Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-000085-000086 – 2026 |
| Diary Number | 46882/2024 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN |
| Bench |
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms established principles on circumstantial evidence for abetment under Section 302 IPC |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether mere driving of a vehicle ferrying assailants is sufficient to convict an accused for murder under Section 302 IPC absent any direct involvement. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and High Courts |
| Follows | Established jurisprudence requiring clear incriminating circumstances beyond mere presence or facilitation |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that mere driving of a getaway vehicle, without any overt act or further incriminating circumstance, is insufficient for conviction under Section 302 IPC.
- Emphasises the fatal impact of omissions in witness statements under Section 161 CrPC when new allegations are first made at trial.
- Affirms that an accused not originally arrayed and later summoned under Section 319 CrPC must face evidence excluding every hypothesis of innocence.
- Highlights the importance of positive recoveries or direct identification in establishing abetment liability.
- Underlines that inconsistent or incomplete eyewitness testimony cannot replace the requirement for corroborative or direct evidence of participation in the crime proper.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court’s remand order did not cure the lack of evidence linking the appellant to any overt act of murder.
- PW-7’s and PW-10’s testimonies spoke only of the appellant driving—no weapon handling or direct participation.
- PW-7’s Section 161 CrPC statement omitted any reference to dragging or other incriminating conduct by the appellant; omission held fatal.
- No positive recoveries or identification of incriminating material from the vehicle seized on 15.10.1999; DW-2 denied entrustment of the vehicle.
- DW-1 (investigating DSP) initially did not array the appellant and filed a report deeming him innocent.
- The totality of circumstances failed to exclude every hypothesis of innocence; conviction for abetment thus untenable.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Only driving the vehicle is alleged—no evidence of any overt act.
- Material omissions in the Section 161 CrPC statements render eyewitness accounts unreliable.
- Investigating officer’s report initially exonerated him and did not array him as accused.
Respondent (State):
- Driving the vehicle in which shooters travelled constitutes facilitation and abetment.
- Two key eyewitnesses identified the appellant as the driver at the crime scenes.
- Conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence and Section 319 CrPC summons was proper.
Factual Background
On 14 October 1999, two brothers were shot dead near Village Poonia by co-accused armed with a .315 bore rifle. The FIR was registered on 15 October 1999. The appellant was alleged to be the driver of the blue Tata Mobile 207 used by the assailants. Key eyewitnesses (the victims’ father and wife) testified only to his driving role. No weapon or other incriminating material was recovered from the vehicle, and initial investigation did not list the appellant as an accused.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 161 CrPC: Omission of critical statements in initial police record held fatal to witness credibility.
- Section 302 IPC: Requires proof of mens rea and overt act—mere driving does not suffice for murder conviction.
- Section 319 CrPC: Summoning of additional accused demands clear incriminating circumstances recorded at the first instance.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Confirms established requirements for circumstantial evidence and abetment liability under Criminal Procedure and substantive criminal law.