Appeal
Death of deceased was initially a man missing and found dead body the next day of the information
1. This is a tale of two friends, Vaibhav and Mangesh, who were studying at Bagla Homeopathy Medical College, Arvat Chandrapur, Maharashtra. They were students of first year and often used to commute together on their two-wheelers. On the fateful day of 16.09.2010, both friends left the college together on the scooter belonging to Mangesh, had tea at the tea stall of PW-3 and arrived at Vaibhav’s house in the afternoon. When Mangesh’s father/PW-1 discovered late in the evening that his son had not reached home, he tried to find out and eventually lodged a missing report. The next day, on 17.09.2010, the dead body of Mangesh was found and accordingly, the present criminal case came to be registered against unknown persons.
After investigation final report was filed accusing appellant friend of the deceased for causing death of the deceased by shooting him with the gun of the appellant’s father
2. Investigation commenced and a supplementary statement of PW-1 was recorded wherein he raised suspicion against Vaibhav, Mangesh’s friend, classmate, scooter partner and appellant before us in the present appeal. Upon investigation, the police prepared the chargesheet wherein the appellant was alleged to have caused death of deceased Mangesh by shooting him by the gun belonging to the appellant’s father/PW-12.
Trial court convicted the appellant and confirmed by the High Court
3. Upon trial, the Trial Court found that the appellant had killed Mangesh using the service gun belonging to his father when he came to drop him after college. Thereafter, the appellant called his friends Vishal and Akash (juvenile at the time of incident) for helping him in the disposal of the dead body. The appellant was found guilty for the commission of the offences under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as “IPC” for brevity) and Section 5 read with 25(1)(a) of Arms Act, 1959. His friend Vishal was also found guilty for the commission of the offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. Both the convicts had preferred separate appeals before the Bombay High Court and both the appeals came to be disposed of by the impugned judgment, wherein the conviction of the appellant was upheld and Vishal was acquitted for want of evidence. The present appeal assails the said impugned judgment dated 13.06.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 57/2012.
Discussion
13. We have carefully considered the grounds of appeal, respective submissions advanced at Bar and have heard both sides at length. We may now consider the principal issue whether the finding of the High Court regarding the conviction of the appellant is sustainable in light of the evidence on record.
It is an admitted fact by the appellant that the cause of death of the deceased was due to shot by service pistol belonging to PW.12
14. In the factual matrix of the present case, it could be observed at the outset that certain facts stand duly admitted. We may first consider such facts. The cause of death of the deceased is undisputed, as it is admitted that the deceased was shot by the service pistol belonging to PW-12, the father of the appellant. Although, the investigating officer did not obtain any ballistic report to ascertain the nexus between the bullet injury and the service pistol of PW-12, however, it could be seen from the record that the nexus has not been questioned by the defence. In fact, both the appellant and PW-12 have admitted that the bullet was shot from the pistol of PW-12 which was lying in the house. Furthermore, PW-11 has also confirmed that when the service pistol was re-deposited by PW-12, one bullet was missing from the sanctioned number of bullets.
Appellant removed the dead body and cleaned up the soc but question is who pulled the trigger?
15. Going further, it is also admitted that the appellant had indeed removed the dead body of the deceased and had cleaned up the scene of crime. It is also a matter of record that the discoveries made under Section 27 of Evidence Act were not challenged by the appellant as the appellant had admitted that various articles belonging to himself and the deceased, and connected with the alleged incident, were discovered in furtherance of his disclosures. All these aspects, however, assume greater relevance for the offence under Section 201 IPC. Insofar as the offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act are concerned, the prosecution case leaves us wanting for answers. No doubt, the deceased was shot by the pistol belonging to the father of the appellant and in the house of the appellant, but the pertinent question that craves for an answer is – who pulled the trigger? Despite two rounds of litigation, the question is yet to find an answer.
