Man Acquitted in Murder Case by Allahabad HC: ‘Strong Suspicion Is Not Enough,’ Court Asserts

Man Acquitted in Murder Case by Allahabad HC: 'Strong Suspicion Is Not Enough,' Court Asserts

In the case titled, Rajveer Singh v. State of U.P., the Allahabad high Court observed that in criminal cases, the evidence must convincingly demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused committed the offense. Mere suspicion, regardless of its intensity, cannot serve as the foundation for a conviction.

Facts Of the Case

The Complainant’s father was found dead with multiple injuries inflicted by a sharp-edged weapon on his neck and face. Later an FIR was filed by Surendra Kumar, deceased’s son. The FIR reported that Nem Singh was discovered dead on the morning of August 5, 1999, bearing numerous injuries caused by a sharp-edged weapon. Although the initial investigation didn’t identify any suspects, Rajveer Singh, the deceased’s brother, was eventually implicated due to circumstantial evidence and a purported motive linked to a property dispute. And in the year 1999, Rajveer Singh, was convicted for the murder of his brother Nem Singh.

Court’s Verdict

The Court referred to the Supreme Court ruling in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, emphasizing that the present case hinges on circumstantial evidence. The Court emphasized that the circumstances leading to the inference of guilt must be thoroughly established and should align exclusively with the hypothesis of the accused’s guilt. These circumstances should eliminate all alternative explanations except for the one being presented by the prosecution.

The Court concluded that, “We find that there is absolutely no circumstance proved by the prosecution so as to establish the guilt of the appellant. It is further evident from the evidence that only on the basis of suspicion an attempt has been made to falsely implicate the accused in the instant case. It is well settled principle of law that suspicion, howsoever strong it may be, can not take place of prove as in the present case.”