Summary
Two accused were concurrently convicted of murdering a jeweller's wife and son with iron rods, house-trespass and robbery of gold, on circumstantial evidence: three independent neighbours saw them run from the house with bags, both were caught within hours trying to flee, and the stolen ornaments and cash were recovered from them. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under Article 136 it does not reappreciate evidence absent perversity, that the fingerprint evidence had to be eschewed for non-compliance with procedure, but that the recoveries, the presumption under Section 114(a) and the unexplained possession under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, together with the unanimous testimony of the eyewitnesses to the flight, completed the chain and left no room for a false implication.
Issues
- What is the scope of interference under Article 136 of the Constitution with concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the trial court and the High Court on appreciation of evidence.
- Whether the chance fingerprint evidence, lifted after the accused were in custody and without the prescribed procedure, could be relied upon.
- Whether discrepancies in the witnesses' accounts, the absence of proof of street lighting, and inconsistencies about seizure of blood-stained clothes vitiate the prosecution case.
- Whether recovery of the stolen ornaments from the accused, with their unexplained possession, and the evidence of three witnesses who saw them flee the house, form a complete chain of circumstances establishing guilt.
Provisions considered
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaConfers no right of appeal; the Court interferes with concurrent findings of fact only in rare cases of manifest illegality, misreading of evidence or disregard of judicial norms causing grave miscarriage of justice, and will not reappreciate evidence or hold a roving inquiry into factual points not raised below. (¶¶ 6, 7, 20, 21, 27)
- Section 114 illustration (a), Indian Evidence Act, 1872A2 was caught with a bag containing stolen ornaments and cash within hours of the robbery and murders; such recent possession raises the presumption against him. (¶ 23)
- Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872How A2 came to possess the stolen ornaments was a fact especially within his knowledge, and he offered no explanation. (¶ 23)
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872A1's statement, on being questioned about the ornaments, led him to fetch the bag of stolen gold from a room in his house; that part of his confession is admissible as leading to discovery. (¶¶ 17, 23)
- Sections 302, 397 and 450, Indian Penal Code, 1860Offences of murder, robbery with attempt to cause death and house-trespass to commit an offence punishable with life imprisonment, of which the accused were concurrently convicted and the convictions upheld. (¶¶ 1, 4, 5, 27)
- Order 474, Andhra Pradesh Police Investigation Manual, Part I, Vol. IIAPrescribes identification of property through independent witnesses in the absence of police, with the property mixed with similar articles; this procedure was followed, so the complainant's identification of the ornaments raised no doubt. (¶ 22)
Held
- Fingerprint evidence lifted from the scene after the accused were already in custody, without a report drawn up in the presence of credible witnesses at the time of lifting the chance prints or taking the specimens, and with specimens received from the investigating officer rather than through the court, is wholly unreliable and must be eschewed. (¶ 19)
- A factual plea such as absence of street lighting, never raised before the trial court or the High Court, cannot be raised for the first time in the Supreme Court; in any event the locality had jewellery shops and a police station nearby. (¶ 20)
- Discrepancies in witnesses' versions of the sequence of events, the time of the police's arrival and the seizure of clothes are to be expected when depositions are recorded seven years after the incident; trivial defects in investigation do not by themselves discredit the prosecution, and acquittal solely on that ground would add insult to injury. (¶¶ 21, 25)
- Recovery of stolen property alone would not suffice for a murder conviction, but three independent witnesses with no enmity saw the accused running from the house with bags, both were apprehended within hours while trying to flee, and the ornaments and cash were seized from them; the events unfolded so quickly that there was no possibility of a false case being hoisted, and the evidence taken cumulatively points unerringly to guilt. (¶¶ 8, 11, 12, 14, 23, 24, 25)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the concurrent convictions under Sections 302, 397 and 450 IPC and the sentences upheld.