Summary
The State appealed against the High Court's reversal of a death sentence for the murder of the accused's wife, a case resting wholly on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court held that none of the circumstances (motive, disclosure and recovery, extra-judicial confession, and the accused taking the deceased away on a bicycle) was proved beyond reasonable doubt, that the High Court's view was a plausible one, and that there was no perversity warranting interference under Article 136 with an acquittal.
Issues
- When may the Supreme Court, under Article 136 of the Constitution, reverse a High Court's acquittal into a conviction?
- Whether the circumstances relied on by the prosecution in a case of circumstantial evidence were proved beyond reasonable doubt and formed a complete chain pointing only to the guilt of the accused.
- Whether the testimony of the sole witness (the daughter, PW4) to the accused taking the deceased away, found unreliable on other aspects, could still be used to prove that circumstance, and whether the burden shifted to the accused to explain how the deceased was injured.
Provisions considered
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaThe Court restated that it is reluctant to interfere with an acquittal and will do so only where the High Court's reasoning is perverse, ignores vital evidence and results in a grave miscarriage of justice; finding the High Court's view plausible, it declined to interfere. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)
- Sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860The offences for which the trial court had convicted the accused and awarded death and seven years' rigorous imprisonment; the acquittal on both counts was upheld. (¶¶ 2, 11, 26)
- Sections 313 and 366, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 and denied; the death sentence came to the High Court on a reference under Section 366 heard along with the accused's appeal. (¶¶ 10, 11)
Held
- The Supreme Court normally does not disturb an acquittal; it may do so under Article 136 only when the High Court acquitted on an absolutely wrong process of reasoning, a legally erroneous and perverse approach ignoring vital facts, producing a grave miscarriage of justice. Where the High Court's view is plausible, no interference is warranted even if another view is possible. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 25)
- In a case of circumstantial evidence the court must find that each circumstance is proved beyond reasonable doubt, that the circumstances point unerringly to guilt, that cumulatively they form a complete chain, and that they are consistent only with guilt and exclude every other hypothesis. (¶ 23)
- Motive was not proved: the jewellery dispute was shown to have been resolved before the incident and the alternative property motive was an improvement without supporting evidence. Though absence of motive alone may not dislodge the prosecution case, motive plays an important part in a circumstantial case. (¶ 24)
- The disclosure and recovery were rightly doubted: the only public witness turned hostile and said he signed papers at the police station, public witnesses placed the arrest on the night before the recorded arrest, two seizure memos were prepared at the same time at different places, there was no reason for the accused to carry stones from the spot to his hut, and PW4 herself said the clothes had been washed at the house, not the hut. (¶ 24)
- The extra-judicial confession to PW4 was not stated in the FIR or in her police statement and her account of it was found unreliable; it was not proved beyond doubt. (¶ 24)
- Where the High Court, on an analysis of the whole evidence, found the sole witness's testimony so full of embellishments and discrepancies that truth could not be separated from falsehood, the argument that falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus does not apply in India cannot revive the reliable-looking portion of her evidence. (¶ 24)
- Even if the accused took his wife to the fields on a bicycle, that is not conclusive of an intention to kill, since village women commonly assist in agricultural work and marital quarrels are everyday events. With a gap of several hours before she was found injured in an open place and the other circumstances unproved, the burden could not be shifted to the accused to explain her injuries or when he parted from her. (¶ 24)
Result
Appeals by the State dismissed; the High Court's acquittal of the respondent under Sections 302 and 201 IPC upheld.