LexVAIBHAV versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 407 : 2025 INSC 800 Vaibhav v. The State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 1643 of 2012) 04 June 2025 [B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration In a case based on circumstantial evidence where there were missing links in the chain of circumstances, whether the finding of the High Court regarding the conviction of the appellant for offences u/ss.302, 201 r/w s.34, Penal Code, 1860 and s.5 r/w s.25(1)(a), Arms Act, 1959 was sustainable in light of the evidence on record. Headnotes† Circumstantial evidence – Missing links in the chain of circumstances – Accidental gunshot injury – Appellant was convicted u/ss.302, 201 r/w s.34, Penal Code, 1860 and s.5 r/w 25(1)(a), Arms Act, 1959 for the murder of his friend – Defence of the appellant that the deceased had accidentally shot himself with the pistol belonging to the appellant’s father: Held: The present is a case of an accidental gunshot injury and the possibility of a homicidal death is very weak in the present case – Imprints on the pistol had not been matched with the appellant and therefore, it cannot be concluded that the trigger was pulled by the appellant – Courts below failed to examine whether the defence of the appellant that the deceased on finding the service pistol of the appellant’s father, got curious, picked it up, started looking into it with one eye from a close distance and accidentally pressed the trigger, was a probable defence or not – The theory put across by the appellant is fairly probable and is supported by medical evidence including the examination of the bullet injury and trajectory – Contrarily, the conclusion drawn by the Courts below is not supported by medical evidence and is not consistent with the bullet injury and trajectory – The subsequent conduct of the appellant of removing the dead body and concealment of articles was a natural result of fear of his father and was consistent with the * Author 408 [2025] 7 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports theory of accidental death – A young boy in first year of college, with no criminal background and with no motive in sight, would certainly have become scared on seeing that his friend has accidentally shot himself in the living room of his house with the pistol belonging to his father – In a case purely based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and consistent with the conclusion of guilt only and must not support a contrary finding – Circumstantial evidence on record is not consistent and leaves a reasonable possibility of an alternate outcome of innocence of the appellant – High Court erred in arriving at the finding of guilt and upholding the judgment of Trial Court – Appellant acquitted for offences u/s.302, IPC and s.5 r/w s.25(1)(a), Arms Act – However, conviction u/s.201, IPC is sustained and he is sentenced for the period already undergone. [Paras 18, 20, 22, 26, 27, 29] Evidence Act, 1872 – s.8 – Subsequent conduct – Case based on circumstantial Evidence – Evidentiary burden – To be discharged by the prosecution vis-à-vis the accused – Appellant was convicted for the murder of his friend – Defence of the appellant that the deceased had accidentally shot himself in the living room of the appellant’s house with the pistol belonging to appellant’s father – Courts below relied on subsequent conduct of the appellant like removal of the dead body, concealment of articles and drew adverse inference: Held: Primary burden is on the prosecution and it is only if the prosecution succeeds in discharging its burden beyond reasonable doubt that the burden shifts upon the accused to explain the evidence against him or to present a defence – Prosecution’s version suffered from inherent inconsistencies and doubts, and thus, the inability of the appellant to explain certain circumstances could not be made the basis to relieve the prosecution from discharging its primary burden – Undoubtedly, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, facts indicating subsequent conduct are relevant facts u/s.8, Evidence Act – Equally, the inconsistencies in the version of the appellant are also relevant however, the occasion to examine the version/defence of the appellant could have arisen only if the prosecution had succeeded in discharging its primary burden beyond reasonable doubt – The inability of an accused to offer plausible explanation on certain aspects would not autom
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.