Summary
A young man in Tripura was convicted under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC for the 2007 murder of a friend whose body was never recovered, on circumstantial evidence comprising the mother's claim that her son left with the appellant and a juvenile, recovery of a blood-stained knife and the motorcycle from the roadside and riverbed, and retracted extra-judicial confessions; the Tripura High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court acquitted him on benefit of doubt: no motive was alleged or found, only a limb was recovered without DNA testing, the last-seen account was an improvement absent from the first information and the Section 161 statements of the mother and uncle and inconsistent with the confessions, the recoveries were from open places not within the appellant's exclusive knowledge, and a retracted extra-judicial confession, being weak evidence, lacked any corroboration.
Issues
- Whether a conviction for murder on circumstantial evidence can stand where no motive is shown, the body was not recovered or identified, the last-seen evidence was an improvement, recoveries were from open places, and the extra-judicial confession was retracted and uncorroborated.
Provisions considered
- Sections 302 read with 34 and 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860Conviction and life sentence set aside because the major links in the chain of circumstances required by Sharad Birdhichand Sarda and Sailendra Rajdev Pasvan were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 1, 10, 22)
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Neither the uncle's telephone information nor the police statements of the uncle and mother named the appellant as having left with the deceased, and both witnesses had no explanation when confronted, rendering the last-seen testimony an improvement. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19)
Held
- Motive carries much greater importance in a circumstantial case and the prosecution offered none, the High Court's observation that the juvenile was the mastermind being no motive; the body was not recovered and the recovered limb was not matched by DNA, so the case proceeded on a presumption of death. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16)
- The mother's account of seeing the accused at her gate contradicts the confessions, which place the meeting at a culvert near the bazar, and is an improvement to develop the last-seen theory; dragging marks leading to the river and recovery of the motorcycle from the riverbed below them were expected and not within the appellant's exclusive knowledge; and the retracted extra-judicial confession, requiring strong corroboration and proof of voluntariness, was contradicted rather than supported by the prosecution evidence. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22)
Result
Appeal allowed; Tripura High Court judgment dated 09.10.2013 and the trial court conviction under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC set aside; appellant acquitted of all charges and, being on parole from judicial custody, to be released forthwith.