Suspicion however grave, cannot take place of proof: HC

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: The High Court has stated that suspicion cannot take the place of proof and overturned a Sessions Court judgement that had held an accused guilty of pushing his intoxicated friend into a canal and killing him.

“It is settled position of law by the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the catena of cases that while appreciating the evidence, suspicion however grave may be, cannot take the place of a proof. There is a long distance between “may be” and “must be”,” the HC said.

The division bench of Justice K Somashekar and Justice Rajesh Rai K heard an appeal filed by Annaiah, a 48-yearold from HD Kote taluk, Mysuru and rendered its judgement recently.

Annaiah was convicted in 2017 on a case dating from 2012 by a Sessions Court and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for life for the murder of his friend.

Annaiah was accused of taking his friend, intoxicating him and then pushing him to the canal. The body was found four days later in the Taraka Dam.

The HC which heard his appeal noted that the “learned Sessions Judge opined that one cannot expect positive evidence from the medical science to prove the murder with specific signs of pushing the intoxicated person in the water and hence, inference can be drawn that the death of the deceased is homicidal one.

Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge answered point No 1, which was raised by him for his consideration.”

Wrong inference But the HC said that the doctor and Scientific Officer has not given an opinion that it a homicidal death.

“But on careful perusal of evidence of the doctor and the Scientific Officer, there is no specific opinion by them, in respect of cause of death of the deceased. Without any such specific opinion by the doctor and the Scientific Officer, the inference cannot be drawn that the death is a homicidal one,” the HC noted.

Considering the principles laid down by the Apex Court in various judgements and on reappreciation of the entire material available on record, the HC came to the conclusion “that the prosecution failed to prove the homicidal death of the deceased so also the other circumstances like motive, last seen theory and other circumstances beyond reasonable doubt.”

The Division Bench, allowing the appeal filed by Annaiah and acquitting him said, “In our considered opinion, the judgement rendered by the trial Judge suffers from perversity and thereby the learned Sessions Judge is not justified in convicting the appellant/accused for the charges levelled against him. Accordingly, the points raised in this criminal appeal are answered. Therefore, the judgement rendered by the trial Court is liable to be set aside.” (CrLA 1156/2017)