The Supreme Court upholds that in case of circumstantial evidence, the chain has to be complete in all respects.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 821/2012

LAXMAN PRASAD @ LAXMAN                                                                                                                                                                                                   APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                                                                                                                                                                                       RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. This appeal has been preferred assailing the correctness of the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior dated 28.09.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No.231 of 2003 dismissing the appeal of the appellant and confirming the conviction and life sentence recorded by the Trial Court under Section 302 IPC.

2. The present one is a case of circumstantial evidence. The prosecution led evidence to establish three links of the chain, (i) motive, (ii) last seen, and (iii) recovery of weapon of assault, at the pointing out of the appellant. The High Court, while dealing with the evidence on record, agreed with the finding of motive and the last seen, however, insofar as the recovery of the weapon of assault and blood-stained clothes were concerned, the High Court in paragraph 18 of the judgment held the same to be invalid and also goes to the extent to say that the recovery which has been made does not indicate that the appellant has committed the offence. Still, it observed that looking to the entire gamut and other clinching evidence against the appellant of last seen and motive, affirmed the conviction.

3. We do not find such conclusion of the High Court to be strictly in accordance with law. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the chain has to be complete in all respects so as to indicate the guilt of the accused and also exclude any other theory of the crime. The law is well settled on the above point. Reference may be had to the following cases:

(i) Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra1;

(ii) Sailendra Rajdev Pasvan vs. State of Gujarat Etc.2

4. Thus, if the High Court found one of the links to be missing and not proved in view of the settled law on the point, the conviction ought to have been interfered with.

5. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The appellant is already on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled and sureties if any, stand discharged.

6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

..............................J

( VIKRAM NATH )

..............................J

( AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH )

NEW DELHI;

JUNE 14, 2023

ITEM NO.103                                                                                                                   COURT NO.6                                                                                            SECTION II-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 821/2012

LAXMAN PRASAD @ LAXMAN                                                                                                                                                                                                   APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                                                                                                                                                                                       RESPONDENT(S)

Date : 14-06-2023 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH

                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

                  (VACATION BENCH)

For Appellant(s)          Mr. Ram Swarup Sharma, AOR (Not Present)

                                   (SCLSC)

For Respondent(s)     Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, A.A.G.

                                   Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

The appeal is allowed, in terms of the signed order.

The appellant is already on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled and sureties if any, stand discharged.

(NARENDRA PRASAD)                                                                                                                                                                                                        (RANJANA SHAILEY)

ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS                                                                                                                                                                                            COURT MASTER (NSH)