Summary
Five men were convicted of conspiring to rob a taxi driver of his car, murdering him and burying the body near Pollachi in 2007. The Supreme Court acquitted all five, including three who had not appealed. The alleged extra-judicial confession in a letter was not proved, as no handwriting expert was examined. The "last seen" witnesses gave statements six months later, stayed unexplainedly silent, and identified unknown co-accused without a test identification parade. Skeletal remains found months later were identified only by skull superimposition, with no DNA or post-mortem support. Motive was unproved because the buyer of the car turned hostile. Failure to explain the death under Section 313 could not complete the chain of circumstances.
Issues
- Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence, consisting of an extra-judicial confession, last-seen evidence, identification of skeletal remains by superimposition and motive, was proved so as to sustain the convictions for murder and dacoity.
Provisions considered
- Sections 120B, 147, 201, 302, 364 and 396, Indian Penal Code, 1860The convictions and sentences under these provisions, affirmed by the Madras High Court, were set aside for want of a complete chain of circumstances. (¶¶ 1, 15, 16)
- Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The accused's failure to explain how the victim died could not by itself lead to an irresistible conclusion of guilt. (¶ 12)
Held
- An extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence; the letter attributed to the first accused was rightly discarded as his handwriting was not proved by any expert. (¶ 8)
- The last-seen witnesses, whose statements were recorded six months later despite wide publicity of the disappearance, did not inspire confidence; without a test identification parade their identification of the other accused was doubtful, and a long gap between last sighting and the crime weakens the inference. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11)
- Skull superimposition is fallible opinion evidence; without DNA or post-mortem support it could not safely prove that the skeleton recovered at the accused's instance was the victim's. (¶ 13)
- Motive is an important link in circumstantial cases, and it failed when the alleged purchaser of the car turned hostile; the chain of circumstances was therefore incomplete. (¶¶ 14, 15)
Result
Appeals allowed; the convictions and sentences recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the Madras High Court set aside; both appellants and the three non-appealing co-accused directed to be set free forthwith if not required in any other case.