Holding

The prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the conviction is set aside.

Summary

Sakharam, a 16‑year‑old boy, was living alone with his grandfather when his aunt, Awadhrani, stayed with him for about eight to ten days. On 29 October 1968 a gun‑shot was heard; neighbours found Awadhrani dead with a 12‑bore gun nearby and Sakharam standing nearby, crying. The trial court, relying on circumstantial evidence that the two were the only occupants, convicted him of murder under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment; the High Court upheld the conviction. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether mere presence, absence of motive, and the fact that both were children under the Children Act, 1960, could satisfy the burden of proof. It held that the prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that Sakharam fired the gun with intent to kill, especially given the lack of motive and the juvenile status of the accused. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted.

Issues considered

The prosecution can convict a juvenile solely on circumstantial evidence without a motive.
Whether the appellant’s presence at the scene and his reaction are sufficient to infer guilt.
Whether the presumption of juvenile innocence under the Children Act, 1960, can be displaced by circumstantial evidence.

Legislation cited

Subjects

murdercircumstantial evidencejuvenile justicepresumption of innocencemotiveacquittalSection 302 IPCChildren Act 1960

Judgment

A SAKHARAM
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

FEBRUARY 12, 1992
-
B [KULDIP SINGH AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Conviction 1mder-Abse11ce of motive
in a case of circumstantial evidence-Relevancy of-Accused and deceased
'clrildren' defined in tire Children Act, 1960-J11ve11ile-i1111oce11ce--Presump-
C tion of-Prosecution's duty.
The prosecution's case was that a fe\v days before the incident the
accused-appellant's grand father suffered heart attack and on his
hospitalisation, accused's parents were attending on him:

D The deceased, who was the aunt of the accused and daughter-in-law
of accused's grand father came to see her ailing father-in-law.

Thereafter the deceased went to her father-in-law's one room house
in the village, where the accused was staying alone and stayed for 8/10 days.

E The accused was aged about 16 and his aunt, the deceased was aged
17/18.

On 29.10.1968 at about noon time, the neighbours heard a gun-shot
sound from the accused's house. On reaching the accused's house they
found the deceased lying dead on the Door and a 12 bore gun on the bed.
F
One of the neighbours was an uncle of the accused, to whom, the
accused told crying, "run uncle what has happened".

The trial Court convicted the appellant for murder and sentenced
him to imprisonment for life.
G
Accused's appeal was dismissed by the High Court, against which by
special leave this appeal was filed.

Allowing the appeal of the accused, this Court,

H HELD: 1.01. The appellant was present at the time and place of
638
SAKHARAM v. STATE [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 639
,..
occurrence but this circumstance alone is not sufficient to conclude .that A
it was the appellant who fired the gun-shot and he did so with the intention
or killing the deceased. [641F·G]

l.02. There is absolutely no motive on the part of the appellant to
murder the deceased. Absence of motive may not be relevant in a case
where the evidence is overwhelming but it is a plus-point for the accused B
in a case where the evidence against him is only circumstantial. [642B)

~ 1.03. His telling his uncle while crying "run uncle what has happened"
shows that the happening was beyond his comprehension. It could be an
accident while fiddling with the gun. [641H, 642A)
c
1.04. The appellant and the deceased were children as defined under
the Children Act, 1960. When presumption .or juvenile-innocence is sought
to be displaced by the prosecution on the basis of circumstantial-evidence
the circumstances must unmistakably prove the guilt beyond doubt.
[642C) D

... I.OS. The prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against
the appellant beyond doubt. [642D)

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
370 of 1980. E

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.1.1980 of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Crl. A. No. 311 of 1973.

.,,...
.. · T. Sridharan for the Appellant.
F
U ma Nath Singh for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KULDIP SINGH, J. Sakharam and Awadhrani, aged about 16 and
17118 were together in a one room-house belonging to Sakharam's grand- G
father in a village. Awadhrani was married to Sakharam's uncle {father's
younger brother). A gun-shot was heard and the neighbours rushed to the
room. Awadhrani was found lying dead on the floor with a gun-shot injury.
.,. Sakharam was standing nearby and was crying. On these facts the trial
court convicted Sakharam for the murder of Awadhrani and sentenced him H
640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 1 S.C.R.

A to imprisonment for life. His appeal to the High Court was dismissed.
Hence this appeal via special leave.

