"Suspicion, however strong cannot be allowed to take the place of proof:" Allahabad High Court acquits murder accused

Courts cannot convict a person solely on the basis of suspicion, the Allahabad High Court observed on Monday acquitting two persons charged for murder (Gyan Singh and Anr v. State of UP). .When there is no satisfactory proof of guilt, then benefit of doubt has to go to the accused, a Bench of Justices Subhash Chandra Sharma and Bachchoo Lal, emphasised. ."In the judicial adjudication suspicion, however strong cannot be allowed to take the place of proof. It is well settled that suspicion, however great it may be, cannot be substituted for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of circumstantial evidence," the Court ruled..The Court, therefore, acquitted Meena and Gyan Singh (appellants) who had been convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 302 (Murder) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).."We are conscious that a grave and heinous crime had been committed but when there is no satisfactory proof of the guilt, we have no other option but to give the benefit of doubt to the accused appellants and we are constrained to do so in this case," the Court said. .Background of the case The Court was dealing with a criminal case, in which it was alleged that the appellants had murdered one Umesh (the deceased). The deceased was found lying in the field and there was blood on a cot in the courtyard of one of the appellants, Gyan Singh. The brother of Umesh was told that that Umesh was brutally murdered with a weapon by Meena and Gyan Singh. Accordingly, the First Information Report was lodged by the brother of deceased, based on which chargesheet was filed and trial was held. The Sessions Court, Farrukabad proceeded to convicted both the accused under Section 302 for the murder of Umesh. .ArgumentsThe appeal was preferred against the conviction order of the sessions court. It was contended that the prosecution had failed to discharge their burden, beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants argued that no evidence was adduced by the prosecution to prove that the accused were present at the spot when the incident took place and there was no witness to the incident.Informant had lodged the FIR only on the basis of suspicion against the appellants, it was submitted. It was further contended that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellants had committed the murder of deceased but this burden had not been discharged by the prosecution.To the contrary, the Additional Government Advocate submitted that blood stained cot and bed sheet were found in the courtyard of the appellants from where blood stains were found continuously up-to the field where dead body was found. It was contended that the "evidence on record is sufficient on the basis of which learned trial judge has concluded the conviction of appellants which is right in the eye of law."It was also submitted that the possibility of presence of other persons in the courtyard of Gyan Singh was nil and the commission of the heinous murder was specifically in the knowledge of appellants as the house being in their possession..JudgmentThe Court held that the prosecution has to prove the motive for the crime, as it was not a case of ocular evidence on record proving the complicity of the appellants, but a case of circumstantial evidence. It was also observed that the injuries found on the body of deceased were incised wounds but no weapon was recovered either from the possession of the appellants or or from their house. .Further, the Court examined the material placed on record, including the statements of the prime witnesses."The perusal of record shows that in this case prosecution witnesses are not the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. There is nothing on record to show that deceased was seen in company of appellants prior to unfateful night, the incident took place and that the appellants were present at their house. Even the presence of appellants in their house had also not been tried to be proved by prosecution. No any other last seen witness had been produced," the Court said. .The court placed reliance on the observations laid down in Attygalle v. Emperior, State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Umar and Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, and held that "when an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed.".In the present case, the court held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the appellants were in occupation of their house with the deceased at the time incident took place or even in the evening on that unfateful night..Hence, there was no direct evidence which could prove that the heinous offence was committed by the appellants and, therefore, burden placed under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act,was not discharged by the prosecution..The Court, therefore, acquitted the appellants and the order of the Sessions Court was set-aside..[Read Order]