What are the circumstances against the accused in this case is listed out
16. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, answers to such questions are not found on the face of the record. Rather, the truth is found concealed in the layers of incriminating and exonerating facts, and the Court is required to arrive at a judicial finding on the basis of the best possible inference which could be drawn from a comprehensive analysis of the chain of circumstances in a case. As per the record and the analysis carried out by the Courts below, the circumstances weighing against the accused could briefly be summarized as:
i. The presence of deceased at the house of the appellant prior to and at the time of incident;
ii. Admitted removal of dead body of the deceased by the appellant;
iii. Admitted removal, concealment and subsequent discovery of various articles as per the disclosure made by the appellant;
iv. Fatal gunshot by the pistol lying in the house of the appellant;
v. Subsequent conduct of the appellant in trying to show concern to the father of the deceased despite knowing about the death;
vi. Failure of the appellant to explain certain circumstances such as the manner in which the pistol fell in the hands of the deceased, how was it reconcealed etc.
Prosecution version remains acceptable till the point of bullet entered the skull but suspicious when it travels upward while exiting the skull
17. Having observed the incriminating circumstances, we may now advert to the circumstances which leave missing links in the chain of the prosecution. Such instances include the doubt expressed by PW-9 regarding the nature of death, trajectory of bullet, possibility of accidental injury etc. The case of the appellant is that a proper appreciation of the exonerating circumstances would make the version of the prosecution highly improbable and doubtful. We may now examine the same by first considering the version of PW-9. Notably, PW-9 has deposed regarding the trajectory of the bullet as it entered and exited the skull of the deceased. PW-9 had also annexed a diagram of the trajectory, which revealed that the bullet entered through the eye of the deceased and exited from the lower part of the skull from the back. It would have been possible to reconcile this trajectory with the version of homicidal death. However, questions arise when the journey of the bullet is analyzed after it exited from the lower part of the skull. For, after taking an exit from the lower skull, the bullet hit against a ventilator which was installed above the door of the living room. Admittedly, the ventilator was installed at a height significantly higher than the height of the deceased, thereby meaning that the bullet travelled upwards after it left the skull of the deceased. The version of the prosecution is simply that the appellant shot the deceased in the eye and there has been no effort to prove the directions of entry or exit or to explain the inward or outward journey of the bullet. The prosecution version remains acceptable only till the point of entry of the bullet through the eye, but it starts becoming cloudy when the upward trajectory of the bullet is analyzed further, as discussed above.
Prosecution did not provide any explanation for such a trajectory of the bullet
18. In usual course of things, such trajectory of the bullet could have been possible only if the deceased was sitting and looking downwards towards the barrel of the pistol from a close distance. It was only then that the bullet could have hit the ventilator despite exiting from the lower part of the skull. In fact, this is precisely the defence of the appellant – that the deceased, on finding the service pistol of PW-12, got curious, picked it up, started looking into it with one eye from a close distance and accidentally pressed the trigger. The probability of the version put across by the appellant is on the higher side as compared to the version put across by the prosecution, which simply does not give any explanation for the trajectory of the bullet.
How to appreciate the gunshot cases is explained
19. In gunshot cases wherein the nature of death – suicidal, accidental or homicidal – is not ascertainable from direct evidence, multiple factors are taken into account for arriving at a conclusion. Such factors include, but are not limited to, the point of entrance, the size of wound, direction of wound, position of wound, possible distance of gunshot, number of wounds, position of weapon, trajectory of bullet after entering into the human body, position of exit wound (if bullet has exited), direction of exit wound, direction of the bullet after exit, distance travelled by the bullet after exit, nature of final impact on surface (if any) etc. All such factors, to the extent of their applicability to the facts of the case, need to be examined by the Court before arriving at a judicial finding of fact. Undoubtedly, no such analysis could be found in the impugned judgment. The High Court merely brushed aside the defence of the appellant by referring to the subsequent conduct of the appellant and by raising adverse inference on that basis.
