Understanding Bails in Murder Cases
Understanding Bails in Murder Cases
In a criminal case specifically during consideration of bails in murder cases under Section 302 IPC, evidence placed on record is of foundational importance. In a matter pertaining to bail in a murder case based on circumstantial evidence, the main contention which can lead a judge to exercise discretionary power and grant the concession of regular bail is an incomplete chain of events and allegation based upon conjectures and suspicion with no material corroborating evidence to establish a prima facie case against the accused. In other words absence of facts which can be proved as a part of a res gestae.
Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act particularly talks about facts that are so linked to a fact in question that they form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at different times and places at the same time. The principle embodied in law in Section 6, is usually referred to as the res gestae doctrine. The facts that can be proved as a part of res gestae must be facts other than those in question but must be linked to them. Although hearsay evidence is not admissible, it may be admissible in a court of law when it is res gestae and may be a reliable proof.
It is often seen that the judicial approach in bail matters pertaining to murder is slightly tilted in the favor of the prosecution owing to the grave nature of the offence which in many cases leads to consideration and conversion of conjectures and suspicion into evidence in absence of a rock solid defence.
This makes strong criminal defence a sina qua non for persuasion of the court to exercise its discretionary power. The only thing that needs to be brought to light before a court hearing a bail matter in a murder case of circumstantial evidence is a fact which does not form a part of the same transaction thereby breaking the chain of events depicting on the very face of it a lacuna in the prosecution story wide enough to show a prima facie reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution which could possibly lead to acquittal.
In a case of circumstantial evidence, the entire chain of evidence must be complete and the conclusion which is arrived after examining the chain of evidence must point towards the culpability of the accused and to no other conclusion. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the Court has to scrutinize each and every circumstantial possibility, which is placed before it in the form of an evidence and the evidence must point towards only one conclusion, which is the guilt of the accused. In other words, a very heavy duty is cast upon the prosecution to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt.
It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 2 SCC 748 that
“In a case of circumstantial evidence, one must look for complete chain of circumstances and not on snapped and scattered links which do not make a complete sequence.”
Furthermore, in the case of Munikrishna @ Krishna Etc. Vs. State by Ulsoor PS Criminal Appeal No(s). 1597-1600/2022 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a murder case entirely based on circumstantial evidence reiterated the ratio of the Judgment in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 and held that
“179. We can fully understand that though the case superficially viewed bears an ugly look so as to prima facie shock the conscience of any court yet suspicion, however great it may be, cannot take the place of legal proof. A moral conviction however strong or genuine cannot amount to a legal conviction supportable in law. 180. It must be recalled that the well-established rule of criminal justice is that “fouler the crime higher the proof”.”
Talking about one such matter entirely based on circumstantial evidence argued by us before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein the accused was arrayed merely on the basis of conjectures and presumptions of the family of the deceased on the basis of an alleged 10 years old family dispute. The petitioner was not named by any of the complainants in the FIR. There was no direct evidence in the form of an ocular witness to corroborate the factum of the alleged murder. Furthermore, there was no medical evidence to suggest that injuries were inflicted upon the deceased resulting in his death and even the weapon recovered did not correspond with the injuries on the deceased’s body. In fact the case of the prosecution was not even supported by the last seen witness of the dead body of the deceased. As per the reply of the state even the mobile location of the petitioner was not where the dead body was allegedly found. Henceforth, making the chain of events incomplete.
The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court after considering the arguments at length found that a prime facie case of bail is made in absence of a complete chain of events directing towards the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable ground and seeing the custody period the accused was thereby released on bail.
— Ananya Bhardwaj, Associate
The complete order is below for the purpose of reference:
Skip to PDF content