LexVIJAY SHANKAR versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015) ~ S.C.R. 977
VIJAYSHANKAR
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal No. 337 of 2008)
AUGUST04, 2015
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.)
Penal Code, 1860: ss.302 and 449 - Conviction and
A
B
life imprisonment based on circumstantial evidence - c
Prosecution case was that on fateful night, PW-10 and his
victim brother had assembled at their farm house to celebrate
holi festival and continued talking till 2 A. M. and thereafter
PW-10 returned back to his village - Deposition of PW-10
that around 10 PM. appellant-accused had come to the farm
D
under influence of liquor and abused the victim-deceased
for not allowing him to park his cycle and take liquor at his
farm - Next morning, PW-19 saw the victim-deceased in
injured condition - Deceased was taken to hospital where
he succumbed to injuries - Trial court found the appellant E
guilty - High Court affirmed the same - On appeal, held:
Except PW-10, no other independent witness was examined
to prove that the deceased had rebuked the appellant -
Serious doubts as to the motive and the previous enmity -
None of the farm servants were examined which raises
F
doubts about the evidence of PW-10 and the motive
suggested- Evidence of PW11 that he saw appellant coming
out of the room of the deceased from the distance of 25 feet
was also not convincing- Considering the totality of the facts G
and evidence, the circumstances relied upon by the
prosecution were not established by convincing evidence and
did not form a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the
appellant - Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt - Benefit of doubt given
H
to the appellant.
• ;
977
978
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 9 S.C.R.
A
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. There was no eye-witness to the
· occurrence and the entire case was based upon
circumstantial evidence. Prosecution mainly based its
B case on the circumstances:- {i) motive; {ii) last seen
theory; {iii) extra-judicial confession; (iv) trail of dog-
squad leading to Baithakofthe accused and {v) recovery
of bloodstained clothes and knife. [Paras 7, 8] [985-A, E]
c
2.1. Motive:- So far as the motive is concerned PW-
10, brother of the deceased stated that the appellant used
to park his cycle on their farm and the deceased had
rebuked him about fifteen days prior to the occurrence
for parking his cycle. PW-10 further stated that on the
D night of incident, the appellant came to the farm in an
inebriated condition and stated that since the deceased
and PW-10 are not allowing him to park his cycle and
are not allowing him to take liquor in their farm, he will
not let them to celebrate Holi. The appellant is the
E neighbor of PW-10 and the deceased. Allegation of
previous enmity between the appellant and the deceased
family was not proved. Except PW-10, no other
independent witness was examined to prove that the
deceased had rebuked the appellant and serious doubts
F arise as to the motive suggested and the alleged
previous enmity. As per the version of PW-10, there were
three servants in the poultry farm; two were sleeping in
the adjoining room where the deceased was sleeping
and the third servant was sleeping in the truck parked at
G some distance from the farm. None of the farm servants
were examined and this again raises doubts about the
evidence of PW-10. [Paras 9, 10] [986-A-C, D-E]
2.2. If the prosecution is able to prove its case on
H motive, it will be a corroborative piece of evidence. But
VIJAY SHANKAR v. STATE OF HARYANA
979
even if the prosecution is not able to prove its case on A
motive that will not be a ground to throw the prosecution
case nor would it corrode the credibility of prosecution
case. Absence of proof of motive only demands careful
scrutiny of evidence adduced by the prosecution. In the
present case, absence of convincing evidence as to B
motive makes the court to be circumspect in the matter
of assessment of evidence and this aspect was not kept
in view by the High Court and the trial court. [Para 11]
[986-G-H; 987-A]
2.3. Last Seen Theory: The trial court as well as the
High Court based the conviction of the appellant mainly
c
on the last seen theory relying on the evidence of PW-11
who allegedly saw the appellant on the night of incident
coming out of the room of the deceased. On that night, D
his buffalo was missing from his farmhouse and
therefore he went towards village BuExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.