A Division Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol held that "suspicion howsoever grave it may be, remains only a doubtful pigment in the story canvassed by the prosecution for establishing its case beyond any reasonable doubt."

The Apex Court while acquitted a man convicted for murdering his wife almost 22 years ago, held that the courts found him guilty merely on suspicion and doubts and there was no evidence to substantiate it.

The Court was of the view that the courts below have convicted the appellant only for the reason that he was last seen with his deceased wife. The circumstances linking the appellant to the crime are not proven at all, much less beyond reasonable doubt, it added.

The Court held that, "The Courts below presumptively, proceeded with the acquired assumption of the guilt of the accused for the reason that he was lastly seen with the deceased, and lodged a false report, forgetting that as per the version of the father of the deceased, father of the accused had himself apprised him of his missing daughter, at least two days prior to the incident. Doubt and suspicion cannot form basis of guilt of the accused. The circumstances linking the accused to the crime are not proven at all, much less beyond reasonable doubt."

The Court also held that, "The Courts below presumptively, proceeded with the acquired assumption of the guilt of the accused for the reason that he was lastly seen with the deceased, and lodged a false report, forgetting that as per the version of the father of the deceased, father of the accused had himself apprised him of his missing daughter, at least two days prior to the incident. Doubt and suspicion cannot form basis of guilt of the accused. The circumstances linking the accused to the crime are not proven at all, much less beyond reasonable doubt."

"It is our bounden duty to ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided at all costs and the benefit of doubt, if any, given to the accused.," added the SC.

The Court also said that in normal course of proceedings, this Court does not interfere with the concurrent finding of facts reached by both the courts below. It is only in exceptional cases where we find the concurrent findings to be absurd, leading to travesty of justice, it is our duty to rectify miscarriage of justice.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of conviction passed by the trial court and the High Court.

Case Details:-

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.108 OF 2012
GUNA MAHTO ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND ...RESPONDENT

CLICK HERE TO READ THE COMPLETE JUDGMENT

For Appellant(s)
Mr. Veer Pal Singh, Adv.
Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR