Summary
In connected murder prosecutions arising from rival accounts of a shooting after a village election, the Supreme Court found material gaps in the circumstantial case against Suresh and Sobhat Singh and set aside their convictions and punishment. It separately upheld the acquittal of the persons accused in the counter-complaint, whose alleged involvement was not credibly established.
Issues
- Whether the circumstantial evidence established the appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether acquittal in the counter-complaint required interference.
Provisions considered
- Section 30, Indian Evidence Act, 1872A co-accused’s confession could not alone sustain conviction where independent evidence did not establish the prosecution’s basic case and surrounding circumstances remained doubtful. (¶ 47)
Held
- A circumstantial prosecution must establish each material circumstance and a complete chain inconsistent with innocence. Deficiencies in that proof cannot be supplied by a false defence, and motive alone is only one circumstance. (¶¶ 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 51)
- Relationship alone does not discredit a witness, but the widow’s material improvements and prior enmity impaired her reliability here. A chance witness requires careful scrutiny and an adequate explanation of presence; the alleged last-seen witness’s unexplained early presence and subsequent silence undermined his account. (¶¶ 41, 42, 43, 44, 45)
- The alleged confession witness’s account was doubtful, a co-accused’s confession lacked sufficient independent support, and the forensic and recovery evidence did not fill the gaps. Non-examination of the forensic report’s author was fatal in the circumstances of this case. The prosecution failed to establish the intermediate facts or the case as a whole beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52)
- Failure of the prosecution against the appellants did not establish their counter-narrative. The Court accepted the reasons supporting acquittal in the separate complaint and found no credible basis to reverse it. (¶¶ 53, 54, 55)
Result
Criminal Appeals 1445–1446 of 2012 allowed; the appellants’ convictions and punishment set aside, with release directed unless required in another case. Criminal Appeal 1458 of 2012 against the separate acquittal dismissed.