KAMAL V STATE(NCT) OF DELHI 2023 LIVELAW (SC) 617
- The bench referred to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported at (1984) 4 SCC 116, in which it was held that there should not be a should not be a shadow of doubt on the circumstances on the basis of which we’re inferring the guilt of the accused. Further, the chain of evidence must be so complete to leave us no choice and unequivocally point toward the guilt of the accused. The court observed “The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved, and that there must be a chain of evidence so complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the 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”
- The court also indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “maybe” established. It referred to the observations made in Shivaj Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973)-“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.”
Therefore, the court concluded that the circumstances were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and conviction and sentence to life imprisonment was set aside.
