – Appellate Court must not ordinarily reverse the finding of acquittal, unless perversity and non-appreciation of the materials on record is demonstrated – Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and established chain of circumstances – Conclusion of guilt can be drawn. [Para 28] Circumstantial Evidence – Five golden principles – Panchsheel of proof – Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt: * Author 1758 [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Held: That the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, established the complete chain of circumstances including the – (i) motive (ii) presence of the Appellants at the time of incident (iii) false explanation in the statement under Section 313 of the CrPC (iv) the conduct of the Appellants before and after the incident & most pertinently (v) the medical evidence which in all human probability only correspond to the guilt of the Appellants. [Para 21] Circumstantial Evidence – When offence is committed in the privacy of a house, where accused is said to have been present – Two important consequences play out – Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act – Appellants have not discharged their burden: Held: Two important consequences that play out when an offence is said to have taken place in the privacy of a house, where the accused is said to have been present – Firstly, the standard of proof expected to prove such a case based on circumstantial evidence is lesser than other cases of circumstantial evidence, and secondly, the accused would be under a duty to explain as to the circumstances that led to the death of the deceased – limited shifting of the onus of proof – If accused remains quiet or offers a false explanation, then such a response would become an additional link in the chain of circumstances – Appellants have not discharged their burden that the injuries sustained by the deceased were not homicidal and not inflicted by them. [Para 24] Reliance on medical evidence: Observation of the Trial Court that in absence of a direct occurrence witness, motive to commit the crime and the evidence being purely circumstantial in nature, the medical evidence becomes of less consequences – Not a fairly plausible view. [Para 27] Case Law Cited Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [1985] 1 SCR 88 : (1984) 4 SCC 116; Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra [2006] Supp. 7 SCR 156 : (2006) 10 SCC 681 – relied on. List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Evidence Act, 1872. [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1759 Uma & Anr. v. The State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police List of Keywords Reversal of Judgment of Acquittal; Circumstantial Evidence. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 757 of 2015 From the Judgment and Order dated 04.03.2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras at Madurai in CRLA No. 161 of 2011 With Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2016 Appearances for Parties Kathirvelu, Sr. Adv., T. R. B. Sivakumar, Beno Bencigar, Vairawan A.S, Jeyamohan, Sudhakaran, Alagiri Karunanidhi, Rohan Singh, P. Soma Sundaram,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.