Margin Of Error In Case Of Circumstantial Evidence Is Minimal: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India recently reiterated that the margin of error in a case based on circumstantial evidence was minimal.

Bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma heard a criminal appeal against judgment of the High Court wherein the appellant-accuser was convicted.

Brief facts

The matter pertained to a child victim who was allegedly murdered by his paternal uncle. It was the case of the prosecution that on reaching the police station, the appellant confessed to the commission of crime as well as the act of throwing the child in the well. The voluntary statement of the accused, in the nature of extra judicial confession, was recorded by the Police. The dead body of the child was recovered from a well. The charges were framed upon the three accused persons under Sections 201, 302, 363, 364 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 18601. Upon the culmination of trial, the Trial Court acquitted all the accused persons.

The Trial Court's basic reasoning was that the whole prosecution case dependended upon the extra judicial confession of the accused and the fact that there was no eye witness in the case. The High Court analysed the evidence on record and partially allowed the appeal by holding the appellant guilty for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 201, 302, 363, 364 of IPC.

Observations of the Apex Court 

Noting that the inconsistencies in the instant case were not minor inconsistencies, the Court observed that, "A judge owes this duty to the society and effective performance of this duty plays a crucial role in securing the faith of the common public in rule of law.

The Court said that every case, wherein a guilty person went unpunished due to any lacuna on the part of the investigating agency, prosecution or otherwise, shook the conscience of the society at large and diminished the value of the rule of law.

The Court said that the evidence of the prosecution, at best, made out a case for suspicion, and not for conviction.

Decision

The Court upheld the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court and reversed the findings of the High Court.

2024 INSC 124