Strong Suspicion Can't Constitute As Proof: Supreme Court

GENERAL OVERVIEW

• The Supreme Court ruled that suspicion, however strong, can not constitute as proof, emphasizing that the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
• A bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and Hemant Gupta, while standing by the order of Orissa High Court, observed that 'there has to be a chain of evidence so complete as to show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.'
• In this case, it was alleged that the accused had killed the deceased by giving him some poison, and thereafter applying electric shock to him, and the Trial Court acquitted the accused. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal in the murder case.
• The bench observed, after referring to the evidence on record, that there is a higher possibility that the deceased might have accidentally touched a live electrical wire, maybe when he was asleep.

WHAT ARE THE FACTS OF THE CASE?

• Bijay Kumar Taduu, the deceased-had been working at Home guard, deputed at Chandabali Police Station, Chandabali. Gitanjali Tadu, wife of the deceased stated that her husband used to go around and about with the accused, who owned an electric sales and repairing shop, named 'Raja Electricals'', near the Chandabali bus stand.
• She lodged an FIR with the police, alleging that the accused, Banubihari Mohapatra and his son, Luja killed her husband by administering some poisonous substances to him, and thereafter electrocuting him to death.
• The post mortem report stated that the cause of death was electric shock, and there were also hints of alcohol within the body, and the doctor observed that the deceased was intoxicated, and the death was either accidental or homicidal, but not suicidal. There is no conclusive evidence that the death was homicidal.
• The complaint was lodged on the basis of suspicion, and the complainant had assumed that the accused had killed the deceased, since the body was found at the premises of the first accused, and the accused had informed the complainant regarding the death of her husband.

CURRENT SCENARIO

• 'The mere fact that the deceased was lying dead at a room held by the accused respondent No 1 and that the accused respondents had informed the complainant that the deceased had been lying motionless and still and not responding to shouts and calls, does not establish that the accused respondents murdered the deceased,' the bench said.
• The Supreme Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused, and the trial court rightly acquitted the accused respondents.
• The Court observed that 'It is well settled by a plethora of Judicial pronouncement of this Court that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt.'
• The Court continued to state that 'before a case against accused can be said to be fully established on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must fully be established, and the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. There has to be a chain of evidence so complete as to show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.'
• The bench referred to Shanti Devi v. State of Rajasthan (2012) and reiterated the principles for conviction of accused based on the circumstantial evidence.

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE JUDGEMENT? LET US KNOW IN THE COMMENTS BELOW!