Summary
The murder conviction was set aside because proof identifying the deceased’s burnt remains did not complete the chain connecting the accused to the killing. The last-seen accounts, alleged motive, extra-judicial confession and scooter recovery were insufficient on the facts. Section 106 could not require the accused to explain remains found in another person’s open field before the prosecution discharged its initial burden.
Issues
- Whether the last-seen and other circumstantial evidence established murder by the appellant alone.
- Whether section 106 shifted the burden concerning remains found at an open location outside her possession.
Held
- Circumstantial evidence must establish a complete chain incompatible with reasonable innocence. Last-seen evidence may contribute when supported by close timing and other proved circumstances, but a doubtful or incomplete chain requires benefit of doubt. (¶ 10–11)
- The suggested property motive was unproved. The last-seen witnesses were involved in hostile family-property litigation, their accounts had material weaknesses, and corroboration was lacking. The alleged carriage of a body on the scooter footrest was not accepted. (¶ 13–16)
- The burnt remains were found in an open location in another person’s field, outside the accused’s exclusive possession. Section 106 did not displace the prosecution’s initial onus or oblige her to explain that discovery merely because she lived in the village. (¶ 17)
- No special circumstance supported confidence in the alleged extra-judicial confession, and the scooter had no blood mark or other proved connection to disposal of the body. DNA identification established whose remains they were, without proving who committed the murder or where and how it occurred. (¶ 16–17)
Result
Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted on benefit of doubt, bail bonds discharged and liberty directed unless wanted in another case.