CHETAN versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Summary

The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent conviction of the appellant for the murder of his friend by gunshot, based on circumstantial evidence: the two were last seen together on a motorcycle on the night of 10.07.2006, the decomposed body was found three days later with death estimated at 3 to 4 days before post-mortem, a double-barrel gun with two spent cartridges bearing signs of discharge was recovered at the appellant's instance from his grandfather's house, ballistic evidence linked the pellets and wads in the skull to that gun, the deceased's gold chain was recovered from the appellant, and the appellant absconded and misled others about his whereabouts. The conviction under Section 404 IPC in respect of the mobile phone alone was set aside on benefit of doubt.

Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court should interfere under Article 136 with concurrent findings of fact of the Trial Court and the High Court in a case resting on circumstantial evidence.
2. Whether the circumstance of the appellant and the deceased being last seen together was proved, having regard to the witnesses being relatives, friends, chance witnesses or witnesses declared hostile.
3. Whether a time gap of three days between the last sighting and discovery of the body rendered the last-seen theory inapplicable.
4. Whether recovery of the weapon at the appellant's instance under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, coupled with ballistic evidence and the absence of any explanation from the appellant or the gun's owner, linked the appellant to the death.
5. Whether abscondence and misleading relatives and friends about his whereabouts were relevant conduct indicating a guilty mind.
6. Whether failure to prove motive was fatal to the prosecution case.
7. What significance attaches to the accused's failure to explain incriminating circumstances in his examination under Section 313 CrPC.

Provisions considered

• Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The gun, one live and two spent cartridges and a handbag were recovered at the appellant's instance from his grandfather's house where he lived, proved through the Investigating Officer (PW-31) and the panch witness PW-6 who stood by the recovery despite being declared hostile. These discoveries fell within Section 27, and the appellant was bound to explain how he came into possession of the incriminating articles (Mukesh v. NCT of Delhi). (¶¶ 10.7.4, 10.7.5, 10.7.6)
• Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Since the appellant had access to the gun and it was recovered at his instance, how the gun came to show signs of discharge and how the spent cartridges came to be in the house were facts especially within his knowledge; the burden of explaining them lay on him and, if he disclaimed ownership, on his grandfather who owned the gun. Neither offered any explanation. (¶¶ 10.7.6, 10.14, 10.15)
• Section 8, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Abscondence from 11.07.2006 to 22.07.2006 and misleading relatives and friends about his whereabouts is relevant subsequent conduct pointing to a guilty mind; though absconding alone does not establish guilt, it strengthens the needle of suspicion when considered with other evidence (Matru v. State of U.P.). (¶¶ 10.9, 10.9.1, 10.9.2, 10.9.3, 10.9.5)
• Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The examination of the accused is a procedural safeguard enabling him to explain incriminating circumstances; though he may remain silent, silence or evasive or wrong answers allow the court to draw inferences, including adverse ones, in evaluating the prosecution evidence (Manu Sao v. State of Bihar). The appellant merely denied or feigned ignorance of the incriminating evidence put to him. (¶¶ 10.16, 10.16.1, 10.16.2)
• Sections 302 and 404, Indian Penal Code, 1860The proved circumstances unmistakably pointed to the appellant's guilt for murder. The conviction under Section 404 was sustained as regards the gold chain recovered from the appellant on arrest (proved through PW-31, PW-6 and the goldsmith PW-13), but set aside as regards the Nokia mobile phone, the shopkeeper PW-25 having denied the purchase. (¶¶ 10.10, 11.1, 11.3)
• Sections 3 and 5 read with Sections 25 and 27, Arms Act, 1959Conviction for unlawful possession and use of the 12-bore double-barrel gun belonging to the appellant's grandfather, carried without a licence and used to shoot the deceased, was sustained. (¶¶ 5.3, 11.1, 11.3)

