Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar v. State of Maharashtra

10 S.C.R. 753 : 2024 INSC 788 Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 2020) 17 October 2024 [B.R. Gavai,* Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the conviction of the appellant and the death sentence awarded for the alleged murders of his wife, daughter and mother were justified. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 307 and 201 – Case based on circumstantial evidence – Case of the prosecution that the appellant informed about a robbery at his house and the murder of his wife, daughter and mother and the injuries caused to his neighbour-PW-12 – Later, he was arrested on the basis of suspicion of committing the said murders as it was revealed during investigation that he had an extra-marital affair – Appellant was convicted and sentenced to death – Justification: Held: Prosecution case mainly rested on the ocular testimony of PW-12 however, the same is discarded being full of contradictions – Thus, the case becomes one of circumstantial evidence wherein the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established – 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 – Trial court relied on circumstances such as recovery of hammer allegedly used in the crime; recovery of appellant’s blood-stained clothes; and CCTV Footage – Recovery of the hammer having bloodstains was from a canal which was open and accessible to one and all and the place where the accused took the police to show where * Author 754 [2024] 10 S.C.R. he had concealed the incriminating article was already within the knowledge of the police – It is improbable that a hammer soaked in water for 3 days would still retain the blood-stains – Recovery of the appellant’s clothes and jewellery was also from a place which was open and accessible to one and all – Further, CCTV footage showed that the deceased-appellant’s mother came in the building at 03:22 pm and the appellant was seen going out of his motorcycle at 04:28 pm however, the High Court itself disbelieved the said circumstance – Furthermore, a conviction cannot be based solely on the basis of circumstance of motive – Suspicion, however strong cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt – An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt and cannot be convicted solely on suspicion – There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” – It is a primary principle that the accused “must be” and not merely “may be” guilty before a court can convict and every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused has to be ruled out – However, the prosecution failed to do so – Judgments of the High Court and the trial court, quashed and set aside. [Paras 21, 22, 24-28] Witness – Solitary witness – Conviction based on the evidence of – Permissibility: Held: A conviction could be based solely on the basis of the evidence of a solitary witness, however, the testimony of such a witness should be examined critically and found to be credible and trustworthy. [Para 17] Case Law Cited