‘Can’t hold guilty on the basis of doubt and doubt’, SC acquits in wife’s murder case

Supreme Court Acquitted A Convicted Man: The Supreme Court recently acquitted one such convicted person. He was convicted for the murder of his wife about 22 years ago. Took this decision from SC after seeing that the courts found him guilty on only one suspicion. The court said this during the hearing of Guno Mahto vs. Jharkhand (Guno Mahto v. State of Jharkhand) case.

The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol was of the view that the lower courts have convicted the appellant merely because he was last seen with his deceased wife. The circumstances linking the appellant to the offense have not been proved at all, it was not even capable of being reasonably suspected.

What did the Supreme Court say?

The Supreme Court in its judgment said, “No matter how grave the doubt may be, there remains only a Doubtful Pigment in the story told by the prosecution to establish its case beyond any reasonable doubt. .. That apart, there is no evidence, circumstantial evidence which could establish the allegation of the accused. No fact has been discovered to link the accused with the offense sought to be proved. Prosecution The parties have established little reasonable doubt.”

The court said that it would make it clear as to how the lower courts had committed serious lapses in passing the order of conviction on the basis of wrong and incomplete interpretation of the evidence. The court was hearing an appeal challenging a 2004 Jharkhand High Court judgement. In this, the lower court had confirmed the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment of the accused-appellant.

What was the matter?

In fact, the appellant’s wife was murdered about 35 years ago in August 1988. His dead body was found in the well of the village.

The prosecution alleged that the accused killed his wife and then threw her body in the village well with an intention to destroy the evidence.

It was alleged that later the accused approached the police with dirty hands and fabricated a false story that his wife was ‘missing’.

During the trial, the prosecution got ten witnesses examined. However, the investigating officer was not questioned. The trial court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) and two years’ rigorous imprisonment in respect of the offense under Section 201 (causing destruction of evidence of offence) of the IPC.

On appeal to the High Court, he upheld the sentence of the lower court and confirmed it. The High Court had relied only on the eye-witness evidence of three witnesses. After this the appellant moved the Supreme Court.

Holding that the entire case was based on circumstantial evidence, the court referred to its decision in Sharad Bardhichand Sarada v. State of Maharashtra (1984). In this, the court has set the necessary conditions to be fulfilled before an accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

The court said that the investigating officer was not questioned. Further, there is no evidence, ocular or documentary, to show that the appellant caused the disappearance of the evidence by giving information to the police.

The Supreme Court thus concluded that the courts below committed grave error in convicting the appellant on the basis of wrong and incomplete appreciation of the evidence, thereby causing serious prejudice to him. The result of this was that justice was made a mockery of.

read this also: LGBTQ: Jamiat opposes gay marriage, says in SC- ‘It is an attack on the family system’