Suspicion cannot replace proof: SC notes while acquitting three in murder case

New Delhi, Oct 6 (PTI) Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof, the Supreme Court on Monday said while acquitting three people of the charges of allegedly murdering a 10-year-old boy in 2007.

A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma said the prosecution case revealed "substantial gaps" and the evidence on record can in no fathomable circumstance complete the chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused.

The apex court allowed the appeal filed by the three accused, who had challenged the Uttarakhand High Court's November 2017 verdict upholding their conviction and life sentence awarded in the case.

"To convict on doubtful testimony while ignoring scientific tests is to substitute suspicion for proof. The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace evidence," the bench said in its verdict.

It said, "As is well-settled, suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of the doubt." Observing that the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, the bench noted the first and most glaring circumstance was the omission of names of the two appellants in the FIR.

It said the high court acknowledged the omission but brushed it aside as inconsequential.

"This approach is untenable. In a case based solely on circumstantial evidence, every circumstance must withstand rigorous scrutiny," the bench said.

It said the failure to name two of the three appellants in the FIR, despite the complainant's familiarity with them, casts a serious shadow on the subsequent attempt to implicate them.

The bench noted two prosecution witnesses had identified the appellants for the first time in court and no test identification parade (TIP) was conducted, even though one of these witnesses admitted he had never known the accused earlier.

"It is well settled that dock identification without a prior TIP has little evidentiary value where the witness had no prior familiarity with the accused," it said.

The top court said the prosecution's reliance on the last-seen theory was misplaced in this case.

It noted despite the inconclusive forensic report, the high court had dismissed the absence of DNA evidence as inconsequential and affirmed the conviction solely on ocular testimony.

"Such an approach is untenable in a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence. Where scientific evidence is neutral or exculpatory, courts must give it due weight," it said.

It noted the case has its genesis in the tragic death of a young boy, who had gone to the family's mango orchard near Kishanpur to stand guard on June 5, 2007.

The bench said when he did not return by late evening, his family searched for him and his body was found the next day near a pit on the family's land.

His father lodged a complaint at the police station and expressed suspicion against six co-villagers with whom he had a long-standing enmity.

A trial court had in April 2014 acquitted five accused of all charges in the case. It had convicted three accused and sentenced them to life term. PTI ABA ABA NB NB