Suspicion, However Strong, Cannot Take the Place of Proof: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has said that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of evidence, stressing that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

A chain of evidence must be so complete that the accused must have done the act in all human likelihood, a bench of judges Indira Banerjee and Hemant Gupta observed. while upholding an Orissa High Court order that acquitted two men accused of murdering a home guard by electrocuting him.

“It is well settled by a plethora of judicial pronouncement of this court that suspicion, however strong cannot take the place of proof. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” the bench said.

According to an FIR lodged by Gitanjali Tadu with the police, her husband, Bijay Kumar Tadu, was a deputy working at the Chandabali police station.

The woman alleged that her husband was killed by the accused Banabihari Mohapatra, his son Luja and other accomplices with an electric shock after he was given some poisonous substances.

The woman alleged that her husband was killed by the accused Banabihari Mohapatra, his son Luja and other accomplices with an electric shock after he was given some poisonous substances. The apex court claimed that the post-mortem report indicates that electrical shock was the cause of death and there is no definitive proof that the death was homicidal.

“The mere fact that the deceased was lying dead at a room held by the accused respondent No 1 and that the accused respondents had informed the complainant that the deceased had been lying motionless and still and not responding to shouts and calls, does not establish that the accused respondents murdered the deceased,” the bench said.

“There has to be a chain of evidence so complete, as not to leave any reasonable doubt for any conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the Accused,” the court said.

There is a good possibility that the accused, who was intoxicated with alcohol, according to the doctor's opinion, who conducted the autopsy, may have inadvertently touched a live electrical wire when he was unconscious, it said.