Summary
A murder conviction resting only on circumstantial evidence was set aside. The 'last seen' witness was possibly interested and his identification at night was doubtful. The axe recovery was not linked to the deceased's injuries, and the co-accused had been acquitted on the same recovery evidence. The licence recovery, the prior threat and the motive were not established. The appellant was given the benefit of doubt.
Issues
- Whether the scope for interference under Article 136 against concurrent findings permitted re-examination of the circumstantial evidence.
- Whether the 'last seen' testimony of a witness with hostility towards the appellant could sustain the conviction.
- Whether recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, not linked to the injuries and rejected for the acquitted co-accused, could be relied on against the appellant.
- Whether the remaining circumstances (recovery of the driving licence, prior threat, motive) completed the chain.
Provisions considered
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaThe limits on interference with concurrent findings are self-imposed and do not prevent the Court from correcting a grave miscarriage of justice where striking features of the evidence undermine the prosecution. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- Sections 25 and 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872A confession to a police officer is inadmissible; only information distinctly leading to discovery can be proved. The recoveries of axes and clothes after the disclosure statements were examined and found legally weak. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 25)
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860The conviction and life sentence under this section were set aside and the appellant was acquitted. (¶ 32)
Held
- Although interference under Article 136 with concurrent findings is ordinarily limited, those limits are self-imposed and the Court may re-examine evidence in a case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence to see whether each circumstance meets the Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
- A 'related' witness is not necessarily 'interested'. An interested witness is one with a direct or indirect interest in seeing the accused punished, for example because of prior enmity. The 'last seen' witness here had a record of hostility with the appellant and gave his police statement only a month later, so his testimony could not sustain the conviction without independent corroboration. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19)
- Identification at night with no street lights, and with evidence that the house had no electricity, was doubtful. In any case, placing the appellant near the house with an axe, when the time of death was not fixed precisely, did not by itself have clinching value. (¶¶ 15, 16)
- Recoveries of axes and clothes bearing human blood were inconclusive. No blood group was determined, the hair was not conclusively matched, and the weapons were not linked to the injuries or shown to the doctor. The witnesses to the disclosures and seizures also turned hostile or failed to support them. (¶¶ 21, 22, 25)
- Under the principle of parity, like cases must be decided alike. Since the trial court acquitted the co-accused on the same recovery evidence, and the only distinguishing circumstance (the 'last seen' evidence) was unreliable, the appellant's conviction could not be sustained. (¶¶ 23, 24)
- The recovery of the appellant's driving licence from the spot was doubtful because it was not filed with the chargesheet. The alleged threat on the previous evening was not proved after the witnesses resiled. Motive only supports an otherwise complete chain and cannot replace it, and suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. (¶¶ 27, 28, 29, 30, 31)
Result
Appeal allowed. The judgments of the High Court and the Sessions Judge were set aside as regards the appellant, who was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC; his bail bonds stand discharged.