Accused Must Be Proven Guilty, Not Just Possibly Guilty: Supreme Court

On 21 April 2023, Supreme Court held, in a recent Dakkata Balaram Reddy & Anr.  Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., that when there are no eyewitnesses and the case built on circumstantial evidence. In such situations, the chain of evidence must be complete, leaving no reasonable grounds for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The accused must be proven guilty, not just possibly guilty, for the Court to convict, and the established facts should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused's guilt.

Facts: Vetcha Kesava Rao (PW-1) accused A1, a civil contractor, and A2, an ex-serviceman and A1's brother-in-law, of trespassing into his house and brutally killing his son and wife, then robbing gold ornaments and cash. PW-1 reported the crime, and the police arrested A1 and A2, recovering the stolen property. The prosecution examined 27 witnesses and produced evidence, leading to the conviction of the accused under Sections 302, 397, and 450 IPC. They were sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC, among other sentences. The accused appealed, but the High Court dismissed the appeal, finding the circumstantial and medical evidence sufficient to establish the accused's intent to cause death. The case is now being appealed under Article 136 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court emphasized the limited scope of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, particularly when the Trial Court and High Court have returned concurrent findings of guilt against the accused. It stated that in such an appeal, the Court will not contest each finding of fact or treat it as another forum for reappreciating evidence. Interference is warranted only in cases of grave miscarriage of justice, serious prejudice, or injustice due to errors in law or procedure or misreading of evidence.

The Court reiterated that Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal but grants discretionary power to the Court to intervene in cases where grave miscarriage of justice has resulted from illegality, misapprehension, mistake in reading evidence, or improper handling of material evidence.

The Supreme Court emphasized that in the case at hand, there are no eyewitnesses and the case built on circumstantial evidence. In such situations, the chain of evidence must be complete, leaving no reasonable grounds for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The accused must be proven guilty, not just possibly guilty, for the Court to convict, and the established facts should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused's guilt.

Supreme Court analyze the evidence and found that both deceased died due to shock from brain injury and hemorrhage caused by head injuries, and their deaths were homicidal in nature. Three separate witnesses (PWs 4, 6, and 10) saw one or both of the accused running away from PW-1's house at the time of the incident. PW-4 and PW-6 saw A1 running away from PW-1's house, while PW-10 saw both A1 and A2 running away, carrying bags.PW-7 did not mention the presence of the accused but testified about the crime scene and informed PW-1 about the incident.

Court further found that the police apprehended the accused and seized gold ornaments and cash. Blood-stained clothes of both accused were also seized.

The fingerprint evidence was deemed unreliable and not given any weightage due to procedural lapses, such as not following the prescribed procedure while lifting chance prints and taking specimen fingerprints of the accused.

The Supreme Court observed that there were discrepancies and contradictions in the prosecution's case, such as differing witness testimonies, lack of corroboration, and unclear recovery of the clothes worn by the accused. However, it noted that some differences in testimonies are expected due to the passage of time. The court emphasized that it would not undertake a roving inquiry on factual issues or reappreciate the evidence unless there is a manifest miscarriage of justice. It also mentioned that trivial defects in investigation or process are not enough to disbelieve the prosecution's case, and acquitting solely on the grounds of defective investigation would be adding insult to injury.

Supreme Court found that the identification of the gold ornaments by PW-1 during the TIP did not raise any red flags as it followed the prescribed procedure. A2 was found in possession of a bag carrying some of the stolen ornaments, and he failed to explain how he came to be in possession of those stolen ornaments. As for A1, he confessed to the commission of the crime and led to the recovery of the stolen gold ornaments, making this part of his confession admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The weight of the evidence on record, taken cumulatively, pointed to the guilt of the accused, leaving no room for second thoughts. And that there was no possibility for the police to have hoisted a false case upon them.

Appeal Dismissed.

Dakkata Balaram Reddy & Anr.  Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.