Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund  vs State Of Madhya Pradesh 2024 INSC 258 :: [2024] 4 S.C.R. 48 – Ss 378 CrPC – Circumstantial Evidence

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378,386– Unless the finding of acquittal is found to be perverse or impossible, interference with the same would not be warranted – The High Court could have interfered in the criminal appeal only if it came to the conclusion that the findings of the trial Judge were either perverse or impossible- In any case, even if two views are possible and the trial Judge found the other view to be more probable, an interference would not have been warranted by the High Court, unless the view taken by the learned trial Judge was a perverse or impossible view. ((Para 9,19-20)

Criminal Trial – Circumstantial Evidence – It is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established – The accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ proved guilty before a court can convict the accused -There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’ – The facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty – The circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.- There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused.(Para 7)

Leave a Comment