Summary
The appellant's wife and four young daughters were hacked to death at home in 2010 and their bodies set alight. He said four armed men attacked and he escaped injured. The trial court sentenced him to death, relying on a weapon recovery, confessions to two local politicians, his affair as motive, and a false explanation; the Allahabad High Court confirmed. The Supreme Court acquitted him. The police did not prove his exact words or the panchnama, authorship of concealment was not shown, and the testifying panch witness said nothing about the recovery. The confessions were fabricated, since he was in police custody from the morning of the incident. Motive cannot convict on its own, and a false defence cannot complete a broken chain. The Court criticised the perfunctory investigation and weak legal aid in a capital case.
Issues
- Whether the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife and four daughters, based on circumstantial evidence, were sustainable.
- What is required to prove a discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and an extra-judicial confession.
- What duty the courts bear to ensure effective legal aid for an indigent accused facing a grave charge.
Provisions considered
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The exact words of the accused must be deposed to and the contents of the discovery panchnama proved; the panchnama itself is not substantive evidence, and a vague statement does not prove authorship of concealment. (¶¶ 53, 54, 56, 60, 62, 67, 68, 70)
- Sections 8 and 24, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Conduct may be relevant but cannot alone found a conviction; an extra-judicial confession must be voluntary, made by a free person, and credible. (¶¶ 74, 80, 81, 85)
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860Conviction and death sentence set aside because the chain of circumstances was not established. (¶¶ 3, 116, 130)
- Articles 21, 22 and 39A; Section 304 CrPC, Constitution of IndiaLegal aid must be effective and diligent, not nominal; Sessions Judges should assign experienced counsel to undefended accused in serious cases. (¶¶ 119, 120, 121, 125, 126)
Held
- Discovery evidence is unreliable where the investigating officer does not depose to the accused's exact statement, the panchnama's contents are not proved, authorship of concealment is not shown, and the examined panch witness says nothing about the discovery. (¶¶ 54, 55, 56, 60, 61, 70, 71, 75)
- The alleged extra-judicial confessions to two local political figures were fabricated: the evidence showed the appellant was in police custody from the morning of the incident, his arrest was shown later only to accommodate the confessions, and he could not have been at several places at once. (¶¶ 76, 77, 79)
- Motive may create strong suspicion but cannot substitute for proof; a false explanation can only be an additional link once the other links are proved, and the prosecution must stand on its own legs. (¶¶ 90, 91, 96, 97, 98, 100)
- Minor injuries on the accused need not be explained by the prosecution, but here the accused's explanation for his head injuries was consistent with the medical evidence and with his defence, judged on a preponderance of probability. (¶¶ 99, 107, 108, 115)
- The investigation was perfunctory and the legal aid ineffective; courts must ensure meaningful legal representation of indigent accused, assigning experienced lawyers in serious cases. (¶¶ 117, 119, 126)
Result
Appeals allowed; conviction under Section 302 IPC and death sentence set aside and the appellant acquitted and directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.