Summary
The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder under Section 302 IPC because the circumstantial evidence (weak motive, uncorroborated last-seen evidence, a doubtful recovery of the farsi without forensic proof, and inconsistent testimony that he was seen fleeing) did not form a complete chain excluding his innocence.
Issues
- Whether the circumstantial evidence relied on by the prosecution established the appellant's guilt for murder beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the motive, last-seen circumstance, recovery of the weapon and blood-stained clothes, and the evidence of the appellant fleeing were proved conclusively.
Provisions considered
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860The appellant had been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder under this section by the Trial Court and the High Court; the Supreme Court held that the circumstantial evidence did not prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted him. (¶¶ 1, 16, 17, 18)
Held
- In a case resting wholly on circumstantial evidence, the five principles in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra apply: the circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive in nature, exclusive of every other hypothesis, and form a chain so complete that in all human probability the act was done by the accused, leaving no room for a conclusion of innocence. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- The alleged motive, a discord over non-payment or late payment of wages to the appellant, who worked for the deceased, was too trivial to prompt a murder and was in any case not proved by material evidence. (¶ 11)
- The last-seen circumstance was doubtful: the appellant's return to the house after leaving for his native place rested only on the uncorroborated word of the deceased's wife, and the police never checked whether the recovered cycle actually had a punctured tyre, as claimed. (¶ 12)
- The recovery of the farsi 20-25 days after the incident was doubtful and did not establish that it was the weapon of crime: there was no forensic report matching its blood stains to the deceased, a doctor's opinion that a similar weapon could cause the injuries was not enough, such implements are common in village homes, and the informant's statement that the farsi lay at the scene contradicted its later recovery from a field. Likewise, the blood-stained clothes produced through a hostile witness were not linked to the deceased by any forensic report. (¶¶ 13, 15)
- The evidence that the appellant was seen fleeing was inconsistent: the wife first said he had already fled when she returned and changed her account in cross-examination, and the informant only saw an unnamed man running from more than a furlong away. The identity of the person running was not established. (¶ 14)
- As the circumstances were not conclusive and did not exclude the possibility of innocence, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt, and the courts below had manifestly erred in convicting him. (¶¶ 16, 17)
Result
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence by the Trial Court (19.12.2002) and High Court (30.07.2010) set aside; appellant, already on bail after over 10 years in custody, acquitted and his bail bonds discharged.