Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused: High Court’s Conviction Reversed

The case of Anwar Ali & Another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh revolves around a crucial legal question regarding the standard of evidence required in circumstantial cases. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether the conviction by the Himachal Pradesh High Court was justified when the trial court had acquitted the accused based on the insufficiency of evidence.

The appellants, Anwar Ali and Sharif Mohammad, were convicted by the Himachal Pradesh High Court for the murder of one Deepak. However, the Supreme Court reversed this conviction and restored the trial court’s decision, highlighting that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of events necessary for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence.

Background of the Case

The case pertains to the alleged murder of Deepak, whose dead body was found on September 2, 2010, near Bypass Bihali Road, Chandigarh. The investigation led to the arrest of Anwar Ali and Sharif Mohammad, who were accused of committing the murder and robbing the victim. The prosecution’s case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence.

The key details of the case are as follows:

• On September 2, 2010, a passerby named Jashwinder Singh (PW4) found the deceased’s body and informed the police.
• Police arrived at the scene, recorded statements, and registered an FIR.
• A jeep was found abandoned at Chandigarh on September 5, 2010, with a mobile phone, photographs, and vehicle documents inside.
• Based on this evidence, the police arrested the accused on September 8, 2010.
• On September 9, 2010, a knife and rope were allegedly recovered, which were believed to have been used in the crime.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The accused, represented by their counsel, contended:

• The trial court had correctly acquitted them due to a lack of direct evidence.
• The High Court wrongfully interfered with a well-reasoned acquittal.
• The case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, which did not form a complete chain leading to their guilt.
• The knife and rope were allegedly recovered twice—once on September 2, 2010, with the help of sniffer dogs, and again on September 9, 2010, through the accused’s disclosure statements.
• The recovery of the jeep was suspicious as the police had failed to inform the jurisdictional authorities in Chandigarh.
• The prosecution withheld crucial details regarding forensic and call records of the recovered mobile phone.
• The High Court’s judgment was based on conjecture and surmise rather than solid evidence.

Respondent’s Arguments

The prosecution countered:

• The High Court had rightly convicted the accused after re-evaluating the evidence.
• Multiple pieces of circumstantial evidence pointed toward the accused’s guilt.
• The recovery of the jeep, knife, and rope was properly conducted.
• The prosecution witnesses, particularly PW4, PW5, and PW18, provided consistent testimonies supporting the accused’s involvement.
• The standard of proof in circumstantial cases does not require direct eyewitness testimony.

Supreme Court’s Key Observations

The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the evidence and made several crucial observations:

“The contradictions regarding the recovery of the knife and rope are not minor but strike at the root of the prosecution’s case. The evidence does not form a complete chain pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused.”

The Court further noted:

• The police failed to explain why the knife and rope were allegedly recovered twice.
• The mobile phone recovered from the jeep was not subjected to forensic analysis to establish its usage.
• The prosecution did not present independent witnesses for the recovery of key evidence.
• The investigation was marred by procedural lapses, including the failure to follow Section 100(4) and Section 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
• The High Court had overturned a well-reasoned acquittal without sufficient grounds.

Legal Precedents Considered

The Supreme Court relied on several important precedents:

• Babu vs. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189: Held that acquittals should not be overturned unless the trial court’s judgment is perverse.
• State of Rajasthan vs. Madan (2019) 13 SCC 653: Emphasized the need for a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.
• Vijay Mohan Singh vs. State of Karnataka (2019) 5 SCC 436: Reiterated that appellate courts should be cautious in interfering with acquittals.
• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116: Laid down the principles governing circumstantial evidence.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment:

“The findings of the trial court were based on a proper appreciation of the evidence. The High Court erred in reversing an acquittal in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence without proving a complete chain of events. The conviction is, therefore, set aside.”

The Court ordered the immediate release of the appellants unless they were required in any other case.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for criminal law:

• It reaffirms that appellate courts should not interfere with acquittals unless there is a glaring error.
• It highlights the importance of procedural integrity in criminal investigations.
• It clarifies that circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain leading to guilt.
• It underscores the necessity of forensic and independent witness corroboration in criminal trials.
• It sets a precedent for fair trial principles and the rights of the accused in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

With this judgment, the Supreme Court has reinforced the legal principle that acquittals must be reversed only when there is compelling evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Petitioner Name: Anwar Ali & Another.
Respondent Name: State of Himachal Pradesh.
Judgment By: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Justice M.R. Shah.
Place Of Incident: Chandigarh, Himachal Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 25-09-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Anwar Ali & Another vs State of Himachal Pr Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 25-09-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Subhash Reddy
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category