Supreme Court acquitted the accused in the murder case, as the last seen evidence was not credible enough to fall under circumstantial evidence. The last seen evidence should establish a chain of evidence and this chain should concretely point out the accused to have committed the crime.
The court held that the trial court judges should actively participate in the justice delivery and bring for the truth. Court pointed out the powers granted to ask questions to the trial court judges under the Indian Evidence Act.
The court noted that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. It could not pass that brings in the circumstantial evidence.
The accused were charged with murder and kidnapping in the present case. The trial court held them guilty.
State High Court had dismissed their appeal and upheld the conviction. Hence, they had to approach the Supreme Court.
The court observed that motive plays a very crucial role in the case of circumstantial evidence. In the present case, the court held that the motive appeared missing.
The court further pointed out that the prosecution did not explain the Rigor mortis in the body, too.
Regarding the last seen evidence, the court pointed out the time gap anomaly in the case.
Case Title: Dinesh Kumar v. The State of Haryana
Source: https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/trial-judge-shouldnt-be-a-mute-spectator-has-duty-to-ask-crucial-questions-supreme-court-while-setting-aside-conviction-in-murder-case-228008