Summary
The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder and causing disappearance of evidence because the circumstantial chain was not proved: the Section 27 disclosure and recoveries were doubtful (memos signed at the police station, the diver recovered items at police direction, inconsistent accounts of the chain recovery), the identification of the gold chains was flawed, and the last-seen evidence was uncorroborated.
Issues
- Whether the disclosure statement and the recoveries of the stone, gandasa and gold chains were proved so as to be admissible and reliable under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
- Whether the test identification of the gold chains and the last-seen evidence were reliable.
- Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstances to sustain conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
Provisions considered
- Section 27 (with Sections 25 and 26), Indian Evidence Act, 1872Section 27 is a proviso to Sections 25 and 26 and admits only so much of a custodial statement as distinctly relates to the fact discovered; the exact information must be proved. The Court found the claimed disclosure and recoveries not reliably proved. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30)
- Sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860The offences of conviction by the courts below; the conviction and sentences were set aside because the circumstantial chain was not established beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 1, 32, 33)
Held
- In a case resting wholly on circumstantial evidence, the chain must be complete and consistent only with guilt, excluding every other hypothesis (Hanumant and the five principles in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda). (¶ 16)
- Section 27 partially lifts the bar in Sections 25 and 26: only the portion of the information that distinctly relates to the fact discovered (the object, the place and the accused's knowledge of it) is admissible. Its ingredients are that the information leads directly to the discovery, only the connected portion is admissible, and the discovery relates to the offence. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21)
- Recovery memos prepared or signed by panch witnesses at the police station lose their sanctity (Varun Chaudhary and Mustkeem followed). The panch witness admitted signing the disclosure memo and seizure memos at the police station without reading them, and did not place the accused at the recoveries; the diver said he retrieved the stone and gandasa from the place the police showed; and the accounts of where and how the chains were found conflicted with the disclosure memo and with each other. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27)
- The identification of the gold chains was unreliable: witnesses said only the two chains were shown rather than being mixed with similar ones, the chains had no distinguishing mark and none was described beforehand, and the deceased's wife had received them at the police station the day before the identification. (¶¶ 28, 29)
- The last-seen evidence of PW-23 was not corroborated by PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 and was therefore doubtful. The courts below erred in overlooking these inconsistencies; the chain of circumstances was not proved and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. (¶¶ 30, 31, 32, 33)
Result
Appeal allowed; conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and the judgments of the Trial Court and High Court set aside; appellant to be released forthwith unless required in another case.