Case Title: Suresh alias Chaveney v. the State Of U.P
The Allahabad High Court categorically held that in a case premised on circumstantial evidence, it is essential that a complete chain of circumstances is proved and established beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Hon’ble Bench stressed on the fact that suspicion, however, strong cannot be allowed to take the place of proof and, therefore, the Court has to be watchful and ensure that conjectures and suspicions do not take place of legal proof.
The Court also referred to Padala Veera Reddy v. the State of A.P., wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the guiding principle with regard to appreciation of circumstantial evidence. It reads thus-
“(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt issought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and
(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.”
A reference was also made to the observation made in State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, the Apex Court pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
The Court further elaborated on the nature of evidence tendered in a Court of law. It observed that, “The evidence tendered in a court of law is either direct or circumstantial. Evidence is said to be direct if it consists of an eyewitness account of the facts in issue in a criminal case. On the other hand, circumstantial evidence is evidence of relevant facts from which, one can, by process of intuitive reasoning, infer about the existence of facts in issue or factum probandum. In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, at the first instance, be fully established. Each fact sought to be relied upon must be proved individually. However, in applying this principle a distinction must be made between facts called primary or basic one on one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them on the other hand. In regard to proof of primary facts, the Court has to judge the evidence and decide whether that evidence proves a particular fact and if that fact is proved, the question whether that facts lead to an inference of guilt of the accused person should be considered.”
Therefore, in the light of legal principles discussed in various legal precedents referred to in the text of the judgment, the Court acquitted the 2 accused.