Circumstantial evidence-It is direct evidence applied indirectly based on which

court can form certain assumptions and reach an inference after forming a chain of

course of action.

Case name-Laxman Prasad @Laxman vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation-Criminal appeal no.821/2012

Court-Supreme court of India

Bench- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Decided on-14th June 2023

Case laws-

1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of

Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116

2. Sailendra Rajdev Pasvan vs. State of

Gujarat Etc AIR 2020 SC 180

Brief facts of the case-

1. Rang Panchami was celebrated on March 12, 1993. Chastar (hereafter referred

to as 'dead') and Gulab Singh (PW9) went to Gadaghat to get the food grain and

headed back to the house after unloading the bullock cart. At around 11 a.m., the

accused Laxman (A1), Chatarsingh (A3), Bashiy (A7), Raisingh (A9), Navalsingh

(A8), Reechoo (A5), Nakoo, Bathalya (A6), Bhomalya (A2), and Kishan (A4)

halted Chastar and Gulab in the Remsingh field located on the rear of Navadiya.

Gulab fled the scene and informed the locals that the accused had stopped the

deceased and were abusing him. Following this, the complainants Anar Singh

(PW-1), Kal Singh (PW-10), Resala (PW-12), and others expressed their

dissatisfaction.

2. Other residents of the area rushed to the scene of the crime. The accused began

shooting arrows and throwing stones. The accused Chatariya (A-3) fired an arrow

that struck the complainant on the right shoulder. The accused Laxman (A-1) fired

an arrow that struck the deceased, who collapsed and died because of his injuries.

The accused Reechoo (A-5) fired an arrow that struck Kal Singh.

3.The complainant and the accused had an old enmity and the altercation took

place due to it.The complaint was filed by Amar singh .The case was filed in the

court of Judicial Magistrate first class under section 147,148,149,302 and 324 of

IPC, then the case was transferred to the session court for trial. The sessions court

found the accused guilty based on evidence given by the eye-witnesses and

convicted

4.The counsel for the accused appealed that the death was due to sudden

altercation and does not come under the ambit of Section 302.And, appeal was

filed subsequently in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior. Order passed

on 28.09.2010 dismissed the appeal of the appellant and upheld the conviction

order of the Trail court.

5.Appeal was then filed in the Supreme court to ponder over the correctness of

judgment.

Issue -

Was proper procedure followed as it should have been in a case based on

circumstantial evidence?

Ratio-The court recognized that the case is a case of circumstantial evidence and

in such cases the prosecution must establish the link between (a)motive (b) last

seen (c)recovery of weapon of assault. The High court recognized the existence of

the motive and last seen, however in matter of recovery of weapon and blood-

stained clothes the High court has agreed that it does establish that the offence was

committed by the appellant. The Supreme court after relying on the case laws 1)

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra and 2) Sailendra Rajdev

Pasvan vs. State of Gujarat Etc. reiterated that ‘In a case of circumstantial

evidence, the chain must be complete in all respects to indicate the guilt of the

accused and also exclude any other theory of the crime.

Held-The supreme court further held that the conclusion reached by the High court

are not in accordance with law, it stated that link is missing in the chain of

circumstantial evidence and hence the Supreme court allowed the appeal and set

aside the conviction and sentence.