Doctor is not bound to give a conclusive opinion as to the death being homicidal or suicidal or accidental
20. Similarly, the inconclusive opinion of PW-9 regarding the death being homicidal or suicidal/accidental was also a relevant fact. No doubt, PW-9 was not bound to give a conclusive opinion as observed by the High Court, however, it ought to have been examined whether the failure to do so had a bearing on the judicial determination of the real cause of death. The nature of death ought to have been examined in light of the surrounding circumstances discussed above, which weigh against the possibility of a homicidal death. The appellant has also placed reliance on medical jurisprudence regarding the nature of injuries in accidental or suicidal gunshot cases. More often than not, in accidental gunshot cases, the injury is found to be singular and inflicted from a close range. The present case ticks the boxes of an accidental gunshot injury, both in theory and in fact. Contrarily, the aforesaid discussion indicates that the possibility of a homicidal death is very weak in the present case. It must also be kept in mind that the imprints on the pistol have not been matched with the appellant and therefore, no direct nexus exists to conclude that the trigger was pulled by the appellant. On this aspect as well, we may note with dismay that the High Court rejected the defence of the appellant by simply observing that the homicidal death of the deceased was ‘admitted’ by the appellant on oath. There is no such admission qua the nature of death. Contrarily, the appellant had deposed on oath that the death was ‘accidental’, a version that he has carried consistently up to this Court.
Subsequent conduct of the accused after the incident is relevant under section 8 of Indian Evidence Act equally inconsistencies in the version of the appellant are also relevant
21. Having said so, we may now examine what weighed with the High Court to arrive at the finding of guilt of the appellant. On a careful reading of the impugned judgment, one would unmistakably note that the subsequent conduct of the appellant in indulging in destruction of evidence weighed heavily against him in the mind of the Court. The inability of the appellant to explain certain aspects also weighed against him. Undoubtedly, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, facts indicating subsequent conduct are relevant facts under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. Equally, the inconsistencies in the version of the appellant are also relevant. However, the occasion to examine the version/defence of the appellant could have arisen only if the prosecution had succeeded in discharging its primary burden beyond reasonable doubt. In criminal jurisprudence, it is a time- tested proposition that the primary burden falls upon the shoulders of the prosecution and it is only if the prosecution succeeds in discharging its burden beyond reasonable doubt that the burden shifts upon the accused to explain the evidence against him or to present a defence. In the present case, the version of the prosecution suffers from inherent inconsistencies and doubts, as discussed above, and in such a scenario, the inability of the appellant to explain certain circumstances could not be made the basis to relieve the prosecution from discharging its primary burden. The High Court fell in a grave error in doing so, as it placed greater reliance on the loopholes in the appellant’s version without first determining whether the chain of circumstances sought to be proved by the prosecution was complete or not. Pertinently, the inability of an accused to offer plausible explanation on certain aspects would not automatically absolve the prosecution of its evidentiary burden, which must be discharged first and beyond doubt.
Evidentiary burden or burden of proof
22. In law, there is a significant difference in the evidentiary burden to be discharged by the prosecution and the accused. Whereas, the former is expected to discharge its burden beyond reasonable doubt, the latter is only required to prove a defence on the anvil of preponderance of probabilities. If the accused leads defence evidence in the course of a criminal trial, the same ought to be tested as probable or improbable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The present case, we are afraid, reveals that the defence taken by the accused since the beginning of the case was not tested by the Trial Court and the High Court. Despite a specific defence taken by the appellant before both the Courts, the Courts simply did not examine the same in the manner required by law. The probability of the version put across by the appellant ought to have been tested against the circumstantial theory of the prosecution. In other words, it was incumbent upon the Courts below to have examined whether the defence taken by the appellant was a probable defence or not. The failure to do so has certainly resulted into a failure of justice and it is sufficient to reopen the evidence in the instant appeal, as we have done.
