Absence of motive in a case of circumstantial evidence lies in favour of the accused

Absence of motive in a case of circumstantial evidence lies in favour of the accused written by Isha Sawant student of Government Law College

Anwar Ali v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Facts:

The appellant-accused aggrieved by the decision of Himachal Pradesh High Court of reversing the order of acquittal given by the Trial Court and convicting him for offences punishable u/s 302 read with 32.392, 201 and 420 of the India Penal Code, has so approached the Supreme Court. The appellant was charged with the murder of one Deepak Kumar, whose body was found on 02-09-2010, near Bihali bypass road, Chandigarh. The body was found by PW4 who informed the Bhutar Police Station, his statement was recorded and an FIR was registered. The dead body was recognised by the deceased’s father. PW18- the investigation officer conducted the investigation and the body was sent for post-mortem, SHO Narayan on 05-09-2010 had received secret information about an abandoned vehicle in Chandigarh, Investigation Officer (IO) along with other police officers went to recover the vehicle from sector- 45C, Chandigarh. One envelope containing a mobile phone, three photographs and documents of the vehicle were found in the jeep, the IO detected a number from the mobile phone and from the recovered photographs the accused was searched, both the accused were arrested on 08-09-2010. During the investigation, the statements of the accused were recovered u/s-313 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, IO recovered crates from Punjab; one knife and rope were recovered on 09-09-2020 allegedly used in the commission of the crime. The prosecution before the Trial Court based its case on circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct evidence, the Trial Court after going through the evidence on record, did not believe the disclosure statements, neither believed the recovery of knife and rope, and the mobile phone and photographs recovered from the jeep. It found the prosecution to have withheld material evidence regarding sniffer dogs, and that the recoveries were made earlier while the panchnama was made of a later date. The prosecution was found to have failed to establish a chain of events as it was a case of circumstantial evidence, so the Trial Court acquitted the accused for the offences filed against them. The state thus filed an appeal before the Himachal Pradesh High Court, who reversed the order of acquittal given by the Trial Court and convicted both the accused, aggrieved by this, the accused has approached the Supreme Court for relief. 

Issues:

• Whether the Trial Court properly considered the evidence of the prosecution and rightly acquitted the accused.
• Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with and reversing the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.

Legal Provisions:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 34- Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

201- Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information, to screen offender.

302- Punishment for murder.

392- Punishment for robbery.

420- Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 section 100- Persons in charge of closed place to allow search.

166- When officer in charge of police station may require another to issue search-warrant.

Appellant’s Contention:

The counsel for the accused submitted that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reversing the order of the Trial Court, and that the Trial Court did not err in acquitting the accused. They stated that the knife and rope were recovered by the sniffer dogs on 02-09-2020 and not on the basis of the statements given by the accused as claimed by the prosecution. They also submitted that the recovery of jeep from Chandigarh, and the mobile phone and photographs found in the jeep was doubtful. They stated that the conduct of the IO and Bhunter police of not informing the Chandigarh police as required u/s- 166(3) of CrPC, 1973 and other lapses makes the prosecution’s case suspicious. They stated that none of the independent witnesses were examined and neither did the IO find out call-details or check the call-logs of the recovered mobile phone. They also stated that only police witnesses were produced by the prosecution and there were other material contradictions which make the prosecution’s case suspicious. 

Respondent’s Contention:

The counsel for the respondent stated that reappreciation of evidence on record is permissible to the appellate court and so the High Court had rightly gone through the evidence, considered the statements of the witnesses and convicted both the accused of the above-mentioned offences. On the appellant’s contention that the independent witnesses were not examined and the provisions of sec-100(4) of CrPC were not followed, they submitted that the persons gathered at the time of recovery were mere spectators and did not come forward as a witness. They referred to the case of Ronny v. State of Maharashtra (1998) where it was held that even if witnesses are brought by the investigating agency, they cannot be disbelieved on that ground. They further submitted that non-compliance of sec-100(4) of CrPC can at the most be treated as defective investigation but cannot be completely disregarded. They stated that the prosecution had proved beyond doubt the recovery of materials, which the Trial Court disbelieved due minor contradictions, so the order of the Trial Court warranted interference from the High Court. They submitted that the High Court did not err in convicting the accused as the present case is of circumstantial evidence, the primary fact to complete chain of circumstantial evidence indicating the guilt of the accused was established. They stated that the High Court will ordinarily, give due respect to the judgement of the Sessions Judge, but if it is found that the Sessions Judge made a wrong assumption about an important aspect of the circumstances or relied on irrelevant evidence and ignored relevant evidence, this rule will not apply and it can interfere with the order of acquittal. 

Observations of the Court:

The case was heard before the Supreme Court Bench of Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah, JJ. The court went through the evidence in record, the judgements of the Trial Court and High Court as well as the facts and circumstances of the case. The court referred to the case of Bablu v. State of Kerala whereby the principal to be followed for acquittal u/s- 378 of the CrPC was laid down as that the court can interfere only in exceptional cases where there is a compelling circumstance and the impugned judgement is found to be perverse or irrational. The appellate court should give proper consideration to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the acquittal order of the Trial Court supports this presumption of innocence. The court then observed the scope of sec-378 of CrPC, and the High Court’s interference in the order of acquittal. It was noted that once the High Court entertains an appeal against an order of acquittal it is entitled to reconsider the entire evidence on record and come to its own conclusions.

The court noted that in cases of circumstantial evidence like the present case, there has to be complete chain of circumstances and evidence from which there is no other conclusion probable except that the crime was committed by the accused and no one else, and such evidence should be consistent with the guilt of the accused. They noted that the High Court’s reasoning for interfering with the order of the Trial Court was not compelling. The court noted that PW4 and PW5 gave evidence that the materials were recovered with the help of sniffer dogs on 02-09-2010, while the accused was arrested and his statement recorded on 08-09-2010, which was neither mentioned in the FIR nor did the IO mention it in his examination, thus the prosecution and IO were found to have supressed material facts, which this court like the Trial Court did not find to be minor contradictions. They held that the IO did not follow the procedure given u/s- 166 (3&4) CrPC, and also did not comply with the provisions of sec-100(4) of CrPC, 1973, and though non-compliance of these provisions alone is not a ground to acquit the accused, considering the overall circumstances of the case, creates serious doubts. The court noted that the accused’s submission that he deserves to be acquitted due to failure of the prosecution to prove motive is not a sufficient ground to reject the prosecution’s case. The court referred to the case of Bahri v. State of Bihar (1995), whereby it was laid down that if motive is proved it will provide a link to the chain of circumstantial evidence, but its absence cannot be ground to reject the prosecution’s case. But as held in the case of Babu, the absence of motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is a factor which lies on the accused’s favour. 

Judgement:

The court held that the Trial Court’s findings cannot be held to be perverse pr contrary to the evidence on record, it was justified in acquitting the accused due to prosecution’s failure to complete the chain of events. The High Court was held not justified on interfering with the findings of the Trial Court and reversing its order of acquittal. The High Court order dated 20-09-2016, was found not be sustainable and was so quashed and set aside. The order of the Trial Court dated 15-06-2012 was upheld and restored. The accused/appellants- Anwar Ali and Sharif Mohammed were ordered to be set at liberty.