Summary
The Court declined to disturb acquittal in a circumstantial murder case. The last-seen evidence left a substantial time gap and did not exclude intervention by others, while the alleged confession and knife recovery were doubtful. Section 106 could not repair the prosecution’s incomplete case. The High Court had adopted a plausible view without ignoring material evidence.
Issues
- Whether the High Court’s acquittal was perverse or caused a miscarriage of justice warranting interference.
- Whether last-seen evidence and the accused’s failure to explain his departure established guilt despite gaps in the circumstantial chain.
Provisions considered
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaInterference with acquittal required perversity or a legally erroneous assessment causing a serious miscarriage of justice; the plausible view taken here did not meet that threshold. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 23)
- Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The accused’s special-knowledge burden could arise only after the prosecution established the requisite foundational case; it could not substitute for proof of the incriminating circumstances and complete chain. (¶ 22)
Held
- An acquittal is not to be reversed merely because another view is possible. The Supreme Court examines whether material evidence was ignored or misread, whether the assessment was perverse, and whether the view supporting acquittal was plausible. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 23)
- The last-seen witness’s account was reasonably doubted given the delayed emergence of the accused’s name. More importantly, the gap before discovery of the body, medical indications of a later death, the accused’s separate residence and unrestricted possibility of third-party entry left the last-seen circumstance inconclusive. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- The knife lacked a serological connection with the crime, and the doubtful arrest chronology also weakened the alleged disclosure and recovery. The claimed extra-judicial confession was unsupported by any established relationship of confidence or reason for seeking the recipient’s help. These assessments were not perverse. (¶¶ 19, 20)
- Absence of proved enmity between witnesses and accused did not establish their accounts or complete the chain. Section 106 did not absolve the prosecution of its primary burden, and the gaps here could not be filled by requiring the accused to prove innocence or explain precisely when he left the deceased. (¶¶ 21, 22)
- As the High Court’s view was plausible and no ignored or misread material evidence was identified, the State’s appeal against acquittal was dismissed. (¶¶ 23, 24)
Result
State’s appeal dismissed; High Court acquittal left undisturbed.