Summary
The Supreme Court acquitted three accused convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence. Motive was not proved, the extra-judicial confessions were made inside a police station and were barred by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, the recovery of a chopper on a joint disclosure was unreliable, and the presence of the body in the accused's house, even if accepted, could not alone sustain a conviction.
Issues
- Whether the acquittal of the first accused, charged with instigation, required the acquittal of the co-accused charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC on the ground of parity.
- Whether motive arising from an unpaid loan was proved.
- Whether extra-judicial confessions made by the second accused inside the police station could be relied upon.
- Whether the recovery of a weapon on disclosure statements of two accused in custody was an incriminating circumstance.
- Whether the presence of the dead body in the accused's house, with no explanation from the accused, was sufficient for conviction.
Provisions considered
- Section 302 read with Section 34; Section 109, Indian Penal Code, 1860The first accused was charged with instigation leading to murder and the others with murder in furtherance of common intention; the Court held the charges distinguishable from cases where a lone accused was convicted only through a joint charge, so the first accused's acquittal did not by itself require acquittal of the others. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- Section 25, Indian Evidence Act, 1872A confession to a police officer cannot be proved against an accused; the confession made by the second accused to the SHO at the police station, overheard by the sentry, was wholly excluded. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25)
- Section 26, Indian Evidence Act, 1872A confession by a person in police custody is not provable unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate; the confessions made by the second accused inside the police station to the deceased's wife and to a constable present as a neighbour were excluded on this ground. (¶¶ 24, 25)
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Only information distinctly relating to the fact discovered is provable; the Court excluded the statement that the chopper was used in the offence and found the evidence of a disclosure by two accused, unclear as to timing and sequence, with hostile recovery witnesses and no forensic link, too sketchy to rely on. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31)
- Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The burden to explain facts within special knowledge arises only after the prosecution establishes a chain of circumstances; there is no general presumption of guilt against an occupant of premises where a body is found, so the absence of explanation could not alone support conviction. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 35)
Held
- The plea of parity failed: the first accused was charged with instigation and acquitted for want of evidence and because of his alibi, while the appellants were charged with murder with common intention, so the authorities on acquittal of co-accused under a joint charge did not apply. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- Absence of motive is not fatal where there is ocular evidence, but it weighs in favour of the accused in a circumstantial case; here the alleged loan motive was not proved, as the deceased's wife and a neighbour did not support it in chief examination and the mother's and brother's knowledge of the loan was doubtful. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14)
- Confessions made by the accused inside the police station to the SHO and others are excluded by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and cannot be treated as extra-judicial confessions supporting conviction. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25)
- A joint or simultaneous disclosure under Section 27 is not per se inadmissible, but its reliability must be carefully evaluated; where the investigating officer did not say whether the disclosures were simultaneous or sequential or who spoke first, did not depose to the spot disclosed, the panch witnesses turned hostile and no forensic evidence linked the weapon, the recovery could not be treated as incriminating. (¶¶ 27, 28, 29, 30, 31)
- The evidence that the body lay in the accused's house was doubtful, but even if accepted on the strength of the SHO's station diary entry and the constable's verification, that circumstance with no explanation from the accused could not by itself prove guilt without a chain of other circumstances. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 35)
- The hostile eyewitnesses yielded no material incriminating the accused, the prosecution witnesses who supported it were unreliable, and the genesis of the crime was itself doubtful, so the chain of circumstances was not complete. (¶¶ 32, 33, 34, 35)
Result
Appeal allowed; conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC set aside and the appellants acquitted; to be released forthwith if in custody and not wanted in any other case, and bail bonds cancelled if on bail.