Summary
The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder, kidnapping and causing disappearance of evidence because the only witnesses relied on for the kidnapping and last-seen circumstance turned hostile and identified no one, leaving motive alone, which cannot sustain a conviction on circumstantial evidence.
Issues
- Whether the conviction under Sections 302, 364 and 201 IPC, resting on circumstantial evidence, could be sustained when the two witnesses said to have seen the deceased being taken away turned hostile.
- Whether proof of prior animosity between the parties was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt.
Provisions considered
- Sections 302, 364 and 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860The appellant had been convicted of murder, kidnapping in order to murder and causing disappearance of evidence; the Court found no evidence proving the kidnapping or that the deceased was last seen with the appellant, and set aside the conviction on all charges. (¶¶ 1, 13, 14, 15)
- Sections 161 and 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973PW-5 and PW-6 had named the accused in their police and magistrate statements, but at trial said only that they saw a quarrel and could not identify those involved; the Court relied on their trial testimony, which did not prove the kidnapping. (¶¶ 7, 8, 12)
Held
- Motive arising from earlier criminal complaints between the families may explain a crime, but it does not prove its commission; the prosecution must still establish the kidnapping and killing by direct or circumstantial evidence. (¶ 11)
- Where the witnesses relied on to prove the abduction turned hostile, deposed only to a scuffle whose participants they could not identify, and did not even say they informed the deceased's father, there was no proof of kidnapping or that the deceased was last seen in the appellant's company, so the last-seen theory could not be invoked. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- Tested against the five settled principles governing proof by circumstantial evidence, the prosecution failed to prove the offence against the appellant, and the concurrent convictions rested on a misreading of the evidence. (¶¶ 14, 15)
Result
Appeal allowed; the judgments of the High Court and Trial Court set aside; the appellant acquitted of all charges and directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.