Summary
The Supreme Court overturned convictions resting on an incomplete circumstantial chain. Although it accepted the witness’s identification and last-seen account, that evidence alone did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Recovered objects were not adequately connected to the deceased or crime, and custodial confessions could not be used beyond the portion distinctly related to a proved discovery. The appellants were directed to be released unless required in another criminal case.
Issues
- Whether accepted identification and last-seen evidence completed the circumstantial case.
- Whether the recovered objects were linked to the deceased and crime.
- What portions of custodial information were admissible under section 27.
Provisions considered
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The quoted provision allowed only information distinctly relating to the discovered fact. It did not make the entire custodial confession admissible or cure absence of a link between the recovered object and the crime. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22, 24)
Held
- Failure to conduct a test identification parade did not automatically make court identification inadmissible. The Court found the independent witness’s identification credible in this case, while recognising the usual prudential need for corroboration when identifying strangers. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18)
- Last-seen evidence was an important circumstance but could not alone discharge the prosecution’s burden beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment’s ultimate disposition required corroborating links and did not convict merely because the accused were last seen with the deceased. (¶¶ 18, 23, 24)
- The camera was not identified as the deceased’s, and ownership or connection of the phone and other objects was not adequately proved. Recovery without a connecting link to the offence could not complete the chain. The Court regarded the claimed discoveries as insufficient on this record. (¶ 22)
- The lower courts wrongly relied on the confessional portion of statements made to police in custody. Only the part leading distinctly to discovery was permissible, and the remaining admissible circumstances did not form a chain excluding a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)
- Suspicion or moral certainty could not replace legal proof. With an essential link missing, the convictions could not stand despite acceptance of the last-seen witness. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court judgment and convictions set aside. Appellants in custody to be released forthwith unless required in another criminal case.