Summary
The Supreme Court acquitted all seven accused of abducting and murdering a woman in 1985. The so-called eyewitnesses were relatives whose presence was unexplained and contradicted by the supervising police officers, natural independent witnesses were never examined, and the informant had improved his account. Her residence at the house was not proved, and the circumstantial chain for murder failed. The High Court had also wrongly reversed the acquittal of two accused without finding the trial court's view perverse or impossible.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution proved the abduction of the deceased through reliable eyewitness evidence, given that the witnesses were relatives whose presence was doubtful and independent witnesses were not examined.
- Whether the circumstantial evidence established that the accused committed murder.
- Whether the High Court rightly reversed the trial court's acquittal of two accused.
Provisions considered
- Section 364 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The abduction charge rested on direct oral evidence. The Court found the four eyewitnesses unreliable, so abduction, the foundation for the murder charge, was not proved. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)
- Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The murder charge was wholly circumstantial and depended on proof of the earlier abduction. With that foundation gone, the chain of circumstances was incomplete and no inference of guilt could be drawn. (¶¶ 18, 34, 36, 37)
Held
- Because the murder followed the abduction in sequence and rested only on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution first had to prove the abduction by the accused; the chain of circumstances must be complete and consistent. (¶ 18)
- The informant's account was doubtful. The natural eyewitnesses he named, including the tenant who opened the door, were never examined without explanation. His claim that the sixth accused held him at pistol point first appeared at trial and was absent from the FIR, and no pistol was recovered, which made his failure to resist unnatural. (¶ 20)
- The other eyewitnesses could not explain why they were at the spot when it was not on their route home. Having rejected one of them on this ground, the High Court should have doubted the other two, who were similarly placed. The supervising Deputy Superintendent and Superintendent of Police, examined as defence witnesses, showed that these witnesses learnt of the incident only afterwards. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23)
- There is no rule that relatives' evidence must be rejected. But where interested witnesses' presence is seriously doubtful and independent public witnesses were readily available at an occurrence in the open, prudence requires that they be examined and corroboration gathered; without them the prosecution version was improbable. (¶¶ 24, 25)
- Residence of the deceased at the house was not proved: no cohabitant testified and none of her belongings were found. Make-up articles were not conclusive because another woman lived there. The High Court's remark that a widow would have no need for make-up was described as legally untenable and highly objectionable, a sweeping view lacking the sensitivity and neutrality expected of a court. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28, 29)
- A post-mortem report is not conclusive on time of death and may be tested against ocular evidence. Where no credible evidence contradicts it, its findings are generally accepted, so its indication of a death earlier than the alleged time of abduction stood. (¶ 30)
- To reverse an acquittal the appellate court needs a higher threshold: the presumption of innocence is reinforced by acquittal, and the trial court's view must be shown to be unsustainable, not merely open to an alternative. The High Court reversed the acquittal of two accused without any finding of illegality, perversity or non-appreciation of evidence, and without a positive finding of common intention. (¶¶ 31, 32, 33)
- Motive matters only when the evidence otherwise proves the ingredients of the offence. Here it could cut both ways, because accused and witnesses belonged to the same family locked in a property dispute. (¶ 35)
Result
Appeals disposed of; the High Court's judgment and the trial court's conviction of the first five accused set aside, the High Court's reversal of the acquittal of the sixth and seventh accused set aside, all seven accused acquitted of all charges and directed to be released if in custody. No costs.