Complete absence of motive is certainly a circumstance which may weigh in favour of accused
23. We may now come to the next aspect of the case i.e. absence of motive and consequence thereof. It is trite law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive is relevant. However, it is not conclusive of the matter. There is no rule of law that the absence of motive would ipso facto dismember the chain of evidence and would lead to automatic acquittal of the accused. It is so because the weight of other evidence needs to be seen and if the remaining evidence is sufficient to prove guilt, motive may not hold relevance. But a complete absence of motive is certainly a circumstance which may weigh in favour of the accused. During appreciation of evidence wherein favourable and unfavourable circumstances are sifted and weighed against each other, this circumstance ought to be incorporated as one leaning in favour of the accused. In Anwar Ali & Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, this Court analyzed the position of law thus:
“paras. 24 & 25”
24. In the subsequent decision in Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra, this Court relied upon the decision in Anwar Ali and observed as under:-
“27. Though in a case of direct evidence, motive would not be relevant, in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important link to complete the chain of circumstances. The motive……”
More recently, in Nandu Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) 7 , the position was reiterated by this Court in the following words:
“10. In a case based on substantial evidence, motive assumes great significance. It is not as if motive alone becomes the crucial link in the case to be established by the prosecution and in its absence the case of Prosecution must be discarded. But, at the same time, complete absence of motive assumes a different complexion and such absence definitely weighs in favour of the accused.”
25. Thus, a complete absence of motive, although not conclusive, is a relevant factor which weighs in favour of the accused. No doubt, the final effect of such absence on the outcome of the case shall depend upon the quality and weight of surrounding evidence. In the present case, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses have invariably revealed that the appellant and the deceased were friends and there was no ill-will between them. Even the father of the deceased has testified to that effect. The relevance of motive in a case of homicide has been a subject of prolonged discussion. Ordinarily, in cases involving direct evidence of the commission of crime, motive has little role to play as presence or absence of motive is immaterial if the commission of the crime stands proved through other evidence. Even otherwise, motiveless crimes are not unknown to the society. However, in cases purely based on circumstantial evidence, the absence of motive could raise serious questions and might even render the chain of evidence as doubtful. It is so because the presence of motive does the job of explaining the circumstantial evidence. For instance, in the facts of the present case, any evidence of enmity between the appellant and the deceased would have made suspicious the act of the appellant of taking the deceased to his home prior to his death. However, since the evidence suggests that they were friends, the fact that the appellant brought him home could not be termed as per-se incriminating. Therefore, motive explains the circumstances on record and enables the Court to draw better inference in a case based on circumstantial evidence.
Presumption as to subsequent conduct of the accused of removing the dead body and concealment of articles may be due to fear of his father is quite natural
26. As regards the subsequent conduct of the appellant, before parting, we may also note that the same was consistent with the theory of accidental death. That his act of removal of the dead body and concealment of articles was a result of fear of his father – is quite natural. A young boy studying in first year of college, with no criminal background and with no motive in sight, would certainly have become scared on seeing that his friend has accidentally shot himself in the living room of his house with the pistol belonging to his father and is lying in a pool of blood. The subsequent conduct of cleaning up the scene and restoring the living room in its original shape, although punishable in law, does not become so unnatural that it could be made the basis to convict him for the commission of murder without additional evidence to that effect. More so, when such conclusion is not consistent with the surrounding evidence on record, especially medical evidence, as discussed above.
Mere suspicion against the accused in cleaning up the crime scene cannot take place of proof in criminal trial
27. No doubt, the subsequent acts of cleaning up the crime scene and making false enquiries amount to disappearance of evidence and raise grave suspicion against the appellant. However, mere suspicion, no matter how grave, cannot take the place of proof in a criminal trial. The suspicion ought to have been substantiated by undeniable, reliable, unequivocal, consistent and credible circumstantial evidence, which does not leave the probability of any other theory. In the present case, the theory put across by the appellant is fairly probable and is supported by medical evidence including the examination of the bullet injury and trajectory. Contrarily, the conclusion drawn by the Courts below is not supported by medical evidence and is not consistent with the bullet injury and trajectory, as discussed above. We have come far since our acknowledgement that in a case purely based on circumstantial evidence, it must be established that the chain of circumstances is complete. Such chain must be consistent with the conclusion of guilt only and must not support a contrary finding. The rigid principles underlying an examination based on circumstantial evidence are based on the premise that the very act of arriving at a finding of guilt on the basis of inferences must be performed with great caution and margin of error must be kept at a minimum. Having said so, we may also observe that naturally, there could be some inconsistencies in the chain of circumstances in the natural course of things and mere presence of inconsistencies does not automatically demolish the case of the prosecution. However, the prosecution must be able to explain the inconsistencies to the satisfaction of the Court. For, the ultimate test is the judicial satisfaction of the Court. In the present case, the counter probabilities and inconsistencies in the chain of circumstances have not been explained.
