Umesh Chowdhary, on 01.10.2003, was allegedly murdered by Pradeep Kumar. Suspicion, howsoever grave or probable it may be, cannot substitute evidence. Normally, we do not interfere with concurrent findings of fact of Courts below. We step in only in exceptional cases or where gross errors are committed, overlooking crying circumstances and well established principles of criminal jurisprudence leading to miscarriage of justice.

The distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is quite large and it divides vague conjectures from solid conclusions. [Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793]. The presumption of guilt is based on improper and incomplete appreciation of evidence. The cherished principles or golden threads of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs through web of our law should not be stretched morbidly which was done by Courts below.

– Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol, Pradeep Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, [Criminal Appeal No. 1304 of 2018].

_____

Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 observed, mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. Therefore, even if evidence generates strong suspicion, it cannot be a substitute for proof.

– Hon’ble Justice Manoj Misra, Suresh Chandra Tiwari v. State of Uttarakhand, [Criminal Appeal No. 1902 of 2023] decided on 29.11.2024.