The Madras High Court on Friday set aside the conviction and life sentence imposed by a Mahila Court in a murder case after observing that the entire prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence, owing to the absence of any eyewitness, and that the police had miserably failed to elevate their case from the realm of ‘may be true’ to ‘must be true’, which was indispensable for confirming the conviction in criminal cases.
Justices S. Vaidyanathan and A.D. Jagadish Chandira wrote, “In a case of circumstantial evidence, when two views are possible — one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other his innocence — the accused is entitled to the benefit of the one favourable to him. Though materials on record lead to some suspicion towards the appellant, it is trite to state that in a criminal trial, suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot substitute proof.”
The observations were made while the court allowed the appeal preferred in 2018 by S. Raman against his conviction and the life sentence imposed on him by the Namakkal Mahila Court for the charge of murdering 27-year-old milk vendor M. Sakthivel in 2016 because they both were in love with the same woman. The judges held that the prosecution had proved neither the motive nor the last-seen theory. Even recovery of weapons was not proved.