Though views taken by the courts below is possible but since counter view was also possible and if two different views appeal which favour the accused should take
28. Momentarily, even if it is believed that the view taken by the Courts below is a possible view, it ought to have been examined whether a reasonable counter view was possible in the case. It is a time-tested proposition of law that when a Court is faced with a situation wherein two different views appear to be reasonably possible, the matter is to be decided in favour of the accused. The benefit of a counter possibility goes to the accused in such cases.
Conclusion
Appellant is acquitted of the charge of causing murder with fire arm
29. In light of the foregoing discussion, we hereby conclude that the High Court has erred in arriving at the finding of guilt and in upholding the verdict of the Trial Court. The circumstantial evidence on record is not consistent and leaves a reasonable possibility of an alternate outcome i.e. of innocence of the appellant on the charges of murder and illegal usage of fire arm. Accordingly, the impugned order and judgment are partially set aside to the extent of conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 IPC and Section 5 read with 25(1)(a) of Arms Act. Consequently, the appellant is acquitted for the offences under Section 302 of IPC and Section 5 read with 25(1)(a) of Arms Act. His conviction under Section 201 IPC is sustained and he is sentenced for the period already undergone by him, for reasons discussed above.
30. The captioned appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Interim application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Resources
Judgments Cited in the Document
- Anwar Ali & Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh
- Citation: (2020) 10 SCC 166.
- Brief: This case is quoted extensively to analyze the role of motive in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The judgment clarifies that while the failure to prove motive is not a ground to reject the prosecution’s case outright, its complete absence is a factor that heavily weighs in favor of the accused.
- Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar
- Citation: 1995 Supp (1) SCC 80.
- Brief: Referenced within the Anwar Ali judgment to establish that proving a motive supplies a critical link in the chain of circumstantial evidence, but its absence does not justify dismissing the prosecution’s case.
- Babu v. State of Kerala
- Citation: (2010) 9 SCC 189.
- Brief: Cited within the Anwar Ali judgment to support the principle that an absence of motive in circumstantial evidence cases operates as a factor favouring the accused.
- State of U.P. v. Kishanpal
- Citation: (2008) 16 SCC 73.
- Brief: Quoted to explain the importance of motive. The judgment observes that motive is primarily known only to the accused, and if the evidence is clear and unambiguous in proving guilt, the case is not weakened even if the motive is not strongly established. It also notes that motive loses its importance when clear direct evidence is available.
- Pannayar v. State of T.N.
- Citation: (2009) 9 SCC 152.
- Brief: Briefly cited to reiterate the holding that the absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence weighs in favor of the accused.
- Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra
- Citation: (2021) 5 SCC 626.
- Brief: Relied upon by the Court to emphasize that while motive might not be relevant where direct evidence exists, it plays an important linking role to complete the chain of circumstances in circumstantial cases.
- Nandu Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh)
- Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 285 of 2022.
- Brief: Quoted to reiterate that although a case must not be discarded solely because motive is absent, a complete absence of motive takes on great significance and definitely weighs in favor of the accused in circumstantial evidence cases.
Acts and Sections
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
- Section 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
- Section 201: Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.
- Section 302: Punishment for murder.
Arms Act, 1959
- Section 5: License for manufacture, sale, etc., of arms and ammunition.
- Section 25(1)(a): Punishment for certain offences related to the manufacturing, selling, or using of prohibited arms or ammunition.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Section 8: Motive, preparation, and previous or subsequent conduct.
- Section 27: How much of information received from accused may be proved (pertaining to the discovery of facts/evidence).
Party
Vaibhav versus The State of Maharashtra - Criminal Appeal No. 1643 of 2012 - 2025 INSC 800 - June 04, 2025 – Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.
