Summary
The Supreme Court set aside the death sentence and conviction for rape and murder of a four-year-old girl, holding that the circumstantial case was doubtful from its genesis: the accused's conduct raised no suspicion, no missing report was lodged, the extra-judicial confession was given in three inconsistent versions without independent witnesses, the forensic report did not link the accused, and the last-seen circumstance alone, itself doubtful, could not sustain a conviction.
Issues
- Whether the circumstantial evidence, resting mainly on an extra-judicial confession and the consequent recovery of the body, proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the extra-judicial confession and recovery were reliable when witnesses gave different versions of where the confession was made and no independent witness was joined.
- Whether the forensic report connected the appellant with the rape or murder.
- Whether a conviction could rest on the last-seen circumstance alone.
Provisions considered
- Sections 302 and 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860The appellant was convicted of rape and murder of the child and sentenced to death, confirmed by the High Court on reference. The Supreme Court held the guilt not established beyond reasonable doubt and set aside the conviction under both sections. (¶¶ 1, 31, 34, 36)
- Section 366, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The trial court's death sentence was referred to the High Court for confirmation under this section and was confirmed along with the dismissal of the appeal; the confirming judgment was set aside. (¶¶ 4, 36)
Held
- In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive, and form a chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence, including the involvement of third parties; suspicion, however strong, is not proof, and where two views are possible the one favourable to the accused must be adopted. (¶¶ 15, 16)
- The genesis of the prosecution case was doubtful: the accused took part in the search for 5-6 days and no one suspected him despite several witnesses claiming to have seen the child leave with him; no missing report was lodged for six days; there was no evidence of the claimed searches in other villages; the possibility of involvement of others could not be ruled out; and it was unbelievable that no one noticed a decomposing body in a cultivated, privately owned field in an inhabited village while the area was being combed. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22)
- An extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence to be accepted with great care; the prosecution must prove that it was made, was voluntary and was true, and the standard is higher where the whole case rests on it. Here the witnesses gave three different versions of where the confession was made and one later said she had not witnessed it; these were not minor contradictions and the confession did not inspire confidence. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 26, 27)
- The complainant's testimony was further weakened because the investigating officer said that a material fact in his court deposition had not been disclosed in his statement during investigation. (¶ 28)
- Although, on the prosecution's own evidence, many villagers were present when the body was recovered from a field open to the public, and two persons named by the complainant had witnessed the confession, no independent witness was joined or examined and no explanation was given; where the entire case rests on the confession and recovery, this is a glaring omission. (¶¶ 29, 30)
- A forensic report that only confirms human blood and the presence of semen, without comparing samples with the accused or showing his semen on the deceased or her blood on his clothes, does not link the accused to rape or murder; recovery of a shirt button likewise proves nothing. (¶ 31)
- A conviction cannot be based solely on the circumstance of the accused being last seen with the deceased; here even that circumstance was doubtful because an independent last-seen witness admitted she had not told the investigating officer about it at the first instance, without explanation. (¶¶ 32, 33)
- However much an offence shocks the conscience, there can be no moral conviction; guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by evidence pointing to the accused alone. (¶¶ 34, 35)
Result
Appeal allowed; the conviction under Sections 302 and 376 IPC and the death sentence set aside, the High Court's judgment dated 26.07.2005 in the appeal and death reference quashed, and the appellant directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other detention.