In A Case Of Circumstantial Evidence, Heavy Duty Is Cast Upon The Prosecution To Prove Its Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court

Facts of the case 

The son-in-law of the deceased, S. Ramakrishnan, filed a FIR on October 12, 2000, at 1:15 a.m., claiming that his father-in-law, who was 72 years old, had been killed by unknown people. According to the post-mortem analysis, the major lesion that caused his death was a 13 cm x 5 cm deep incised wound on his front neck that severed both of his jugular veins.

The police inspector in charge of the inquiry was able to apprehend the accused and four other people after obtaining some key information. On 01.02.2001, all five suspects were apprehended and formally arrested. Dodda Hanuma (Accused No. 2) then provided a voluntary confession, and at that point, all five of the defendants admitted to carrying out the heinous murder of the informant's father-in-law.

Charges were filed against the defendant on March 19, 2003, in accordance with Sections 302/396 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court ultimately found the defendants guilty under Section 302 read in conjunction with Section 34 IPC. The High Court affirmed their sentence. Four of the five defendants appealed their cases to the Supreme Court.

Issue 

Whether the prosecution had been able to prove the case against the present appellants, beyond reasonable doubt? 

Judgement 

The appellants were accused of being engaged in as many as 20–25 of these crimes. However, a chart outlining the offences, numbers, and Sections under which they were allegedly committed was presented to the lower courts. "There were no chargesheet-style documents or other types of proof supplied. As a result, this element cannot be considered ", observed the Supreme Court.

Based on these findings, the Supreme Court must intervene in the current case since both the High Court and the Sessions Court disregarded the established rules of criminal law and relied on facts and evidence that are obviously inadmissible in a court of law.

On these grounds, the Bench allowed the appeals.