Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya vs. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal No. 931-932
of 2009, Decided on May 6, 2013
The
Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“In a case of
circumstantial evidence, the judgment remains essentially inferential. The
inference is drawn from the established facts as the circumstances lead to
particular inferences. The Court has to draw an inference with respect to
whether the chain of circumstances is complete, and when the circumstances
therein are collectively considered, the same must lead only to the
irresistible conclusion, that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime
in question. All the circumstances so established must be of a conclusive
nature, and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
[Para 23]
The
Court also noted the following case laws:
Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773, this
Court observed as under:
"Another golden thread which runs through the web of the
administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible
on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused
and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused
should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases where in the
guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence.
In R. v. Hodge 168 ER 1163, the court held that before a person
is convicted entirely on circumstantial evidence, the court must be satisfied
not only that those circumstances were consistent with his having committed the
act, but also that the facts were such, so as to be in consistent with any
other rational conclusion other than the one that the accused is the guilty
person.
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC
1622 the Court held as under:
“The facts so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. There should not be explainable on any
other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. The circumstances should be
of a conclusive nature and tendency. There must be a chain of evidence so
complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent
with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability
the act must have been done by the accused."
“Graver the crime, greater should be the standard of proof. An
accused may appear to be guilty on the basis of suspicion but that cannot
amount to legal proof. When on the evidence two possibilities are available or
open, one which goes in the favour of the prosecution and the other benefits an
accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. The
principle has special relevance where the guilt or the accused is sought to be
established by circumstantial evidence.
M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200, this
Court held, that if the circumstances proved in a case are consistent either
with the innocence of the accused, or with his guilt, then the accused is
entitled to the benefit of doubt. When it is held that a certain fact has been
proved, then the question that arises is whether such a fact leads to the
inference of guilt on the part of the accused person or not, and in dealing
with this aspect of the problem, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused
and a final inference of guilt against him must be drawn only if the proved
fact is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, and is entirely
consistent with his guilt.
Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189 has dealt with the
doctrine of innocence elaborately and held as under:
“27. Every accused is presumed to be innocent unless the guilt
is proved. The presumption of innocence is a human right. However, subject to
the statutory exceptions, the said principle forms the basis of criminal
jurisprudence. For this purpose, the nature of the offence, its seriousness and
gravity thereof has to be taken into consideration. The courts must be on guard
to see that merely on the application of the presumption, the same may not lead
to any injustice or mistaken conviction. Statutes like the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881; the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and the Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, provide for presumption of guilt
if the circumstances provided in those statutes are found to be fulfilled and
shift the burden of proof of innocence on the accused. However, such a
presumption can also be raised only when certain foundational facts are
established by the prosecution. There may be difficulty in proving a negative
fact.
28. However, in cases where the statute does not provide for
the burden of proof on the accused, it always lies on the prosecution. It is
only in exceptional circumstances, such as those of statutes as referred to
hereinabove, that the burden of proof is on the accused. The statutory
provision even for a presumption of guilt of the accused under a particular
statute must meet the tests of reasonableness and liberty enshrined in Articles
14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The
Court also noted following case laws:
Krishnan v. State Represented by Inspector of Police, (2008)
15 SCC 430;
Pawan v. State of Uttaranchal, etc. etc. (2009) 15 SCC 259;
State of Maharashtra v. Mangilal, (2009) 15 SCC 418.
To see the full text please follow the link: