Summary
The prosecution did not establish a complete chain of reliable circumstantial evidence connecting the appellants to murder and dacoity. The High Court also reversed the trial court’s acquittal without finding that its view was perverse or impermissible. The convictions were set aside and the appellants acquitted.
Issues
- Whether the circumstantial evidence, including the alleged police confession and recoveries, formed a complete chain proving the appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the High Court could reverse the trial court’s acquittal without finding that the acquittal view was perverse or not reasonably available on the evidence.
Provisions considered
- Sections 25 and 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The police-recorded custodial confession implicating the accused was inadmissible under Section 25, except to the extent permitted by Section 27. The prosecution did not establish a reliable admissible disclosure or discovery supporting the convictions. (¶¶ 29, 30, 36)
- Section 378(1)(b), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973An appellate court may reappraise evidence in an appeal against acquittal, but must respect the strengthened presumption of innocence and cannot reverse a reasonably possible acquittal view merely because another view is possible. (¶¶ 24, 38)
- Sections 302, 302 read with 34, 392, 396 and 397, Indian Penal Code, 1860The High Court reversed acquittals on the murder and dacoity charges and affirmed the Section 392 conviction. The Supreme Court found the evidence underlying these convictions inadmissible or unreliable and set aside both courts’ judgments. (¶¶ 2, 12, 37, 38, 39, 40)
Held
- In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive, exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, and form a complete chain showing that in all human probability the act was committed by the accused. (¶¶ 22, 23)
- A police officer’s record of a custodial confession is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, subject only to the limited statutory rule in Section 27. Here, the alleged statement implicating co-accused was not reliably proved, and one appellant’s presence in the jeep alone did not exclude the possibility that he was an innocent passenger. (¶¶ 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36)
- The alleged recoveries were doubtful or from places accessible to others; the recovered articles were not matched by serological evidence to the deceased, and safe-custody link evidence was missing. They therefore did not supply reliable links in the circumstantial chain. (¶¶ 34, 35)
- An appellate court may reappraise evidence in an appeal against acquittal, but if the trial court adopted a possible view, it cannot reverse the acquittal merely because another view is possible. The High Court made no finding that the acquittal view was perverse or impermissible; its reversal rested on conjecture rather than reliable evidence. (¶¶ 24, 38, 39)
Result
Appeals allowed; the High Court judgments and the trial court’s Section 392 convictions were set aside. The appellants were acquitted and directed to be released unless required in another case.