Published on: 11 July 2023 at 10:45 IST
Court: Supreme Court
Citation: Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of Gujarat (2020)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that in the case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to lead evidence for establishing 3 links of chain – i.e., Motive, Last Seen and Recovery of Weapon of Assault. It is essential that the recovery must indicate the Accused having committed the offence. The evidence 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 against the Accused.
23. The trial court, in our opinion, had therefore rightly acquitted all the accused after recording cogent reasons and good grounds. Ramkeval Mutur Yadav, Accused 5, was not convicted by the appellate court. Ajay alias Pradip Hiralal Gupta, Appellant 4 who has been convicted by the appellate court has not been assigned any role in the entire incident. Needless to state, the High Court should not have interfered with the acquittals given by the trial court, unless the acquittals were vitiated by manifest illegality or such a conclusion “could not have been possibly arrived at by any court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterised as perverse”.
This Court has time and again held that where an appellate court is reversing a trial court’s order of acquittal, it should give proper weight and consideration to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, and to the principle that such a presumption stands “reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court”. Given the inherent inconsistencies and incongruities in the evidence in the present case, the alleged actions of the appellants have not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
