Summary
The Court set aside both appellants’ murder convictions because the alleged extra-judicial confession and last-seen evidence lacked credibility and the circumstantial chain remained incomplete. In that evidentiary setting, failure to examine the ballistic expert was a serious additional defect. The appellants received the benefit of doubt and their bail bonds were discharged.
Issues
- Whether the extra-judicial confession, last-seen accounts and firearm evidence formed a complete chain establishing murder with common intention beyond reasonable doubt.
Provisions considered
- Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The convictions for murder with common intention could not stand because the circumstantial evidence did not exclude reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 22, 25, 26)
Held
- Each incriminating circumstance must be firmly proved, and the complete chain must exclude reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence. Strong suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 8)
- An extra-judicial confession can support conviction if proved voluntary, true and credible; it requires cautious assessment, ordinarily with reliable corroboration. The supposed recipient’s unexplained distance from the accused, inconsistent account and failure to inform known police officers undermined the confession alleged here. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13)
- The last-seen accounts also failed to inspire confidence. The complainant’s strained relationship and improbable account required particular caution, while the other witness’s contradictions, delayed statement and unexplained silence about the alleged exhortation further weakened the prosecution. Material investigative omissions remained. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)
- The prosecution had not collected proof of ownership of the alleged weapon or examined the ballistic expert to connect the recovered wads and pellets with the cartridges. Failure to examine such an expert is not invariably fatal, but was a glaring defect in this circumstantial case because the confession and last-seen witnesses were already seriously doubtful. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 25)
- The prosecution had not established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Both convictions and sentences were set aside and the appellants’ bail bonds discharged. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27)
Result
Appeals allowed; trial and High Court judgments quashed and set aside. Appellants given benefit of doubt, their bail bonds discharged and pending applications disposed of.