Summary
The deceased went to his in-laws' house to bring back his estranged wife, Suman Devi, who was alleged to be in a relationship with the co-accused Raju. The next morning he was found hanging from a tree. On circumstantial evidence, relying mainly on his daughter (PW-6) and Suman Devi's sister (PW-7), the trial court convicted Suman Devi and Raju under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and acquitted both. Applying the settled tests for circumstantial evidence, the chain was incomplete. The star witness only said that after a quarrel her grandmother took the deceased to a room where he went to sleep, and that she saw no one beating her father. Even the last-seen circumstance was not proved, and nothing showed what happened afterwards.
Issues
- Whether the circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain pointing only to the guilt of the appellants for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC
- Whether the 'last seen together' circumstance was proved by the testimony of the deceased's daughter
Provisions considered
- Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The convictions for murder in furtherance of common intention were set aside, as the circumstantial evidence did not establish the appellants' guilt to the exclusion of every other hypothesis. (¶¶ 2.1, 7.7, 8)
Held
- In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be firmly established and definitely point to guilt. Taken cumulatively, they must form a chain so complete that in all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and no one else, consistent only with guilt and inconsistent with innocence (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, Babu v. State of Kerala, G. Parshwanath). (¶¶ 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4)
- PW-6, the star witness, deposed only that after a quarrel her grandmother took the deceased to a room where he slept, and that in the morning she learnt he was found hanging. In cross-examination she said she had not seen anyone beating her father. The prosecution therefore failed even to prove that the accused were last seen with the deceased, or what happened after he went to sleep. (¶ 7.6)
- Since the prosecution failed to prove a complete chain leading only to the appellants' guilt, the courts below seriously erred in convicting them. (¶ 7.7)
Result
Appeals allowed. The convictions under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC were set aside and both appellants acquitted and directed to be released, if not required in any other case.