Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Shamji @ Sunil @ Dakudo S/o Kalubhai Mer, was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jetpur at Rajkot, for the murders of Manish Babubhai Makwana and Kaushal Rasikbhai Parekh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and for causing disappearance of evidence under Section 201 IPC. The prosecution case was that the appellant, suspecting his wife had an affair with deceased Manish, invited both deceased to his home on 15 May 2011 and offered them fruit beer laced with sodium nitrite, a poisonous substance. Both deceased consumed the drink, became unconscious, and later died. The FIR was lodged on 20 May 2011 by the brother of deceased Kaushal. The trial court convicted the appellant based on circumstantial evidence, including motive, last seen, recovery of poison, and medical evidence. The appellant appealed to the Gujarat High Court. The High Court examined the evidence and found several gaps and inconsistencies. The motive was weak as the alleged affair was not proved. The last seen evidence was based on the testimony of Paresh @ Hakli, who claimed to have seen the deceased going to the appellant's house, but his testimony was found unreliable due to contradictions and delay in disclosure. The recovery of sodium nitrite from the appellant's house was not linked to the poison consumed. The medical evidence did not conclusively prove that the poison was administered by the appellant. The court held that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and did not exclude the possibility of innocence. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, giving him the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Standard of Proof - In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established and must form a complete chain pointing unequivocally to the guilt of the accused, excluding every other hypothesis. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, as the evidence of last seen, motive, and recovery was weak and unreliable. (Paras 1-37) B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Murder by Poisoning - Proof of Administration - In a poisoning case, the prosecution must prove that the accused administered the poison to the deceased. The court found that the evidence of the deceased having consumed fruit beer at the appellant's house was not credible, and the medical evidence did not conclusively link the appellant to the administration of poison. (Paras 2-37) C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 201 - Causing Disappearance of Evidence - The conviction under Section 201 was also set aside as the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant caused any evidence to disappear. The court noted that there was no evidence of any act by the appellant to destroy or conceal evidence. (Paras 1-37)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence must be complete and point only to guilt
- Benefit of doubt when chain of circumstances is broken
- Conviction cannot be based on suspicion or conjecture
- Poisoning case requires proof of administration by accused
- Motive alone insufficient for conviction
