Accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ guilty for conviction: HC

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: The High Court has said that an accused ‘must be’ guilty and merely ‘may be’ guilty for him to be convicted.

Acquitting a 44-year-old person convicted of murder, the HC said, “It has been held that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ guilty before a Court can convict. It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is.”

Keshave Gowda from M Thimmanahalli village, in Hassan approached the High Court with an appeal against his conviction by a Sessions Court in Hassan which had convicted him for murder.

He was sentenced to imprisonment for life. The case dates back to 2013 and he was convicted by the trial court in 2017 and he approached the HC.

The division bench of Justice K Somashekar and Justice Rajesh Rai K gave their judgment on the case recently.

The Gorur police who had booked the case alleged that Keshave Gowda had a grudge against Prakash aka Range Gowda over nonpayment of Rs.2,000 for a damaged mobile phone.

He had allegedly made Range Gowda consume alcohol and on the pretext of catching fish drowned him in an open tank. The Trial Court convicted Keshave Gowda.

The High Court however found the lower court’s judgement lacking. Quoting the Ram Niwas Vs State of Haryana judgment of the Supreme Court, the HC said, “In this judgment, it is indicted that certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”

The HC said that the prosecution story has been accepted by the trial court.

“When there is a theory set up by the prosecution, there appears to be some doubt and also inconsistent, the benefit is accrued to the accused alone. But the entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. It was imperative for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. On the totality of the circumstance of the entire case, it finds that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt against the accused,” the HC said.

Among other things, the delay of three days in filing a missing complaint was not explained by the wife of the deceased.

The HC also said that merely because the doctor who conducted the autopsy says that the victim was murdered does not prove that the accused was responsible for it. While acquitting Keshave Gowda, the HC said, “This Court has held that there has to be a chain of evidence so complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. It has been held that the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.”

Allowing the appeal, the HC said, “The trial Court rendered the conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC even though the prosecution failed to establish the guilt against the accused by facilitating the worthwhile evidence. Therefore, in this appeal, it requires intervention, if not, certainly the accused would be the sufferer and also there shall be some miscarriage of justice.” (CrlA 1422/2017)