SC: Non-compliance of Sections 100(4) & 166(3,4) CrPC plays important role where recovery doubted

The Hon’ble Supreme Court. on 25th September 2020, in the matter of Anwar Ali and Another v. The State of Himachal Pradesh observed that not complying with procedures under Section 100(4) & Section166(3&4) of CrPC alone may not be a ground to acquit the accused. However, in a case where recovery is seriously doubted, non­-compliance of the procedures under Section 100(4) & Section 166(3&4) play an important role.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that:

In case of a circumstantial evidence, the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else and the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (Para 5.4)

Not complying with procedures under Section 100(4) & Section166(3&4) of CrPC alone may not be a ground to acquit the accused. However, in a case where recovery is seriously doubted, non­compliance of the with procedures under Section 100(4) & Section166(3&4) play an important role. (This inference has been drawn on the basis of Para 7)

The absence of proving the motive cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case. (Para 9)

Copy of judgment: Judgement_25-Sep-2020

-Adv. Tushar Kaushik

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *