Summary
The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, who had been sentenced to death for murdering his brother, sister-in-law and their four children. The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence, and none of the three circumstances relied on (motive, last seen and recoveries) was proved. The Court criticised the investigation and the conduct of the trial as lackadaisical.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution proved a complete chain of circumstances, namely motive, last seen and recoveries, establishing the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the disclosure statement and the recoveries of weapons and articles said to have been made at the appellant's instance were proved.
- Whether the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 404 IPC, and the death sentence, could be sustained.
Provisions considered
- Section 302 read with Section 34, and Section 404, Indian Penal Code, 1860The appellant had been convicted under these provisions and sentenced to death. Since none of the incriminating circumstances was proved, both the conviction and the sentence were set aside. (¶¶ 11, 12, 36, 37, 38)
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The Investigating Officer did not prove or exhibit the appellant's disclosure statement. He did not say which accused led to the recovery of which weapon, and did not state that the recovery memos bore the accused's signatures or his own attestation. The disclosure and the recoveries made in consequence of it were therefore unproved. (¶¶ 8, 31, 32)
- Section 366, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The High Court had confirmed the death sentence on the trial court's reference under this section. That confirmation fell along with the conviction. (¶¶ 13, 14, 37)
Held
- In a case resting purely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove each circumstance fully. The circumstances must be conclusive, consistent only with guilt, and must form a chain so complete that it excludes every hypothesis of innocence, as laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda. (¶ 2)
- Motive was not proved. Apart from a bald assertion by the informant, there was no evidence of the earlier criminal case or the sale of the appellant's land said to have caused the enmity. The informant's other evidence was hearsay, and the Investigating Officer did not investigate motive at all. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 33)
- The last-seen witnesses claimed to have seen the appellant in blood-stained clothes at about 4 to 5 p.m., whereas the murders took place later that night, and some 7 to 10 km from the village. The Court rejected them as witnesses created by the prosecution, whose testimony was unworthy of credence. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27)
- The recoveries were unproved because of the infirmities in the Investigating Officer's testimony. Even if the recovery of the weapons were accepted, the FSL report could not determine the blood group, so the recoveries did not help the prosecution. The High Court had also found the recoveries attributed to the co-accused to be planted. (¶¶ 32, 33, 36)
- The Court found the investigation casual and negligent: no neighbouring villagers were examined, no evidence of motive was gathered, and nothing showed safe custody of the seized articles until they reached the FSL. It also held that the Public Prosecutor and the trial court were remiss in recording evidence without following the procedural requirements of the Evidence Act. (¶¶ 34, 35)
- Since the prosecution failed to prove any of the three incriminating circumstances, and the High Court overlooked these infirmities, the conviction and death sentence could not be sustained. (¶¶ 36, 37)
Result
Appeals allowed. The judgments of the trial court and the High Court were quashed, and the appellant's conviction and death sentence were set aside. He was acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith unless wanted in another case.