Held

• Under Article 136 the Court does not ordinarily re-appreciate evidence to test concurrent findings of fact; it interferes only where there is manifest illegality or a grave miscarriage of justice from misreading or ignoring material evidence (Mekala Sivaiah). The five golden principles of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda govern cases of circumstantial evidence: each circumstance must be fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive, exclusive of every other hypothesis, and together form a complete chain. (¶¶ 3, 4, 6.1, 10.12.1)
• Evidence of a witness declared hostile can be relied on to the extent he stands by it in cross-examination; PW-5, though hostile on other aspects, reiterated that he saw the appellant riding the motorcycle with the deceased. A witness is not to be discarded as a 'chance witness' where he knew both parties, bore no enmity and explained his presence; merely seeing an occurrence by chance does not make testimony suspect (Rajesh Yadav; K. Srinivasulu Reddy). The deceased's brother (PW-12) and his friend from the appellant's own village (PW-11) were credible, and PW-3 and PW-4 strengthened the circumstance. Witnesses' failure to inform the family before the body was identified did not discredit them. (¶¶ 10.5.2, 10.5.3, 10.5.4, 10.5.5, 10.5.6, 10.5.7, 10.5.8, 10.5.9)
• The last-seen theory is not to be rejected merely because of a long gap between the last sighting and discovery of the body; there is no straitjacket formula, and the question is whether the prosecution evidence excludes the possibility of another person meeting the deceased in the interval (State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran). Here the medical evidence placed death 3 to 4 days before the post-mortem, consistent with the night of the last sighting; the body lay in a rarely visited sugarcane field; and the recovery of the weapon with ballistic linkage obliterated any doubt from the time gap, which would otherwise have been fatal. (¶¶ 10.6.5, 10.6.6, 10.6.7, 10.6.8, 10.6.9, 10.6.10, 10.6.11, 10.6.12, 10.7)
• The ballistic evidence that the gun recovered at the appellant's instance was in working condition, bore signs of discharge, had fired the two spent cartridges recovered with it, and could have fired the pellets and wads found in the deceased's skull, sealed the appellant's fate. A licensed firearm is not a readily available weapon like a knife; it was directly traceable to the appellant. In the absence of any explanation from the appellant or his grandfather, the only logical inference was that the appellant used the gun. That no witness saw him carrying the gun was immaterial, as the gun could be dismantled and the deceased was seen carrying a bag. (¶¶ 10.7.2, 10.7.3, 10.7.4, 10.7.6, 10.7.7, 10.7.8, 10.7.9, 10.8)
• Although the exact monetary transaction was not established, PW-4's evidence of an argument over money in which the deceased insulted the appellant showed a grudge constituting motive. In any event, proof of motive strengthens a circumstantial case but failure to prove it is not fatal where the proved circumstances complete the chain; absence of motive only puts the court on guard (G. Parshwanath). (¶¶ 10.11, 10.11.1, 10.11.2, 10.11.3)
• Circumstantial evidence involves rational inference from established facts according with natural human behaviour; the law requires elimination of reasonable doubt, not absolute proof, and a reasonable doubt is one based on reason and common sense arising from the evidence, not fanciful speculation. Where the cumulative effect of independently proved circumstances yields a definite pattern irresistibly pointing to the accused, the inference may be accepted to fasten liability. (¶¶ 10.12, 10.12.1, 10.12.2)
• The onus remains on the prosecution and never shifts, but where the weapon of crime is traced to the accused by cogent evidence, he must explain the circumstances of its recovery; his silence or a false explanation becomes an additional link in the chain (Trimukh Maroti Kirkan). The appellant's bare denial and feigned ignorance in his Section 313 examination strengthened the prosecution case. (¶¶ 10.14, 10.15, 10.15.1, 10.16, 10.16.2)
• The evidence of PW-14, the appellant's own friend and classmate, that the appellant, sounding frightened, asked him to lie about being in Pune, corroborated the deceased's father and established that the appellant was hiding and misleading others; the extra-judicial confession to PW-18, who turned hostile, was left out of consideration. Benefit of doubt was given on recovery of the mobile phone since the shopkeeper PW-25 denied the purchase, but this had little bearing in view of the other recoveries. (¶¶ 10.9.3, 10.9.4, 10.9.5, 10.10)

Result

Appeal dismissed. Conviction under Sections 302 and 404 IPC (as regards the gold chain) and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 upheld; conviction under Section 404 IPC as regards the Nokia mobile phone set aside on benefit of doubt. Bail bonds cancelled; the appellant directed to surrender before the Trial Court forthwith to undergo the remaining sentence.