The appellant along with his father and grand-father was living in a
village near Jabalpur. Awadhrani was the wife of Govindprasad, uncle of
the appellant. Govindprasad was employed at Bhopal and Awadhrani was
B living with him. A few days before the incident appellant's grand-father had
suffered heart attack and was shifted to Jabalpur Medical College.
Appellant's father and mother were attending on his grand father at the
hospital. Awadhrani had come from Bhopal to Jabalpur to see her father-
in-law. She stayed at Jabalpur for about 3/4 days and thereafter went to
c the village where the appellant was staying alone in the family house. After
about 8/10 days of stay in the 'illage on October 29, 1968 at about noon
time the neighbours heard a gun-shot sound from the house of the appel-
lant. Mahadeo (P.W.4), one of the neighbours, was the uncle of the
appellant. As soon as Mahadeo reached appellant's house, the appellant,
D while crying, told him "run uncle what has happened". The neighbours
found Awadhrani lying dead on the floor and a 12 bore gun lying on the
bed. It is not disputed that the appellant's grand-father had two licenced
guns which were lyiAg in the same room.

There is no direct evidence against the appellant. There is no reason,
E conscious or sub-conscious, for the appellant to commit the murder. They
have been together in the one room-house for about 8/10 days. The
appellant denied having committed the offence but gave no explanation as
to how and under what circumstances the deceased got the fatal gun-shot
IDJUry.
F
At the trial it was suggested that the deceased committed suicide.
Plea of alibi was also raised on behalf of the appellant. The courts below,
Go appreciation of e'idence, rejected both the pleas. We see no infirmity

in the said findings of the courts below and agree with the same.

G The trial court found that the following circumstances came to be
established beyond doubt:-

1. That on the date and time of the incident the accused and the
deceased were the only two occupants of the house which consisted of one
H room.
SAKHARAM v. STATE [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 641
,..
2. That the accused when examined by Dr. V.P. Gupta on July 1, A
1972 was found capable of having sexual intercourse.

3. The deceased Awadhrani was found dead in the room which at
the time of the incident was occupied by the accused and the deceased.

4. Soon after the incident when the witnesses visited the house, the B
accused who was present, did not assign any reason for the death of the
deceased and kept quiet.

/
~-<:
5. After the incident an attempt was made to show that the deceased
died by committing suicide. A plea of alibi was also set up on behalf of the
c
accused.

On the basis of the above circumstances the trial court convicted the
appellant for the murder of Awadhrani. The High Court upheld the
conviction.

. So far as the defence set-up at the trial on behalf of the appellant is
concerned that cannot be taken as a circumstance against him. The appel-
lant himself did not raise any plea in his statement made before the trial
court. Simply because the pleas of suicide and alibi have failed at the trial
no adverse inference can be drawn against the appellant. The goilt of the
D

appellant has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the E
evidence produced by the prosecution.

It is no doubt correct that the appellant and the deceased were
together at the time when gun-shot sound was heard and the witnesses who

~--
reached the spot thereafter found the appellant standing nearby the dead F
body and crying. lt may, therefore, be reasonable to infer that the appellant
was present at the time and place of occurrence but this circumstance
alone is not sufficient to conclude that it was the appellant who fired the
gun-shot and he did so with the intention of killing the deceased. The
appellant and the deceased were living in the house for about 8/10 days
prior to the occurrence. There is no evidence to show that he ever made G
any sexual advances towards the deceased. It is no body's case that before
the gun-shot was fired any _attempt to molest or outrage the modesty of the
deceased was made. The appellant did not run-away from the place of
occurrence though he had ample opportunity to do so. There is nothing on
=
the record to show that he could handle the gun. His telling Mahadeo while H
642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) 1 S.C.R.

A crying 'run uncle what has h31ipened' shows that the happening was
beyond his comprehension. It wuld be an accident while fiddling with the
gun.

There is absolutely no motive on the part of the appellant to murder
the deceased. Absence of motive may not be relevant in a case where the
B evidence is overwhelming but it is a plus-point for the accused in a case
where the evidence against him is only circumstantial.

The appellant, on the date of occurrence, was a young boy and the
deceased was his aunt in the same age grotip. Both were children as
C. defined under the Children Act, 1960. When presumption of juvenile-in-
nocence is sought tci be displaced by the prosecution on the basis of
circumstantial-evidence the circumstances must unmistakably prove the
guilt beyond doubt.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the circumstances
D relied-upon by the courts below. We have not been able to dispel our
doubts. We are satisfied that the prosecution has not been able to prove
the charge against the appellant beyond doubt. We, therefore, allow the
appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and
acquit him. The appellant is on bail. His bail-bond is discharged.

V.P.R. Appeal allowed.